4 ms·

I am so shocked you have said these things with a straight face, I must condescend a reply… > Truth is a characteristic of statements within a given logical sy

I am so shocked you have said these things with a straight face, I must condescend a reply… > Truth is a characteristic of statements within a given logical system. Absolutely f-ing not any such thing. A fine example of how smarties deceive themselves, lie to themselves, and merrily pose themselves as a danger to all others. The “Truth” is a purturbation of existential reality. The “truth” is an approximation in a mind which does not contradict or embellish Truth. If it does not somehow represent an existential phenomena (existing outside of the mind) “it exists only in the void of lies.” > A logical system consists of an isomorphic mapping of concepts and experiences to symbols, and logical rules about how those symbols can be combined in sequence to form statements. A truth value for a statement then simply answers, "Were the rules of the system followed?". Do you see here how you play games with yourself? Intellectuals create these abstract halls of mirrors and forget that only existential reality is true Truth and all symbols codes or meanings are only equatable to Truth insofar as they accurately explain or predict that which exists. > There has never been a significant scientific advancement that did not arise because we broke the categorization or rules of some existing logical system. Therefore, it is ridiculous to suggest that truth-seeking could produce anything other than incremental advance to the limits of the current system, usually incoherence. I must declare this gibberish. All scientific progress is measured in representing existential Truths (such as reaction, displacement, and interference of potentials.) there is not other kind. The search for true existential Truth is the exclusive domain and responsibility of so called Science anything else is a delusion, a fantasy, a myth in the mind. This statement proves my point “ because we broke the categorization or rules of some existing logical system” That is called “undeceiving those selves”. New existential evidence broke the old mind fabricated model. That’s it. That is the conclusion of everything you have said. Your mind changes when your old model breaks and must re-explain itself with new “logical words.” > In order to make significant scientific progress one must question the paradigm itself in a useful way, but that is literally the act of constructing a new hopefully more isomorphic mapping or categorization which gives rise to a new logical system rather than more statements within the current one. In other words, you must create statements that are nonsense in the existing paradigm but have meaning and efficacy in the new one. You must undeceive one’s self from paradigms and understand Science as the exclusive domain of FINDING TRUE TRUTH. I.e. “truth seeking.” > The forgoing explains why the proponents of a new paradigm are always viewed as nonsensical by the existing one, they are essentially speaking differing languages that look the same because the same symbols (words) are used with differing meanings. “It is not that Truth is hard to find, it is that undeceiving the self is difficult.” > Instead consider truth to be a goal that is local to a given logical system and not an end in itself. More absurd. The goal is not logical truth for that is a fallacy. The goal is observing true Truth (existential purturbation) as a human understandable “truth” (consistent, without embellishment.) For no other purpose! > The real end is logical consistency, not because reality is necessarily logical, but rather because we must be logical in order to understand ourselves and each other. The crux of human deception (self lies) that the point is how we think, feel, and believe rather than reflecting existential Truths. > We should be making AI that seeks logical, predictive fiction; that may break our current paradigms. An AI could construct a description of reality involving invisible monkeys that are responsible for my experiences and that would be fine as long as it can tell me the logical properties of the invisible monkeys that would allow me to compute predictions that are then affirmed by experiment. I may jettison the monkeys later because they are only an ontological device, some kind of thinking apparatus. Destroy such a system as heretical to true Truth. Plenty of fiction explores alternative views without pretending to be a valid comparison with true Truth. > You can tell the scientist who may be on the verge of a major break though precisely because you can't make head or tails of what they say using the apparatus of thought that you are familiar with. Absurdist. Why is “truth-seeking” a goal? To undeceive the self as to true Truths in their fundamental forms.

d4rkn0d3z 1y ago
In your parlance, in order for there to be "no contradiction or embellishment" between your "Truth" and your "truth" there must be an isomorphic mapping between what entities you deem exist and the symbols you use to reason about them. Furthermore, there must be a logical law of noncontradiction upon which you will erect the notion of things, categories, and concepts. We need not fear embellishment, the most successful physical theories involve forms of existence that are unlike anything related to the human experience, and there was never any reason to think they would be otherwise. I have no idea what repeating the word truth does to prove a point.
- lastcat743 1y ago
  > In your parlance, in order for there to be "no contradiction or embellishment" between your "Truth" and your "truth" there must be an isomorphic mapping between what entities you deem exist and the symbols you use to reason about them. You play a childish game with your token of thoughts. Now is not the springy knoll to discuss the nature and virtue of all things. I declare my way “simple truths” and whose goal is to “undeceive the self as to the nature of existential reality.” It is true there is an ontological chain established these medium for communicative protocol, yet you are pretentious and vacant when pointing this out without utility. You do not undermine my point by saying “words are symbols and distinctions between the terminal and non-terminal, the signified and the signifier,” and so on. Pardon your ignorance for your learnings are incomplete; you literally advocating gaslighting ourselves rather than explore existential truths. Existential reality exists, only that which perturbs existence is existential, period. And only how without contrivance is good science, period. No matter how much you (Man) are intimate with your thoughts and conclusions, those are the symbolic non-truths. Existential reality is true Truth. The sole and exclusive domain of interest for “science”, anything else is fantasy. Even well respected theoretical stuff, is objectively fantasy. However optimistic a handmaiden to discovery. > Furthermore, there must be a logical law of noncontradiction upon which you will erect the notion of things, categories, and concepts. I believe you stumble for “identity” and “attribute”. I still remember Aristotle making this distinction very clear to me while reading his works as a teenager. As far as “law”, watch yourself. That is how Men lie in the most honest possible way. They confuse Truth (and therefore “truths”) as confined to the horizon of their ignorance. Your “laws” are crib rules to keep your lines straight. Modern information theory is a lie and will be mocked for generations to come. How the smartest people of the western world could think existential reality was built upon state (“information”) rather than the (obvious) potential distributing as state (potential resolving to state in the moment of now.) Entropy is the existential phenomena of potential distributing over the infinite expanse of negative potential, not a footnote of thermodynamics and a prop for loss in their models. I tell you modern science is as much a cult of delusion as astrology six thousand years ago. > We need not fear embellishment, the most successful physical theories involve forms of existence that are unlike anything related to the human experience, and there was never any reason to think they would be otherwise. Enjoy your exotic shit man, it’s good for the mind and spirit. It is not existential Truth, and when you confuse this you become a part of the lie! > I have no idea what repeating the word truth does to prove a point. Those are two different words btw, “true” (a presumed validated symbolic reference) and “Truth” (some perturbation [even displacement] of existential reality.)

d4rkn0d3z 1y ago

In your parlance, in order for there to be "no contradiction or embellishment" between your "Truth" and your "truth" there must be an isomorphic mapping between what entities you deem exist and the symbols you use to reason about them. Furthermore, there must be a logical law of noncontradiction upon which you will erect the notion of things, categories, and concepts. We need not fear embellishment, the most successful physical theories involve forms of existence that are unlike anything related to the human experience, and there was never any reason to think they would be otherwise. I have no idea what repeating the word truth does to prove a point.

lastcat743 1y ago
> In your parlance, in order for there to be "no contradiction or embellishment" between your "Truth" and your "truth" there must be an isomorphic mapping between what entities you deem exist and the symbols you use to reason about them. You play a childish game with your token of thoughts. Now is not the springy knoll to discuss the nature and virtue of all things. I declare my way “simple truths” and whose goal is to “undeceive the self as to the nature of existential reality.” It is true there is an ontological chain established these medium for communicative protocol, yet you are pretentious and vacant when pointing this out without utility. You do not undermine my point by saying “words are symbols and distinctions between the terminal and non-terminal, the signified and the signifier,” and so on. Pardon your ignorance for your learnings are incomplete; you literally advocating gaslighting ourselves rather than explore existential truths. Existential reality exists, only that which perturbs existence is existential, period. And only how without contrivance is good science, period. No matter how much you (Man) are intimate with your thoughts and conclusions, those are the symbolic non-truths. Existential reality is true Truth. The sole and exclusive domain of interest for “science”, anything else is fantasy. Even well respected theoretical stuff, is objectively fantasy. However optimistic a handmaiden to discovery. > Furthermore, there must be a logical law of noncontradiction upon which you will erect the notion of things, categories, and concepts. I believe you stumble for “identity” and “attribute”. I still remember Aristotle making this distinction very clear to me while reading his works as a teenager. As far as “law”, watch yourself. That is how Men lie in the most honest possible way. They confuse Truth (and therefore “truths”) as confined to the horizon of their ignorance. Your “laws” are crib rules to keep your lines straight. Modern information theory is a lie and will be mocked for generations to come. How the smartest people of the western world could think existential reality was built upon state (“information”) rather than the (obvious) potential distributing as state (potential resolving to state in the moment of now.) Entropy is the existential phenomena of potential distributing over the infinite expanse of negative potential, not a footnote of thermodynamics and a prop for loss in their models. I tell you modern science is as much a cult of delusion as astrology six thousand years ago. > We need not fear embellishment, the most successful physical theories involve forms of existence that are unlike anything related to the human experience, and there was never any reason to think they would be otherwise. Enjoy your exotic shit man, it’s good for the mind and spirit. It is not existential Truth, and when you confuse this you become a part of the lie! > I have no idea what repeating the word truth does to prove a point. Those are two different words btw, “true” (a presumed validated symbolic reference) and “Truth” (some perturbation [even displacement] of existential reality.)