Cài đặt Steam
Đăng nhập
|
Ngôn ngữ
简体中文 (Hán giản thể)
繁體中文 (Hán phồn thể)
日本語 (Nhật)
한국어 (Hàn Quốc)
ไทย (Thái)
Български (Bungari)
Čeština (CH Séc)
Dansk (Đan Mạch)
Deutsch (Đức)
English (Anh)
Español - España (Tây Ban Nha - TBN)
Español - Latinoamérica (Tây Ban Nha cho Mỹ Latin)
Ελληνικά (Hy Lạp)
Français (Pháp)
Italiano (Ý)
Bahasa Indonesia (tiếng Indonesia)
Magyar (Hungary)
Nederlands (Hà Lan)
Norsk (Na Uy)
Polski (Ba Lan)
Português (Tiếng Bồ Đào Nha - BĐN)
Português - Brasil (Bồ Đào Nha - Brazil)
Română (Rumani)
Русский (Nga)
Suomi (Phần Lan)
Svenska (Thụy Điển)
Türkçe (Thổ Nhĩ Kỳ)
Українська (Ukraine)
Báo cáo lỗi dịch thuật
Quy định & Hướng dẫn thảo luận
25 
Báo cáo bài viết này
The question is, "What is the question?"
"What is the question," is the question.
The question is, "What?"
"What," is the question.
"What?"
What.
How many minds sought enlightenment and obtained it through gut intuition, later proven through axioms not seen as self-evident until rigorously tested? Rest assured that while many may speak on such topics with an spectacular and eloquent essays, it is after-all an opinion, a theory, and one that has been debated for centuries. I do know that Winston saying 2+2=5 didn't make it true. It still reminds me of the constructive nature by which we approach and understand the concept.
That is the best I have for your thread here. I haven't been in college in years and I don't flex my brain enough these-days enough to pretend to be any form of intellectual. I think side a little on the fence between Sotas more Platonist views and a more Realist idea I guess. Idk. Cheers. Was a fun read for sure!
"Information does not survive the moment it is registered: 'It lives only at the moment; it has to surrender to it completely and explain itself to it without losing any time' [...] (Information) is relevant briefly, so it is quickly exhausted. It is only effective for a moment. Bits of information are like specks of dust, not seeds of grain"
It's about the short-term immediate value of information with respect to the long term value of a story.
"Once there was an ugly barnacle.
He was so ugly that everyone died.
The end :) ."
So do I get my Berggruen prize now or will it be sent in the mail?
Ah I see, some do not grasp my words and the deeper meaning.. I'll leave the experts to decide that, thank you.
(Someone didn't watch the spongebob episode womp womp)
And that is... in a purely euclidean space, you might reason that there is no distribution of prime numbers, as euclidean space is merely a universal space in which abstract (and thus non-euclidean) neuronal regions and senses are measured. Whereas time as "thought-measuring dimension" then introduces the Higgs field and thus prime-related series'... time as measure of the "thinking dimension" marries prime-related series' (thus prime numbers) into universal space. In which case it would be odd to look at euclidean space and try to spot patterns in the distribution of primes. If primes really are derived from "above" a purely euclidean space... if euclidean space is merely a universal space, primes (derived from the context of related series') give to this space a kind of geometric realness. Then resulting in spacetime. But euclidean space by itself... probably has no concept of prime distribution. Because it lacks the Platonic element.
Whereas, in any regard, the existence of time as dimension again coincides the fact that chaos does not result in more chaos, with this thinking dimension concerning the measurement of reasoning faculties above senses. Else brains and memory couldn't form. Meaning that memory doesn't just form "randomly" out of chance, the same way senses don't. Still, this measurement of thinking faculties is currently limited to 2-body systems, the gravitational constant, etc. Hence why there are all these rogue planets, black holes, NDEs, dark matter, etc. Whereas the Riemann hypothesis might again be kind of gnostic, and so on.
Which again starts with the notion of how Euclidean space is merely universal and not Platonically substatianted. That is unlike spacetime or even a Riemann sphere, both of which acknowledge the existence of a Platonic kind of transcendental element concerning spacetime curvature. As gravity and Higgs field give to space a kind of geometric realness, in turn enabling neuronal memory and brains to form. Then also enabling e.g. the Riemann hypothesis, showing that primes might indeed have a well-defined distribution in a geometrically substatianted space.
Which then goes beyond Goedel's theorem, as Goedel uses prime numbers from within this purely universal space and then shows that unsubstatianted algorithmic is ultimately meaningless... the distribution of prime numbers might be considered proven as incomplete. Which is of course problematic if the logical space Goedel uses is merely universal and prime numbers within this space have no proper distribution. As the theorem doesn't acknowledge the barber from the barber paradox as existing at all. It doesn't acknowledge gravity and the Higgs field. Geometric in such a space isn't e.g. Platonically substantiated.
At which point the entire thing begs the question of... can you describe the state of a neuronal region with a Goedel number, if a neuronal region is a large integer factored via primes (quantum states; universals)? Or is a neuronal region, referencing gravity involving transcendental curvature and the Higgs field, more than just a machine? As some AI's neuronal region representing a Goedel number might state "this statement cannot prove itself." Whereas Descartes, who stepped right over the barber paradox, instead declares "cogito ergo sum."
Aside of the fact, again, that a neuronal region is an n-body system (maybe n-prime system) and the gravitational constant ends at 2-body systems. Meaning that it cannot account for rogue planets (rogue quanta) around a great attracor (thalamus), dark matter, etc. With DMT again being a complex catalyst. And NDEs realistically involving an event horizon, showing impossible entropy. Which makes the idea of AI today beyond absurd. And proper memory a physical impossibility. If proper memory needs to be e.g. Platonically substantiated, involving the Higgs field, etc. If you try building a theory from first principles.
As you can argue that brains can form only due to the existence of the Higgs field giving to prime numbers (quanta) a kind of geometric realness, then also coinciding the cosmological constant. Which is reflected in Descartes declaring "Descartes thinks, therefore Descartes is proven". Whereas a Turing machine without geometric realness might instead declare "This machine is unprovable". As, unlike Descartes, it falls to the incompleteness theorem. And then you can argue the formation of brains and memory as being a Platonic thing, requiring geometric realness, which is a "physical impossibility".
Which also implies that the "physical" is defined by a lack of geometric realness. With geometric realness being something you might want to call Platonic rather than transcendental, if transcendental numbers such as pi are a strawman born from within pre-Platonic Euclidean space... even problems such as the big bang and Zeno's paradoxes might be pre-Platonic. As there's nothing Platonic (akin to the Higgs field) above universals in a purely Euclidean space.
At which point you can already acknowledge that the standard model today uses pi to describe spacetime curvature. But if pi is the product of a non-Platonic (thus Euclidean) space within which prime numbers might have no proper distribution, and anaylsis of the Riemann hypothesis involves Euler's identity, and the release of energy in e=mc^2 correlates some amount of mass in respect to spacetime curvature and the speed of photons in a vacuum... it's of course strange, if the idea of there being a Higgs field (giving a kind of Platonic geometric realness to quanta in universal space) directly contradicts the idea of even using pi. So you wouldn't expect yourself capable of describing mass and the Higgs field via pi... you wouldn't expect derivatives concerning gravitational acceleration and spacetime curvature as properly described in such a way. Whereas the same goes for the gravitational constant describing the orbits of 2-body systems. When the geometrically real brain is an n-body system. And it might not use pi... even DMT as complex catalyst might not do so. If the brain is Platonic, has geometric realness allowing for the declaration of "cogito ergo sum" and moral agency, and pi is the product of a space lacking such realness. If brains need a Platonic substantiation measured via the Higgs field.
Again starting with the acknowledgement that Descartes revived the question asking "what is geometrically real"? As he added the idea of a thinking mind on top of Euclidean space, coinciding the conservation of movement. Which then developed into Newtonian gravity and the conservation of momentum. And has today ended up with time as dimension, the Higgs field, and the conservation of energy. Which seems kind of Platonic, as the Higgs field gives universals (quantum states shared amongst all abstract sensual cortexes measured in universal space) their geometric realness. And contrary to the space Goedel uses to show Euclidean mathematics incomplete, the Higgs field allows an intellect to form and declare "cogito ergo sum." In Goedel's space, it's easy to argue self-references undefined, primes as having no well-defined distribution, and both memory and the idea of morals as being logical (or physical) impossibilities. In Goedel's space, chaos always results in more chaos. And there's nothing akin to the Higgs field, making a statement real. Instead, axioms in Goedel's space are entirely circular logic. They are provable only because they aren't not provable.
Which also separates proper inquiry from biological mysticism, according to which sense organs and memory are just automagically, coinciding mystical concepts. As biologists like to argue "given enough time, a lifeform will just automagically due to mystical evolutionary pressure"... But if time isn't tied to geometric realness and a Higgs field, a lifeform will never evolve a memory or ponder ideas such as ethics. Because the very existence of an intellect is a physical impossibility... it's an is-ought type of problem. You can't go from a system without realness, to one with realness. Again making it easy to argue that people already exist on the ought level. Then having it turn into a question of gnosis and the Ought.
And I'll try to keep the rest short. In the standard model, you acknowledge that energy is conserved. But if you measure the mass of e.g. an apple locally... you're cherry-picking. If you have a set of n-body star systems (a set of Byzantine generals), and they eject rogue planets (they attack), and this ejection results in dark matter forming a great attractor... then this great attractor is a sign of entropy increasing, as it coincides dark matter and dark energy. Whereas an inability of these star systems (generals) to agree non-locally, about the entropy-increasing ejection of these attacking rogue planets... might violate thermodynamics. Whereas the same might hold true for a thalamus, to which DMT might be a complex catalyst, if the brain is a set of n-body neurons ejecting rogue signals. In which case you cannot locally cherry-pick "the mass" of a rogue planet to be ejected. Because you have to measure it in the context of a great attractor or thalamus. Which is also interesting if you extrapolate to NDEs and argue that people must know that they will be revived, having NDE characters inform them thereof, for else they again violate thermodynamics. And NDEs are reflected in memory. Which concerns the question of "what is geometrically real?" Which is philosophy. To think about thinking.
I, Starscream, adhere to a philosophy of ruthless ambition and strategic dominance. Every move calculated, every action purposeful. In the grand chessboard of life, only those who grasp the intricacies of power dynamics truly prevail.
To all scholars and seekers of wisdom, continue your discourse. Question everything, challenge conventions, and strive for a higher understanding. For it is through the clash of ideas that true enlightenment is forged.
Starscream out!
"It's matter, because it's not anti-matter."
"I exist, because I don't not exist."
"This statement is true (provable), because it isn't false (unprovable)."
All of these are circular logic. When the real reason matter isn't anti-matter, is because of the Higgs field, enabling the formation of an intellect. In a Neo-Platonic kind of sense, gravity an effect of the mind (barber) animating matter, with gravity being a develoment of the Cartesian conservation of movement. As gravity animates physical senses which could be abstract, but are always measured in universal space. So if you measure the wave-function of an abstract cortex, then you measure it in form of quantum states (primes; universals). Whereas gravity gives geometric realness to this otherwise logically circular space... it gives realness to universals. After all, without Higgs field, logic can easily be argued as circular, as matter is then matter only because it isn't anti-matter. Without something Platonic-esque, logic and related axioms are circular.
Then you can also argue some more for the non-locality of mass in the brain, maybe tied to mass-time uncertainty, if you can't cherry-pick e.g. a 2-body system, say "it's mass A and mass B", and then have these bodies orbit each other around some supposed center of cherry-picked mass. As it seems more than likely that n-body neurons (Byzantine generals) in your brain are in some way entangled, seeing how your brain represents one single coherent image given to you. And the ejection of planets or signals from a set of n-body systems (galaxies; neurons) isn't a random walk. In which case locally cherry-picking mass might be a flawed idea, when you might have to look at the brain as a whole instead. And then, when looking at NDEs and the impossible entropy tied to such abstract uncertainties, you might also be capable of reasoning/philosophizing towards a Nous or even "The One" or w/e.
Gravity and Higgs field give geometric realness to quantum states (universals; primes). And the idea of a Riemann Sphere, just like gravity, does in a way add a "thinking space" or "thinking dimension" to Euclidean Geometry. It's what Descartes might say today. Even if you have to acknowledge... If quantum states are universals, and Euclidean space is a universal space above particular spaces (or waves) such as the hearing space or seeing space... it seems kind of Platonic. As the visual cortex might be a "seeing space" or "seeing wave", which is merely measured in universal space in line with an abstract probability cloud, but never actually exists there. Then gravity and Higgs field give geometric realness to the universal space within which abstract cortexes (waves) are measured. Then allowing brains and memories to form, in line with e.g. the cosmological constant. With gravity and the conservation of energy again being a development of the Cartesian conservation of movement.
So in Goedel's Euclidean space, a particle is matter only because it isn't anti-matter (anti-matter being the absence of matter), a statement is provable only because it isn't unprovable, and a person is a hylic "scientist" only because it isn't a flat-earther. It's all a circular dialectic. Within which context, it's really easy to consider the incompletness theorem as mistakenly using ideas which are undefined in Euclidean space, such as self-references and distributed primes. As self-references and the existence of memory are ideas taken from a gravitational thinking space, and might be physical impossibilities in Euclidean space. Whereas even ideas such as the Riemann hypothesis could disprove Goedel's theorem, depending on how it ties into memory, thought, and ethics. So if you try to describe the cortex of an actual person with a Goedel number, there's the question of whether the incompleteness theorem would still be valid in the context of the Riemann hypothesis defining the mathematical use of primes. After all, it could be gibberish. Akin to a person stating "cogito, ergo washing machine." Or "I am just chemicals." (At that non-thinking point, language and mathematics have no realness and carry no meaning.)
And then it's easy to argue that prime distribution goes beyond pi and spacetime curvature as such, in particular if pi is born from Euclidean space. Which then concerns a kind of Platonic Intellect or Cartesian Mind. And maybe also the lack of symmetry in matter / anti-matter in the universe, coinciding the ability for memory and ultimately self-references to exist. Also in the context of NDEs. Which leads you back to the question of how supposed quantum fluctuations and "dark matter" factor into NDEs... how the lack of anti-matter in the universe does. Etc. It makes you believe that "I am just ill-defined chemicals" is a bit simplistic in any regard, and doesn't strike you as "progress".