Reality

Logic is merely a description of the relationship between things. It is not separate from existence thus does not govern. Existence governs itself, with logic being a description of the relationships.

You claim to understand much and Yet you have commented nothing that supports those claims, nor do you show how others‘ understanding is incorrect but rather just restate your unsupported claims.

Well done. So how does it "coincide with what we see as physical reality"?

First you say that it governs reality, now you are saying that it IS "a reality". Are you going to make your mind up?
Your stock claim and answer both seem to be "reality", and Yet for all your posts you have said so very little.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So in other words, no matter how goofy your statements is you will defend it. I would expect no less from you...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You're correct in that logic is not separate from existence however you are wrong about the first sentence.

Existence is syndiffeonic which I will explain below.

I do not claim to know anything special other than CTMU conceptions of reality.

I am about to explain how below.

Yes. Reality is itself. Which means logic, being reality, is real. So logic and everything we see coincides with reality. Otherwise a thing could not be real if it were not reality.

Okay. I understand.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If I may ask, what makes it goofy?

 

Anything real is either interacting with itself (free will) or interacting with something else.

 

Sure!

 

Hahaha you are so funny.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

How is self-interaction free will?

 

Because there is nothing external to a self-interacting entity to determine it's behavior and composition. It interacts with itself and is therefore absolute, not relative to anything. It is completely free to be whatever it wants to be.

 

I agree

But also interacts with new information . Which allows free-will to come up with new ideas

 

Not so - there is the internal rules that each part of the whole must adhere to.
No part can act in isolation, and without interaction it does nothing other than continue on its course. Newton worked that one out quite a while ago.
Every change is a result of interaction - whether internal or internal. A drop of water in deep-space will merely move around according to the internal forces at play between its molecules. But the drop of water as a whole, while self-interacting, exhibits no free-will.

So I ask again, how is self-interaction free-will.
Or is this merely your definition of free-will? And if so, what differentiates the actions you consider of a conscious entity to be a demonstration of free-will, and the motions of a drop of water in deep-space?

 

To compare free-will to drop of water is ridiculous , obviously water doesn't think .

Self-intraction is thinking , with no distractions

 

Newton's laws only apply to interacting objects and the forces they are subject to, not to reality as a whole. Not to the absolute. Reality possesses free will so yes, I equate self-interaction to free will. As does Langan, see:

"...reality is more than just a linguistic self-contained syndiffeonic relation comprising a closed descriptive manifold of linked definitions containing the means of its own configuration, composition, attribution, recognition, processing and interpretation. It is also a self-processing theory identical to its universe." Chris Langan, CTMU

https://plus.google.com/115709451825536743194/posts/33ZLe6xNFCa

 

Its just a matter of scale and complexity. You equated freewill to self-interaction... So how does a drop of water not self-interact?
And thus according to you it is thinking, since self-interaction is thinking.

Further, to now equate self-interaction to thinking begs the question of what you define as "thinking"? Please define it.

 

Newtons laws apply also to internal forces within the individual parts of the entity... "Self-interaction".

are you going to explain that non-sequitur?

Couldn't care less what Langan thinks. I'm asking you.

 

Forces always come in pairs because they are less than absolute. Everything other than the absolute does not possess pure freedom unless you're talking about isolating it in deep space like your droplet analogy. But even then it still comes into contact with something. That something may be a long-range or contact force.

Due to the self-interacting nature of the absolute or the One, it has no external forces or interactions acting on it. And is therefore free to do what it wishes. Now whether or not that equates to thought like river suggested above is unknown to me. But I won't rule it out as a possibility.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Syntax (logic/ laws) and state (matter/ information) are one.

 

This implies that the action and content of the laws are merged together in each part of the system as a single (but dual-aspect) quantity, infocognition. The connectedness and consistency of infocognition is maintained by refinement and homogenization as nomological languages are superseded by extensional metalanguages in order to create and/or explain new data; because the "theory" SCSPL model-theoretically equates itself to the real universe, its "creation" and causal "explanation" operations are to a certain extent identical, and the SCSPL universe can be considered to create or configure itself by means of "self-theorization" or "self-explanation".

http://www.ctmu.org/Articles/IntroCTMU.htm

Reality model-theoretically equates or identifies itself to the real universe. And so it can be said to create or configure itself by means of this operation.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Can CTMU explain this?

 

Did you know that if you convert Pi to binary it becomes computer code?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!