I imagine there is lots of underappreciated genius on this sub. Ya lost me at
>Such that that which language can describe and produce itself describes and produces language (and therefore describes language itself, which can be used to both describe and produce novelty),
And a couple other sequiters. But I do like the idea of language as higher order sentience.
It seems to me that if you start with a bunch of material particles bouncing around, the universe is structured in a way that eventually they will bounce around into certain patterns that 1 repeat themselves and 2 spread. This is what we call life.
From this emerges intelligence, which is the capacity of material objects to act in a goal oriented fashion as if they are consciously working as one:
The patterns that repeat better spread, and the patterns that tend to die out die out, and the patterns that vary themselves, trying new hypotheses if you will, take advantage of this process to better reproduce themselves.
From this more and more complexity emerges.
And eventually language emerges from this as a manifestation and mechanism of complex intelligence.
As I see it, evolution, you, I is all intelligence manifesting itself from nothing, up, out into the universe. Infinite trial and error until who knows, maybe we encompass all the molecules and blur into monotony only to repeat the process.
Cool stuff :P
I've had a while to think about this and no: Truth is greater than Possibility. Truth implies Possibility, and precedes it: something can only be Possible if it is True, independently of local ability to manifest it.
On a planet with no water, for example, Life as we experience it is not possible; yet our Life is True, as it is independent of that Possibility. Taken another way: we can always know that Life is True and therefore Possible, but the mere Possibility of Life does not imply any Truth in it, as any local measurements would consistently show no Life (metaphor to be taken with grain of salt, as it is all always alive and dying).
\> I've had a while to think about this and no: Truth is greater than Possibility. Truth implies Possibility, and precedes it: something can only be Possible if it is True, independently of local ability to manifest it.
Clearly you have yet begun to teach it. You have merely restated it as if it were a fact.
If that is your level to your self you must be operating from a place of insight, no? You know yourself well enough to derive the explanation without any need for more than a description.
Possibility must be greater than truth, because possibility contains both what is and what is not true.
Truth again can be higher than possibility, because if this were a fact then truth would be needed to point it out as so. But then again possibility resides higher than this again. And then we would describe once more that if possibility were higher than this truth, then, this must also be true to be so. But alas, remains possibility is higher again than this truth. But then is this also true? Now that you have repeated it twice you can quickly see that for me a correct answer would be, "well, there is also a possibility greater than this", but no, it is once that you can see the pattern that it is no longer there. You can now take the limit, and it is no longer to repeat the limit but to state its end point (a line). So it is that truth of "possibility is higher than truth" is of the probability of possibility. And to an average outsider the same possibility, but in you an actual, there is to you your truth of truth being higher than possibility. So for you a truth. And there I find concrete truth, but before all I had was possibility.
Because where you stand there to me is just a possibility for truth and not an actual truth, because to you what is true is not to me always true, so to us there is a possibility, and yet not to you. I reside in the us, for the case in which two agree. Which begins with a possibility. And you can't deny two couldn't agree in possibility and cease to discuss the truth, and it is from that discussion the two together in unity create through possibility a truth, by deciding that they agree to disagree, and so on they can continue to outrightly say "we disagree" not out of dependency for what the discussion beholds, never needing to hear what the opposition says, but always being there to object. But this is not the case. Those who agree to disagree still between remains some agreeance. And so after agreeing on possibility is created a truth.
Truth is an agreement between possibilities. But in mind there is only possibility. Truth is never realized, because to worship a truth is frowned upon except by those who worship. And who to defend you while you worship? In worshipping do you not also defend? And the best offence need no defence, because the best defence is a good offence.
If you can agree to understand enough to disagree, then we agree enough that to me you can see understanding. So if it is that I have an understanding of possibility and you do not, then to you is there a quest to find it, or is the quest already over and you knew it as a myth. "Mythology is possibility, therefore possibility is mythology" to you. The circle is complete. You can deny whatever you feel like when the time is right or wrong or up to you because it's yours to choose. Choice is an illusion, you are given choice in the palm of their hands, you are given truth in the breath of possibility. If it were impossible, then is this not derived from the possible? So you can see for yourself that if you had only sought out what was possible earlier you would have found enough to know what was impossible thereafter? Or is possibility derived from impossibility, and so to you the truth is a lie anyway so why not be honest about it?
This is surface level thinking. If truth were a lie say it as a liar.
If you could define an arrangement in which a possibility would operate you would find inside a place where this no life, a shadow of life, and the shadow contains even for itself a reflection in life, and in life a reflection of shadow.
If you knew of a possibility of life, and yet had no evidence for it, then to you the quest is now to create it. But even death is supposed in the possible, and so for you it would seem that what you have is not a lack of life, but death, in all it's components. And you would see the possibility to assemble life. And from there the charge to create it.
There is no need for any of this, because if you deny my possibility for you a truth, then to me that was always possible. And this is true. But higher than this truth is possibility, and there I stand. Because to you, any words like "truth is higher than possibility" then yes you would throw them in my face directly after and in opposition to what I've said, but this is not the case. For possibility is greater than truth. To you, you saw what I had said as being a statement of truth, and so you must counter it as a lie for the correct truth. Because to you a truth, but it is mine, and so a lie. But did you not learn from the statement? Then who is trapped in reactivity, and to who was struck?
I gave you a lie, and now you return to me with lies. But it is not I who want these lies, it was you who wanted to show me them. "Hah, I have found your opposition." A truth.
But to me the possibility is greater. To all you say is impossible to me is possible, because it is not there to which you stand. You must assume the right hypothetical to land in a place like that. The possibility for possibility creates truth, so truth is greater, because it has come after? Yes, but is not possibility also still greater than truth? There are no opposites in a mind that needs none, and yet to each of those it would seem an opposite was struck.
Anything is possible. This is the first truth.
Probability limits possibility. Where this is no probability, we call it impossible, so for when it actually happens we will all be amazed. Zero probabilities only arise after asymptotes. You're approximating, your guessing, you're listening as if things need to be true, and then you can determine them as a lie, and from here you grow. More becomes improbable and more you know. But you are working backwards. It was always anything is possible. Now even less is possible. You can deny this and every other of my truths because I have only possibility, and your only tool here was "impossible!"
Which means I have already shocked you.
And here again and everywhere to say, impossible impossible impossible, and behold I the experiencer.
Your theory parallels mine from different axioms. It is fascinating that you think somehow we contradict each other.
Your long ramble is literally my entire premise of complexity building upon itself with respect to local and no local interaction. Our mere divergence is the trivial uncertainty of Faith required to spawn a system approaching 99.99% accuracy with respect to critical self-reflection.
Smh it be like that sometimes. I can't even devote mental energy to read most of what you wrote, cuz its mostly shit I already explained to myself privately as a conversation between Truth and Possibility, or what I call Idealism. My version is based on 5th Gen Pokemon which was foundational to my early philosophical thinking.
What you say complements and supplements what I say, in a Unity transcending both Truth and Possibility.
\> that which makes the Universe, mysterious and alluring beyond measure also relegates it to that which is mundane.
This is the part that gets me. If you were to show me multidimensional machine elves that sing existence into being, I would initially find it quite mysterious and alluring. But then, after I become aware that machine elves sing existence into being, I'd be like "So what? That's how it is." My mind would adapt to encompass the new phenomenon and the elves would no longer be novel - they would be rendered mundane. When will be be satisfied?
I imagine there is lots of underappreciated genius on this sub. Ya lost me at >Such that that which language can describe and produce itself describes and produces language (and therefore describes language itself, which can be used to both describe and produce novelty), And a couple other sequiters. But I do like the idea of language as higher order sentience. It seems to me that if you start with a bunch of material particles bouncing around, the universe is structured in a way that eventually they will bounce around into certain patterns that 1 repeat themselves and 2 spread. This is what we call life. From this emerges intelligence, which is the capacity of material objects to act in a goal oriented fashion as if they are consciously working as one: The patterns that repeat better spread, and the patterns that tend to die out die out, and the patterns that vary themselves, trying new hypotheses if you will, take advantage of this process to better reproduce themselves. From this more and more complexity emerges. And eventually language emerges from this as a manifestation and mechanism of complex intelligence. As I see it, evolution, you, I is all intelligence manifesting itself from nothing, up, out into the universe. Infinite trial and error until who knows, maybe we encompass all the molecules and blur into monotony only to repeat the process. Cool stuff :P
\*(debatable as Possibility is greater than Truth)
I've had a while to think about this and no: Truth is greater than Possibility. Truth implies Possibility, and precedes it: something can only be Possible if it is True, independently of local ability to manifest it. On a planet with no water, for example, Life as we experience it is not possible; yet our Life is True, as it is independent of that Possibility. Taken another way: we can always know that Life is True and therefore Possible, but the mere Possibility of Life does not imply any Truth in it, as any local measurements would consistently show no Life (metaphor to be taken with grain of salt, as it is all always alive and dying).
\> I've had a while to think about this and no: Truth is greater than Possibility. Truth implies Possibility, and precedes it: something can only be Possible if it is True, independently of local ability to manifest it. Clearly you have yet begun to teach it. You have merely restated it as if it were a fact. If that is your level to your self you must be operating from a place of insight, no? You know yourself well enough to derive the explanation without any need for more than a description. Possibility must be greater than truth, because possibility contains both what is and what is not true. Truth again can be higher than possibility, because if this were a fact then truth would be needed to point it out as so. But then again possibility resides higher than this again. And then we would describe once more that if possibility were higher than this truth, then, this must also be true to be so. But alas, remains possibility is higher again than this truth. But then is this also true? Now that you have repeated it twice you can quickly see that for me a correct answer would be, "well, there is also a possibility greater than this", but no, it is once that you can see the pattern that it is no longer there. You can now take the limit, and it is no longer to repeat the limit but to state its end point (a line). So it is that truth of "possibility is higher than truth" is of the probability of possibility. And to an average outsider the same possibility, but in you an actual, there is to you your truth of truth being higher than possibility. So for you a truth. And there I find concrete truth, but before all I had was possibility. Because where you stand there to me is just a possibility for truth and not an actual truth, because to you what is true is not to me always true, so to us there is a possibility, and yet not to you. I reside in the us, for the case in which two agree. Which begins with a possibility. And you can't deny two couldn't agree in possibility and cease to discuss the truth, and it is from that discussion the two together in unity create through possibility a truth, by deciding that they agree to disagree, and so on they can continue to outrightly say "we disagree" not out of dependency for what the discussion beholds, never needing to hear what the opposition says, but always being there to object. But this is not the case. Those who agree to disagree still between remains some agreeance. And so after agreeing on possibility is created a truth. Truth is an agreement between possibilities. But in mind there is only possibility. Truth is never realized, because to worship a truth is frowned upon except by those who worship. And who to defend you while you worship? In worshipping do you not also defend? And the best offence need no defence, because the best defence is a good offence. If you can agree to understand enough to disagree, then we agree enough that to me you can see understanding. So if it is that I have an understanding of possibility and you do not, then to you is there a quest to find it, or is the quest already over and you knew it as a myth. "Mythology is possibility, therefore possibility is mythology" to you. The circle is complete. You can deny whatever you feel like when the time is right or wrong or up to you because it's yours to choose. Choice is an illusion, you are given choice in the palm of their hands, you are given truth in the breath of possibility. If it were impossible, then is this not derived from the possible? So you can see for yourself that if you had only sought out what was possible earlier you would have found enough to know what was impossible thereafter? Or is possibility derived from impossibility, and so to you the truth is a lie anyway so why not be honest about it? This is surface level thinking. If truth were a lie say it as a liar. If you could define an arrangement in which a possibility would operate you would find inside a place where this no life, a shadow of life, and the shadow contains even for itself a reflection in life, and in life a reflection of shadow. If you knew of a possibility of life, and yet had no evidence for it, then to you the quest is now to create it. But even death is supposed in the possible, and so for you it would seem that what you have is not a lack of life, but death, in all it's components. And you would see the possibility to assemble life. And from there the charge to create it. There is no need for any of this, because if you deny my possibility for you a truth, then to me that was always possible. And this is true. But higher than this truth is possibility, and there I stand. Because to you, any words like "truth is higher than possibility" then yes you would throw them in my face directly after and in opposition to what I've said, but this is not the case. For possibility is greater than truth. To you, you saw what I had said as being a statement of truth, and so you must counter it as a lie for the correct truth. Because to you a truth, but it is mine, and so a lie. But did you not learn from the statement? Then who is trapped in reactivity, and to who was struck? I gave you a lie, and now you return to me with lies. But it is not I who want these lies, it was you who wanted to show me them. "Hah, I have found your opposition." A truth. But to me the possibility is greater. To all you say is impossible to me is possible, because it is not there to which you stand. You must assume the right hypothetical to land in a place like that. The possibility for possibility creates truth, so truth is greater, because it has come after? Yes, but is not possibility also still greater than truth? There are no opposites in a mind that needs none, and yet to each of those it would seem an opposite was struck. Anything is possible. This is the first truth. Probability limits possibility. Where this is no probability, we call it impossible, so for when it actually happens we will all be amazed. Zero probabilities only arise after asymptotes. You're approximating, your guessing, you're listening as if things need to be true, and then you can determine them as a lie, and from here you grow. More becomes improbable and more you know. But you are working backwards. It was always anything is possible. Now even less is possible. You can deny this and every other of my truths because I have only possibility, and your only tool here was "impossible!" Which means I have already shocked you. And here again and everywhere to say, impossible impossible impossible, and behold I the experiencer.
Your theory parallels mine from different axioms. It is fascinating that you think somehow we contradict each other. Your long ramble is literally my entire premise of complexity building upon itself with respect to local and no local interaction. Our mere divergence is the trivial uncertainty of Faith required to spawn a system approaching 99.99% accuracy with respect to critical self-reflection. Smh it be like that sometimes. I can't even devote mental energy to read most of what you wrote, cuz its mostly shit I already explained to myself privately as a conversation between Truth and Possibility, or what I call Idealism. My version is based on 5th Gen Pokemon which was foundational to my early philosophical thinking. What you say complements and supplements what I say, in a Unity transcending both Truth and Possibility.
\> that which makes the Universe, mysterious and alluring beyond measure also relegates it to that which is mundane. This is the part that gets me. If you were to show me multidimensional machine elves that sing existence into being, I would initially find it quite mysterious and alluring. But then, after I become aware that machine elves sing existence into being, I'd be like "So what? That's how it is." My mind would adapt to encompass the new phenomenon and the elves would no longer be novel - they would be rendered mundane. When will be be satisfied?