Hello everyone, I don't post here very often, but I read your posts every day via nabble (it is just easier to load responses on the mobile device).
I also don't usually have much to contribute, but I'd like to contribute something today. After reviewing and re-reviewing all of the stuff that Bruno says about the 8 hypostases and all the arcane logical symbols that are presented, and getting into the idea that we are really all the same person just trying out different personalities/persons in the mathematical multiverse (as guaranteed by the AUDA? ADA?) -- isn't this just a whole load of magical thinking? Like we have formed a model where it seems like this is true, so therefore it must be true? >From personal experience, I can tell you, I've never seen the following spring from the ADA/AUDA: a baby a grasshopper some grass a tree a person (complete with my memories except for that time i wet myself in grade 2) a galaxy a bank a government It's all a lot of handwaving, as far as I'm concerned. And while I really love reading your back and forths about the peculiar details of the AUDA/ADA, I still don't see one possible way in which such formal, dessicated, circumscribed reasoning could ever lead to the actual, joyous, and unboundedly infinite reality we have facing us every day. I'm sure I've missed something (yah, some of you will say I've missed everything, but whatever)... but what we have going on here on this list, it seems is a paradox: The paradox of romanticism meeting classicism. The paradox of number meeting form or geometry. The paradox of mind meeting matter. The problem seems like there is this self-satisfaction on the part of Bruno that there are merely some "hypotheses" about machine psychology (whatever the hell that means) and a consistent working out of the CTM to ensure we are such beings, by following the (really awfully impractical and impossible to implement) thought experiment of being in a duplicating chamber. Well, guess what? There are no duplicating chambers! Never have been, and never will be. It's just like conceiving a time travel machine (also impossible). When Einstein thought up his thought experiments, he didn't start with premises that were inherently impossible to fulfill. After all, we can all imagine accelerating up to some arbitrary limit. Similarly, with quantum physics, we can all imagine (and in fact can do in practice) the dual slit experiment. We can even (if we are sadists) carry out the Schrodinger experiment, and determine either a live or dead cat (we won't see both, according to the formalism, but that is to be expected). But thought experiments have their limit. If one of your basic premises is that "I have here, in my possession, a machine that will duplicate you entirely and completely without fail up to a basic substitution level", and yet you can't build such a machine, nor even conceive of how to go about building one, with no practical plans or ideas as a guideline, then I would have to say, before I even begin going down the long and tortuous road of inference such a situation involves a willing subject in, STOP, THANK YOU, you've taught me precisely nothing. This is just like hypothesizing a time machine where one can go back to alter the course of WW2 and make Hitler a painter and then basically just make everything as though WW2 never happened. Can I hypothesize a machine that might do that? YES Can I create a bunch of formal logical rules where such an intervention could be both possible and consistent? YES Does it mean I should now start believing that Hitler was a painter and that World War 2 never happened? NO There is a massive gulf between purely formal proof in symbols and what actually happens in the world. This list is (thanks to Bruno's help) dedicated to the NONSENSE that, by writing a few formal symbols down, one has therefore explained it all. It's pernicious. And blind. And I've never done salvia, but I have done acid, and I had an experience during it where I really felt I was the universe itself. But I don't thing any string of symbols would have convinced me one way or another as to whether I had an actual encounter with the noumenon or else just had a deep and intense trip. This everything stuff based on Bruno's "8 hypostases" (or 7, or 9) is a bunch of magical horseshit at a level that is too high for most people to see through. That's why it still gets play... no one can call the emperor for having no clothes. Just go and pet a dog or cat, or smell some flowers, and tell me that is just a bunch of equations. There is something sorely lacking in this approach to an everything theory. That's all I've got. I'm sure those who want to will beat up on me, I don't mind. Plus, this list needed livening. Peace -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
