i Nicholas - I didn't respond yet but I see you engaged with my
new Italian friend. I debated with him somewhat (which is how we
became friends) but then agreed with him when I realized that
this is his grand theory and there's only so far I can go. I
found him through a couple of mathematical friends (one's lucky
enough to have been a *professional mathematician" for the past
30 years; imagine being able to pursue your interest like that!)
Anyway with them, they hit their mystical when it comes to TOE-
with Max Tegmark and are happy there, so outside of some debates
here and there where I argue linguistics, context, history, etc,
I generally let it be. In my POV, it's their mystical and
they've found it.
and thanks Yes, I'm a fan of Godel's incompleteness theorems -
at least the ones that pertain to what I've been looking into..
It's a grand answer to the "the "if and only if" problem or
"necessary and sufficient" problem; all variations on a similar
theme:
My take on it:
The very nature of if and only if, or the need for the axiom
itself, or the rules of deduction and inference alike
(top-down/bottom-up) ... the problem lies therein.
[and of course I'm not falsifying mathematics or anything but I
think you know me by now to know I don't mean anything so basic
]
Rather I see it as a map/territory issue. A map created of the
Universe by whatever means, is not drawn to scale and is
contained within the very Universe it is describing.
Holographic concepts take care of that one, allowing for nearly
infinite regress yet it would also need to take into account the
patterns of choice of those who created the very holographic
concepts themselves, as well as all of its mistakes, problems,
lies, errors, and sentences-not-uttered, the thoughts of
beetles, the dreams of dogs and the like to the ends of Time
back to the beginning, all religious thought, and flights of
fancy and each process within and be able to see it from any
perspective in the Universe, including those we never could
know, such as the moment after humanity no longer exists to
confirm its validity.
So... a tall order I take a pragmatic view of mathematical
truths; they work, so use them.
But I'd go just shy of saying absolute truth. True for us,
useful for us, descriptive for us and possibly useful for others
as well. It works even when we're not looking.
I'll have to respond to your stuff on the comments in public as
well; looks like you two had an interesting little
back-and-forth - thanks!
Chat Conversation End
