Reality is an Information Transducer

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Spellbound, May 6, 2015.

  1. Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,133
    POGL.

    (Proof or get lost.)
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Kristoffer Giant Hyrax Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,364
    He'll post another thread titled 'Reality is X x X' next week. Why not create a mega thread called 'Reality is...' instead?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,951
    Chris has a single footnote that is all your word salad really needed:

    7 Those who expect the field of cosmology to culminate in a grand reduction of the universe to pure information sometimes forget that this would merely transform a certain question, “what is the universe and where did it come from?”, to another no less vexing question, “what is information and where did it come from?”

    But Chris evidently doesn't realize, he hasn't yet answered a more basic question without an answer to which, philosophies like the ones to which Chris refers and CTMU itself is meaningless. To paraphrase his question in its most basic form:

    Whomever sorts out which information is true and which information is false will find they will have still another, no less vexing question, "what is truth and where does that come from?"

    More to the point, why have you simply reposted CTMU here? This is old philosophical hat. You get only +1 point for posting to the correct forum.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,356
    Which explains why you keep committing your fallacy of composition.
    For example: human (living) bone contains c.10-20% water... Yet bone is not "wet". Bone does not "flow". Bone is not "liquid".
    Here we can clearly see that the property of the whole (bone) is vastly different from that of one of its constituent parts (water).
    To claim, in line with the logic of your own claims, that "bone is a liquid" is, as I hope you agree, fallacious.
    To claim such is a composition fallacy. It is what you do, have done, and will undoubtedly continue to do until you realise the error.
    And it is tiresome for many to have this forum littered with near identical posts that all stem from the same fallacious reasoning.
     
  8. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    Reality is what will exist, when all pure science reaches steady state and rendered itself obsolete. As long as we have research into pure science, what we think is reality, still falls short of reality. What we think is real, is only based on filters of the mind that are still being polished and undated by science.

    At one time, the earth was considered flat. This was a perception of reality, for a point in time, based on the data people were aware of ,in the context of the state of the art social filters of the mind. This did not mean that some individuals could not see a more clear picture of reality. If they were out of their time, they would be socially assigned the term crackpot or witch to censor them.

    The reason for the censor is often the status quo implies a hierarchy of prestige. Since prestige is subjective, this becomes a self serving mercenary pre-filter, that will resist any change to the social filters. The horse and buggy merchants will not welcome the horseless carriage. It is not always about progress, also about mercenary filters of the mind, because calibration of the human mind is not required by science.
     
  9. Spellbound Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,623
    Reality is not only a whole, it is also a part of the whole. Thus no fallacy of composition on my part. Think self-similar objects.
     
  10. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,356
    That can manifest in different forms, forms which have properties not familiar to each other. It is when you do this, latch on to a property (other than being part of reality) of one form that is not held by other forms, and then claim that "reality is...", you commit your fallacy.

    And if you're ultimately just trying to claim that everything is reality therefore reality is everything then you have also merely just arrived at a tautology, with no inherent useful meaning outside of its own logical truth. It is circular and redundant as a piece of useful information.

    So either way - please stop posting such inanity.
     
  11. Spellbound Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,623
    Physical matter may take on a variety of forms but it is made up of one thing, reality. Therefore you can generalize a single part of reality to the whole. That's the beauty of self-similar objects.

    Generalities reflect a general truth: not all of them are created equal. Tautology, as the very broadest kind of generality, is the most necessary prerequisite for informative theories. Thus, if Godel had ever said anything like "tautological systems cannot generate interesting results", he'd either have to draw some fast qualifications, or we'd have to rip the officer's stripes from his "genius" uniform and bust him down to privatdocent. Systems consisting only of tautologies may be informationally impoverished, but that's only because we haven't yet developed their primary advantages: their tautological structures relative to their data-universes .

    http://megasociety.org/noesis/76/05.htm


    You are in no position to make that call. So please make use of your intellect.
     
  12. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,356
    Let's take the good ol' water molecule, shall we, as yet another example. It comes in many forms: water, ice, steam. What you are doing is saying that because ice is hard, the water molecule (reality) is hard.
    You're then saying that because water is wet, the water molecule (reality) is wet.

    Composition fallacy 101.

    And is there a point to this, given that I am not talking about tautological systems in general but about your tautological claim (akin to "everything is reality therefore reality is everything!").
    It wasn't a "call" - it was a request to please stop posting.
     
  13. Spellbound Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,623
    Yes. You're making a generalization. The water molecule is reality. All the water molecules are reality and it is not just the water molecule that is reality. So reality can be wet (water molecule) as well as dry (air molecule).

    If I get another intuitive insight I won't hesitate to share it. Hopefully we will see eye to eye.
     
  14. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,902
    That's a rather peculiar metaphysical theory, that "reality" is a particular kind of stuff, a thing out of which everything else is composed. I'm not convinced that it's true. Can you produce a plausible argument for why people should believe it?

    Why? Turds are real, therefore on your principles, reality is shit. Psychotic delusions are real, therefore reality must be a psychotic delusion. If you insist that logic justifies you generalizing a single part of reality to the whole, you are making an elementary error in reasoning, one of the informal logical fallacies, as Sarkus has told you repeatedly and you refuse to accept. (It's ironic, wasn't one of your earlier sock-puppets named 'Logic101'? You really should take a critical thinking class, though you probably wouldn't accept what your teacher told you.)

    What's a "self-similar object"? That sounds like Langan-jargon to me.

    If you insist that it's possible to generalize from any part of your hypothetical "reality"-stuff to the entirety of it, then you seem to be sneaking in an implicit assumption that 'reality' is totally homogeneous, that any part of 'reality' is similar to, and perhaps in some relevant but as-yet unexplained way identical to, every other part.

    But experience seems to contradict that, bigtime. Reality seems to be almost infinitely diverse and heterogeneous.
    So if your underlying mystical revelation was that 'All is One', how do you account for all the differences you see around you?

    I think that Sarkus is very astute and I largely agree with his criticisms of your strange assertions. Perhaps it's time for you to display some intellect of your own by responding to his questions and objections.

    I'm curious why you post here, Spellbound. You don't seem to have any interest in philosophical problems or in answers to them proposed by any philosopher other than your chosen Prophet. Your style of presentation is an extraordinarily annoying mixture of preachiness and obfuscation, with anything resembling an explanation or justification for the strange things you say hidden behind an almost surrealistic wall of incomprehensible jargon. "Telic recursion"! (Whatever that means...)

    If you are trying to convert the rest of us to whatever it is that you believe in, you are failing at your mission. You are just making people angry and making them less likely to take you seriously. You really seem to be a philosophy-crank, Spellbound. You're the philosophical equivalent of people who charge into the science forums and announce that relativity or evolution are bullshit, and that they know the Truth. In your case, you write as if you and your Prophet already possess the final authoritative answers to all of philosophy's age-old problems. You (and your Prophet) seem unaware that philosophy isn't a body of cosmic truths, it's a process of rational inquiry into fundamental problems.

    Being a good philosopher isn't a matter of having all the right answers, it's more a matter of being able to ask the right questions.
     
    exchemist and danshawen like this.
  15. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,356
    Then you truly are into the realms of tautological meaninglessness (reality is everything and thus everything is reality). And what you post in this vein can be summarily dismissed as such.
    All you are adding to this tautology is a description (albeit in the form of word salad) of certain aspects of reality.
    Insights don't necessarily equate to truth. And you have done nothing to show that any of your "insights" are true, or should even for that matter be accepted as meaningful.
     
  16. Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,133
    I think yet another of Spellbound's threads has descended into spam.

    Not that it had to descend very far...
     
  17. Kristoffer Giant Hyrax Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,364
    I'll never look at reality the same! It's wet AND dry simultaneously.

    I'm fairly tolerant, but do we need 2-3 threads a week proclaiming 'Reality is Whatever '?
     
  18. Spellbound Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,623
    Yes. Reality is all that is, so reality is each of what is. Which means that anything which can be called "real" is made up of what everything else is made up of. Now, even though mathematics is real, it is the product of the interaction between physical things (reality). Without physical things (reality) mathematics could not exist.

    There's no error on my part. Reality is shit. Reality is a psychotic delusion. Reality is anything real.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-similarity

    Absolutely.

    A thing that is real is reality and reality is a thing that is real. So yes, All is One. Meaning that everything that can be counted as real is a mirror image of reality. If we count how many things reality is we would find it to be an impossibly large number, but all of these things are one thing because each of them is real. The CTMU calls it syndiffeonesis. Where two things are reduced to one thing by being related within the same medium as well as reflecting the properties of the ontology of the medium, namely, reality. So everything that is real has been predetermined by reality to be what it is.

    For the most part that's all he does in my threads, criticize and disagree.

    It really isn't incomprehensible once you relate it back to a concept you're already familiar with. That is how I read the CTMU. And I find it impossible to disagree with.

    Well questions demand answers. So when one is posed, one can only make the attempt to seek out an answer, and when the answer is found, there is no longer a question. And then one can move on to bigger questions having built on the knowledge of the previous question.
     
    Last edited: May 9, 2015
  19. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,451
    "Reality is anything real".

    No shit, Sherlock.
     
  20. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,902
    Were those words supposed to be an answer to the question that I asked?
     
  21. Spellbound Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,623
    Perhaps. It was the best thing that came to me at the time. Reality is everything/all things.
     
  22. cdipoce Registered Member

    Messages:
    21
    I think the property that Spellbound is driving at is called 'syndiffeonesis'. Now before your 'crank-alarm' starts ringing, the CTMU formalizes (i.e., algebraically defines) the property of 'difference-in-sameness', which essentially says that to the extent that two things are different, this difference must exist within one medium common to both things (note:the common medium for all things that exist is reality). A very simple example: 1 is different to 2. We know this because 1 and 2 are two individuals belonging to the same universe of the Natural Numbers (we can discern their difference once we introduce the predicate "greater than(x,y)" to the structure). Now what happens when you regress all the way up (or down, depending on how you view it) to the syndiffeonetic-relationship between reality and non-reality? You get Unbound Telesis (UBT)--the medium containing both.
     
    Last edited: May 11, 2015
  23. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,201
    Does that include unicorns? Just asking...
     

Share This Page