"Our obsession and attachment to existence rather suggests our non-existence." - but what seems to be missing in the discussion of what constitutes a fundamental existence in the first place. Certainly the ontology of mathematical objects is different from the ontology of planck categories, etc. For me, I tend to look at varying ontologies and their relationship to their frameworks and perhaps their structures or structurelessness.
Also, you say "physics keep telling us that existence is interaction - when there is no interaction existence cannot be claimed and reality remains probabilistic and foggy, out of focus, out of existence." - first, physics tells us nothing, physicists and physical theory does; second, the lack of interaction may also be fundamental to existence; it doesn't imply 'out of existence,' just out of experimental verification. This is one area (I think) that multiverse discussions bear fruit; there may be no way whatsoever to verify the existence of other universes, but there still may be value in speculation here. -
On Tue, 31 Oct 2017, bj?rn magnhild?en via NetBehaviour wrote:
what strikes me the most maybe is that blockchain allows a work of art not to exist - it supports the non-existence of the art object. contrary to what it's supposed to do, but maybe just as interesting. in the history of art this might be a new thing, from the little i know. not only that something either exists or not, which has always been some sort of base binary thing, either or; but moving through the virtual, the potential, the vast foam of quantum planck volumes, in and out of our sub- and superdimensional reality of fake time and fake space -- that existence as such is not at the base of reality, but can be seen more as an emergent quality of something - a quality of existing. physics keep telling us that existence is interaction - when there is no interaction existence cannot be claimed and reality remains probabilistic and foggy, out of focus, out of existence. i'm thinking that existence might not be so important after all, it could be more an attribute of an art object. you can have a consensus-proven existence on the blockchain, which could free the art object from its existential ruminations - it doesn't longer have to exist, existence is taken care of by the blockchain as a form of interaction and consensus reality. an art object on the blockchain: The properties of the art work (what it is) is detached from its objective status as a being in time (which is taken care of by blockchain, a verifiable being@time). Perhaps this being@time formulation detaches art from existence. Existence becomes a category, a pure concept of understanding. Such a category is not a classificatory division, as the word is commonly used but is instead the condition of the (epistemic) possibility of objects in general ? that is, any and all objects, not specific objects in particular. So if our system of abstraction includes ?existence' as a possible and provable property or category of objects, then existence isn't essential to them. In other words, a being@time type of object makes existence a non-essential property since existence is already part of its formulation. Or again, an existential medium detaches its produce from existence, as for instance life. As living beings, since we already exist we don't have to be attached to existence, it rather frees us from it. Our obsession and attachment to existence rather suggests our non-existence. The same for the symptomatic amassing, collecting, etc, - it's rather based on scarcity. my 2 cents of thoughts, bj?rn On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 7:02 PM, Rob Myers <[email protected]> wrote: On Fri, 27 Oct 2017, at 08:13 PM, Pall Thayer via NetBehaviour wrote: This is a great read. Now I want someone to explain to me how a non-material (non-existent) work of art maintains its immateriality (its non-existence) despite a record in the blockchain. Immateriality and inexistence are different matters. :-) Registering something in the blockchain doesn't anchor its being or cause it to come into existence unless we agree it does or we have some way of evaluating that existence - http://robmyers.org/proof-of-existence/ For entities we are claiming exist outside of the blockchain, the data that claims to register that existence is a proxy for them.? We cannot validate the correctness of that claim using the blockchain's consensus rules in the same way we can for a simple value transaction if we wish to validate the fact of the registered object's existence outside of the blockchain. Something about being outside the text. We can only validate that person X placed a record on the blockchain, and possibly that later they sent it to person Y. We use such proxies when buying and selling physical property such as cars or houses, or more pertinently when buying and selling conceptual art. Certificates of authenticity for conceptual art are even more material than blockchain records. But I feel they are still proxies for the work rather than being the work, although this may just be the conceptual art fan in me speaking. - Rob. _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
New CD:- LIMIT: http://www.publiceyesore.com/catalog.php?pg=3&pit=138 email archive http://sondheim.rupamsunyata.org/ web http://www.alansondheim.org / cell 718-813-3285 current text http://www.alansondheim.org/uy.txt _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
