Eugene I wrote: ↑Wed Mar 03, 2021 3:30 pm
Santeri, I also resonate with such infinite computational model of Consciousness.
It's very interesting idea to explore. But worth keeping in mind that actual infinities are not computational AFAIK, and current mainstream theories of physics are not computational, because of their non-computational underlying theory of math.
On the other hand current computation theory offers a very nice definition of transfinite processes in the form of Halting problem, definition that is largely in sync with freedom of will and connects very well with Bergson's philosophy of time.
Honestly, I don't see why the simple explanation does not work: The Big Kahuna instinctually wanting to create (as all life does), dissociates in order to create children in the form of all beings and stuff.
Be calm - Be clear - See the faults - See the suffering - Give your love
Lou Gold wrote: ↑Wed Mar 03, 2021 6:41 pm
The easy solution is to ask questions along the way.
Not so easy if you pass through areas inhabited by Savonians and their obsessive indirectness. A typical answer to question of direction goes: "You see the big landmark there?" "Yes." "Well it's not in that direction for sure."
Cleric K wrote: ↑Wed Mar 03, 2021 11:52 am If this is the case why don't we experience the whole multiverse interfering in our state? Because most of the interferences 'cancel out'. To put it into a childish example, we can imagine if one state projects into ours as a pull to the left, while another as a pull to the right, both states equalize themselves and as a result we don't recognize any of them. This is not as crazy as it sounds. It's actually what quantum mechanics has reached in its own way. Probably everyone here knows that in Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) it's not a law that light travels in a straight line. Actually in QED all possibilities must be taken into account - every conceivable path of a photon, even if it is the most absurd, like a photon starting from A, circling the universe several times and getting to B. When all paths are integrated (see Feynman path integration) it turns out that most of the paths cancel out and only the paths that connect A and B in more or less straight line remain as probable.
The above fits very nicely with what BK writes about in Decoding Jung's metaphysics when commenting on synchronicity and how Jung and Pauli posited 'ordering' principles of both the psyche and 'physical' world which are 'deeper' than strict causality. He mentions how QM posits a non-zero chance that acausal events are occurring all around us which we normally do not notice due to the complexity of the systems involved, and when we do notice them, we chalk them up to random coincidences or perhaps "supernatural" forces.
"Most people would sooner regard themselves as a piece of lava in the moon than as an 'I'"
Lou Gold wrote: ↑Wed Mar 03, 2021 6:41 pm
The easy solution is to ask questions along the way.
Not so easy if you pass through areas inhabited by Savonians and their obsessive indirectness. A typical answer to question of direction goes: "You see the big landmark there?" "Yes." "Well it's not in that direction for sure."
No more problematic than having a map that may be confused with the territory.
PS: I've lived in Brazil where one might receive "made up directions or reasons" with a cordial sense of not wanting to disappoint the one asking.
Be calm - Be clear - See the faults - See the suffering - Give your love
Lou Gold wrote: ↑Wed Mar 03, 2021 6:47 pm
Honestly, I don't see why the simple explanation does not work: The Big Kahuna instinctually wanting to create (as all life does), dissociates in order to create children in the form of all beings and stuff.
What's simple for you isn't simple for others, mainly idealists themselves. How do we know reality should obey our concepts?
After all it is only by induction that we postulate realty will always obey our formulas. Maybe our senses are a different world than that of the intellect and we should devise some solution like Kant? or maybe we should claim like his critique Maimon that the senses are nothing but intellect obscured? but then we should admit to Maimon that we can't really refute Hume, we can only speculate?
Maybe we should take a leap of faith like Hegel did, deluding ourselves that we are rationalists? But then again, who says Schopenhauer is right and the will is blind? How can he know for certain? Maybe M@L is beyond time and already knows the conclusion of our "self-reflection"?
Admittedly (?) This confusion is unsolvable philosophically by this fragile intellect of ours.
"And a mute thought sails,
like a swift cloud on high.
Were I to ask, here below,
Amongst the gates of desolation:
Where goes
this captive of the heavens?
There is no one who can reveal to me the book,
or explain to me the chapters."
Lou Gold wrote: ↑Wed Mar 03, 2021 6:47 pm
Honestly, I don't see why the simple explanation does not work: The Big Kahuna instinctually wanting to create (as all life does), dissociates in order to create children in the form of all beings and stuff.
What's simple for you isn't simple for others, mainly idealists themselves. How do we know reality should obey our concepts?
After all it is only by induction that we postulate realty will always obey our formulas. Maybe our senses are a different world than that of the intellect and we should devise some solution like Kant? or maybe we should claim like his critique Maimon that the senses are nothing but intellect obscured? but then we should admit to Maimon that we can't really refute Hume, we can only speculate?
Maybe we should take a leap of faith like Hegel did, deluding ourselves that we are rationalists? But then again, who says Schopenhauer is right and the will is blind? How can he know for certain? Maybe M@L is beyond time and already knows the conclusion of our "self-reflection"?
Admittedly (?) This confusion is unsolvable philosophically by this fragile intellect of ours.
This confusion is unsolvable philosophically by this fragile intellect of ours.
Perhaps this is why Shamanic Way-finding focuses on discovering "whatever works"? Synchronously, perhaps, I just posted the question of whether "whatever works" is the way of parsimony?
I guess that for me, making life itself the fundamental avoids the endless conundrums of mentation. "I am That I am" and "I will be what will be."
Be calm - Be clear - See the faults - See the suffering - Give your love
Lou Gold wrote: ↑Wed Mar 03, 2021 6:47 pm
Honestly, I don't see why the simple explanation does not work: The Big Kahuna instinctually wanting to create (as all life does), dissociates in order to create children in the form of all beings and stuff.
What's simple for you isn't simple for others, mainly idealists themselves. How do we know reality should obey our concepts?
After all it is only by induction that we postulate realty will always obey our formulas. Maybe our senses are a different world than that of the intellect and we should devise some solution like Kant? or maybe we should claim like his critique Maimon that the senses are nothing but intellect obscured? but then we should admit to Maimon that we can't really refute Hume, we can only speculate?
Maybe we should take a leap of faith like Hegel did, deluding ourselves that we are rationalists? But then again, who says Schopenhauer is right and the will is blind? How can he know for certain? Maybe M@L is beyond time and already knows the conclusion of our "self-reflection"?
Admittedly (?) This confusion is unsolvable philosophically by this fragile intellect of ours.
This confusion is unsolvable philosophically by this fragile intellect of ours.
Perhaps this is why Shamanic Way-finding focuses on discovering "whatever works"? Synchronously, perhaps, I just posted the question of whether "whatever works" is the way of parsimony?
I guess that for me, making life itself the fundamental avoids the endless conundrums of mentation. "I am That I am" and "I will be what will be."
My speculation is that the intellect can make you insane like Nietzsche. Whether you admit it or not, faith is always around. I believe there are questions which are unsolvable at this world and at this stage of limited consciousness. "life itself" it is. at least until tomorrow
"And a mute thought sails,
like a swift cloud on high.
Were I to ask, here below,
Amongst the gates of desolation:
Where goes
this captive of the heavens?
There is no one who can reveal to me the book,
or explain to me the chapters."
At my age and vulnerability, I totally agree. It's been an interesting journey to arrive here. Faith came to me by a Grace beyond my comprehension. Now I grok that "understanding" means "standing under" it. I feel grateful.
Be calm - Be clear - See the faults - See the suffering - Give your love
If this is the case why don't we experience the whole multiverse interfering in our state? Because most of the interferences 'cancel out'. To put it into a childish example, we can imagine if one state projects into ours as a pull to the left, while another as a pull to the right, both states equalize themselves and as a result we don't recognize any of them. This is not as crazy as it sounds. It's actually what quantum mechanics has reached in its own way. Probably everyone here knows that in Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) it's not a law that light travels in a straight line. Actually in QED all possibilities must be taken into account - every conceivable path of a photon, even if it is the most absurd, like a photon starting from A, circling the universe several times and getting to B. When all paths are integrated (see Feynman path integration) it turns out that most of the paths cancel out and only the paths that connect A and B in more or less straight line remain as probable.
