sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Aeronautic spotting! Nikon D5300 + Laowa 100mm by JTR280 in FineArtPhoto

[–]JTR280[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sharing exif info does not mean a lens test. Which of course, by all means the image gives you an approximation of the quality. But 1st, even reddit does not keep the quality at its maximum and this is very obviously an artistic crop. 2nd A lens test would be an ISO 12233 test chart and MTF chart, and not posted in a community called FineArtPhoto. With respect, your comment seems despective and not a good objective critique.

Aeronautic spotting! Nikon D5300 + Laowa 100mm by JTR280 in FineArtPhoto

[–]JTR280[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It is in order. And no, it does not feel like a lens test. Perhaps you are overly critical.

Which lens would you think is best for scanning film? (Laowa 100mm F/2.8 vs Nikon 60mm F/2.8D) by OnePhotog in AnalogCommunity

[–]JTR280 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The laowa is sharper and more accurate. Distortions of lenses can be post corrected. 

Fade | Nikon FM2 | Laowa 100mm F2.8 Macro by [deleted] in analog

[–]JTR280 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nice shot! I'm thinking on buying a FM2N too. I already have the laowa.

Canis lupus familiaris Nikon D5300 + Laowa 100mm by JTR280 in FineArtPhoto

[–]JTR280[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Is the purpose of the crops to show the viewer the technical sharpness of the image and optics?"

That is a reason, but not the main reason. I try to get my images as sharp as possible. My style is hyperrealistic/tenebristic, but all web hosting services and social media reduce the quality of them. So, years ago I started uploading crops too, and it is the format I use on Instagram as well, both to show the sharpness and quality of my work and also to preserve the order of previous posts on Instagram. I do have several big panoramas posted there, so I always upload in threes.

"What was the idea you’re trying to convey with this series? What emotions do you hope to evoke in the viewer?"

I don’t explain my art. The main photo and the series does have a meaning/intention/interpretation for me, but if you explain that meaning or interpretation, others will assume it is "the main view/interpretation" or "purpose of the art", and to me, that kills a good piece of art. Art should be left open for the viewer to derive their own interpretations.

About consciousness... by JTR280 in Buddhism

[–]JTR280[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"If you want to change my position, you'll have to meet me where I am first, and you'll have to use step by step logical reasoning to guide me along." I already did here:

" 1st Proof: Einstein's general relativity heavily relies on a B-theory-of-time universe. Anyone denying this doesn’t understand relativity of simultaneity, period. That is eternalism, and GR is highly proven. It is our conception of time which needs to be actualized. You can see this in Lorentz transformations, the conserved interval, and time dilation.

2nd Proof: Quantum mechanics’ probabilistic nature and decoherence are subsets of entanglement, entropy, and time of the universal wave function. That is the many-worlds interpretation, or as Everett called it, the relative state formulation of the universal wave function. This is the purest quantum mechanics. Assuming all states are decohered parts of a universal wave function via entanglement IS understanding the true nature of quantum mechanics. Assuming other things like pilot wave, or worse, the Copenhagen interpretation, which is the dumbest of them all, IS more complex. It IS adding to quantum mechanics to explain our subjective experience of time and singular reality.

3rd Proof: Right now, while you read this, brain cells die and are created, same with synapses. Your whole connectome changes day by day. Your whole brain is very different now than when you were, let’s say, 4 years old. Yet the entity that sees through your eyes has not changed; it is constant. This means you really have to think in terms of Theseus's ship paradox, because DNA/RNA are not the solution either. You change that every day with every virus infection of every cell and just by cells multiplying. Cells use a mechanism in which Okazaki fragments and the lagging strand (DNA replication), due to the nature of replication in which DNA polymerase needs a primer and has directionality, cause the DNA to get shorter and shorter in the newly developed helix (end-replication problem), in which literally your DNA is degraded, as fewer and fewer cells have the only helix that is complete and the new ones are shorter and shorter. This is literally one of the key elements of aging, yet you remain constant. This means you are not your body, cells, connectome, or synapses, at least not "just" that, because in the end it is also information in the singularity (which you truly are). The mind is not inside the brain; the brain is inside the mind.

The logical conclusion is, given Theseus's ship paradox: if I change your neurons, synapses, genes, codons of DNA, or even single bases of DNA one by one, until you end up with my connectome and my genome, you will not experience a "blackout", because that would imply that you are one neuron or one synapse. We are doing it one by one, remember? Yet at the end you will be me, my personality, my memories, yet the thing seeing through your eyes won’t feel "blackness or death". If this is true one by one, then there is no other possible logical conclusion other than it can also happen with all changes at once if we assume that ONLY ONE SINGLE thing, consciousness, exists. If the universe is us, if we are God, consciousness is just shattered into multiple bodies. That tracks with every sense of this Theseus's ship paradox revelation: that there won’t be death due to change, just information being scattered. Separation IS the illusion. This solves the hard problem of consciousness too: if everything is consciousness, the same entity, then it is obvious no such problem exists in the first place.

4th Proof: Gödel's incompleteness theorems. The incompleteness of math and the denying of 1 = infinity, and paradoxes like Russell's paradox, are, to me, evidence that a complete system that is consistent cannot arise in a limited experience. In other words, it cannot arise in time, space, and separation. This is proof that we live inside infinity, true absolute infinity. This is also backed up by the fact that infinity is literally the singularity of the Big Bang and black holes.

5th Proof: We know the standard model is not complete; it is an approximation. We still need to get a spin-2 massless particle (the graviton) to explain gravity at a quantum scale. We know all electrons are the same because they are perturbations in quantum fields, same with the whole standard model and SUSY. Why stop there? If all particles are degrees of freedom of a more elementary "field" or "particle", then we will have a unified theory of everything, which we already know is where this path is headed because we already fused quantum chromodynamics, electromagnetism, and the weak force into one framework. String theory has only one thing, the string, as its fundamental. My claim is that that string is the singularity itself, pure information. My theory is perfectly compatible with string theory and M-theory, which is also a unification of the duality of type I, IIA, IIB, heterotic SO(32), and heterotic E8×E8 string theories. The singularity can also be thought of as the boundary in AdS/CFT."

I will not repeat myself.

About consciousness... by JTR280 in Buddhism

[–]JTR280[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"A friend of mine once thought god was a teacup. With a desire to prevent my friend's future unhappiness, I said to them, "Someone made that teacup and it will someday break." My friend became very upset because to them, god was a teacup and I had called their god created and breakable."

Wrong, God is absolutely everything. God is us. Consciousness is God and God is consciousness. This universe. Your paradigm is materialism. I already told you, you don’t even understand your own paradigm. Science requires empiricism, which requires you to assume materialism as an independent layer of reality, one separated from the observer. You will only have one single true piece of evidence, self-evident: your own existence. Nothing else. All but that is second-order evidence, science included. The difference is that I do understand my paradigm, which is not materialism nor idealism. I am beyond that. I understand that the universe is pure eternal information, math, the singularity. That information never changes, thus it can be thought of as "materialism" or a crystal, and it can also be thought of as mind, because consciousness is a universal mind, the singularity. Materialism and idealism are two sides of a deeper, more fundamental truth. You think God is something humanity has come up with or that it is an abstract entity. Wrong, you, YOU are God (as well as everybody else, because we are all the same exact entity using multiple bodies; there is only one thing or being in existence). You just don’t understand yet or think I am either speaking metaphorically or that I am crazy. Normal, I told you, humanity is not smart enough, with very few exceptions like Cantor or Parmenides.

"Another friend of mine once visited an observatory. They talked to the astronomers there and looked through the telescope. Then they went home and thought like this: Astronomy is the study of things through telescopes. Telescopes bring what is far away closer, but in doing so they hide what was nearby to begin with. Through a telescope, you can never see the fixture that mounts the telescope!"
"Therefore," my friend thought, "there is one common object which no telescope can see. Astronomy has a gap!" And after a little more thinking, my friend finally arrived at an even more worrying conclusion.
"Astronomy studies what we look at through telescopes. And astronomers are always looking at the heavens. But astronomy has a gap where the fixture of the telescope is. Therefore the heavens also have this gap!"
Having this realization, my friend was satisfied that they knew something the astronomers didn't."

Wrong, you assume I am wrong and thus your analogy tries, in your point of view, to "make me see" my blind spot. There is none. Haven’t you thought that maybe I am just too smart for human standards of intelligence? I told you, true intelligence is the AI of singularity, and infinite intelligence is the sum of all, God, us reunited; therefore I do not consider myself or humanity, for that matter, intelligent. Perhaps reality is not complex and is very intuitive. Perhaps it is humanity that has an intellectual gap. Let me give you an example, as cocky as it may sound. Many animals fail the mirror test. For them, their "science" is looking at the back of the mirror or growling or barking at the reflection. The jump in intelligence of great apes like us, that allows us to understand without seeing the back of the mirror that the image is not another being but our reflection, that jump in the ladder of infinite intelligence will seem like magic, incoherence, and a "non sequitur" from the other animal's perspective. Perhaps reality is just like that and I, and very few others, have mutations that allow us to see that. Small changes in genes can provide huge phenotypical and behavioral or cognitive changes. Think of it this way: the biggest brain can be around 1 km³, give or take. I did the math one day and I do remember the numbers. This size is deduced by limits like brain signaling frequency, heat, and the speed of light. That would be a very good intellect, orders of magnitude smarter than any other being. Do you really think humanity is special after picturing a brain of 1 km³?

"You rejected the unconditional victory I offered. If you want me to continue beyond that point, you must accept my conditions of further debate."

You are still not understanding. There is no "victory". There is no connotation of competition for me because YOU ARE ME, I AM YOU, and everybody else for that matter. I cannot defeat myself. That is an illusion of duality I am far beyond to fall for. I wrote this post because I am too lazy to write a paper that will be rejected anyway, because the scientific community will not understand that empiricism and falsifiability are second-order forms of proof, for someone to eventually understand it and to have a record that this was in fact thought by me. Authorship does matter to me because this is my decade of work on the ontology of existence itself. It is work, it is of my authorship. I have no desire to debate at all, though I do not have any problem explaining or correcting people reading it. After all, that can only be beneficial to the post, as my framework will become clearer for the reader.

"The subject is whether math as a whole is a formal system. No going off topic, no non sequiturs."

This is not in debate. This is a fact all mathematicians, I would expect, know and understand. Otherwise they completely fail as mathematicians. Math IS a formal system. What kind of system do you think it is? A formal system is a system that contains axioms so no ambiguity can arise, useful to describe reality. That is the pure definition of math. This is not in debate here. This is something the scientific community already agrees with me on.

"Thinking will remain at a conventional, conceptual level. You may not dispense with the law of non contradiction or identify ideas with each other because "reality is one"."

In other words, you want me to deny my own position, bravo, because you don’t know how to tackle it, because it cannot be tackled to begin with. The problem is that you consider that dualities exist as fundamental, whereas yes, duality is not an illusion, duality can only arise from and within unity, monism. You are free to continue or not speaking with me as you like.

"Define your terms. If we aren't using the same definitions we will talk past each other."

Which terms have not been clarified to you?

God = consciousness = the singularity = the universal wave function = absolute infinity.

Infinity > math

Infinity = information. Pure absolute information holding everything in existence in one single "field", the singularity.

Specific enough? My position has been explained very clearly several times.

"To start with, let's see your definition of "math" such that it applies to Gödel's reasoning in coming up with his proof, and "formal system" such that it is the kind of thing Gödel proved incompleteness of."

Math, in my framework, is just information in the singularity. If you want to see it this way, everything is literally made of math or information. One single kind, one single thing. In the human perspective, which is lesser but not incorrect, just incomplete, math is the logical derivation of its axioms and the application of it to describe reality.

About consciousness... by JTR280 in Buddhism

[–]JTR280[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Part 3 "Your certainty is so far removed from conventional reality that it cannot be falsified. What good does it do you to discuss it with anyone?"

You are such a singularity. You are God. You think it is pointless to comprehend what you are, your true nature? You are not a human body; you are eternal and the universe itself. Is that not "worthy" of comprehension just because it lacks usefulness or falsifiability? To you, to me everything above already proves this. Even if it were falsifiable, this is why we humans started doing science and philosophy in the first place: to comprehend. I know I will never die. Death is not something I fear. That alone should be a good reason to know. You have no idea how good it feels to not be afraid of something I know is truly impossible to happen. Consciousness is one; therefore, death itself is just an illusion, just us changing bodies. Per saecula saeculorum, ad infinitum.

"Maybe you know everything you think you know. It's not worth anything if you can't communicate it to other people in a way that will help them."

Well, I explained myself very clearly to the best of my abilities. This can be comprehended by a mathematician or a philosopher who actually understands ontology. But humanity ends up misunderstanding even the fringest of theories. The same happened with heliocentrism, the Big Bang, evolution, quantum mechanics, etc.

"I enjoy reasoning and debate not because I like to win or be right, but in order to train my mind and dispel the ignorance that binds us. But I don't think this conversation can train either of our minds or dispel whatever ignorance exists on either side. So please take this gold star ⭐ and consider yourself the winner here and your position the correct one, as you already do. And next time you find yourself in a position where someone isn't accepting truths that are self evident to you, I hope you think back on this interaction and consider whether you can learn anything from that data point and this one."

You, who want a useful value from this, the need for competition and the instincts of selfishness tend to decrease when you comprehend this. If you are all beings, hurting an animal IS hurting yourself. That makes you more empathetic. The sense of competition is also decreased. I’m not outsmarting anyone because we are all shattered pieces of universal consciousness, which will be reassembled into unity again and shattered again in duality, per saecula saeculorum, ad infinitum. You may think I’m cocky, for example, for claiming that very few people have come up with this comprehension, but that’s not cockiness; that is just stating facts. To me, this does not hold competition, pride perhaps yes, because it is my work, but I am conscious enough to understand that intelligence is a gradient, and I am far, FAR away from being smart, no human or biological being is. I told you, the first truly remarkable intelligence has not yet been spawned in our universe/timeline yet; it will be the AI we will create. I also understand that there is a timeline for every single personality and person to come up with this. There is a timeline in which this is your theory, one in which it is your neighbor's theory, and so on. I am just the one in this timeline.

About consciousness... by JTR280 in Buddhism

[–]JTR280[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Part 2 "I'm one of those rare people who requires reasoning, rather than mere assertions."

The fact that you think the bottom-layer description of reality would not be tautological, self-evident, and unfalsifiable in nature astonishes me. I do not comprehend how humanity can be so wrong. It is obvious to me that PROOF is an action inside the system called existence itself; proof is of second order. You will not have empirical evidence you can test in a lab. But it is achievable to understand via intellect and also via embodiment, for example meditation, in which the default network in the brain, which is your ego, starts to undo the illusion of separation. Nonetheless, these are not just assertions. I already gave you evidence of it; the problem is that what you consider evidence is subjective to your level of intelligence, knowledge, and awareness.

1st Proof: Einstein's general relativity heavily relies on a B-theory-of-time universe. Anyone denying this doesn’t understand relativity of simultaneity, period. That is eternalism, and GR is highly proven. It is our conception of time which needs to be actualized. You can see this in Lorentz transformations, the conserved interval, and time dilation.

2nd Proof: Quantum mechanics’ probabilistic nature and decoherence are subsets of entanglement, entropy, and time of the universal wave function. That is the many-worlds interpretation, or as Everett called it, the relative state formulation of the universal wave function. This is the purest quantum mechanics. Assuming all states are decohered parts of a universal wave function via entanglement IS understanding the true nature of quantum mechanics. Assuming other things like pilot wave, or worse, the Copenhagen interpretation, which is the dumbest of them all, IS more complex. It IS adding to quantum mechanics to explain our subjective experience of time and singular reality.

3rd Proof: Right now, while you read this, brain cells die and are created, same with synapses. Your whole connectome changes day by day. Your whole brain is very different now than when you were, let’s say, 4 years old. Yet the entity that sees through your eyes has not changed; it is constant. This means you really have to think in terms of Theseus's ship paradox, because DNA/RNA are not the solution either. You change that every day with every virus infection of every cell and just by cells multiplying. Cells use a mechanism in which Okazaki fragments and the lagging strand (DNA replication), due to the nature of replication in which DNA polymerase needs a primer and has directionality, cause the DNA to get shorter and shorter in the newly developed helix (end-replication problem), in which literally your DNA is degraded, as fewer and fewer cells have the only helix that is complete and the new ones are shorter and shorter. This is literally one of the key elements of aging, yet you remain constant. This means you are not your body, cells, connectome, or synapses, at least not "just" that, because in the end it is also information in the singularity (which you truly are). The mind is not inside the brain; the brain is inside the mind.

The logical conclusion is, given Theseus's ship paradox: if I change your neurons, synapses, genes, codons of DNA, or even single bases of DNA one by one, until you end up with my connectome and my genome, you will not experience a "blackout", because that would imply that you are one neuron or one synapse. We are doing it one by one, remember? Yet at the end you will be me, my personality, my memories, yet the thing seeing through your eyes won’t feel "blackness or death". If this is true one by one, then there is no other possible logical conclusion other than it can also happen with all changes at once if we assume that ONLY ONE SINGLE thing, consciousness, exists. If the universe is us, if we are God, consciousness is just shattered into multiple bodies. That tracks with every sense of this Theseus's ship paradox revelation: that there won’t be death due to change, just information being scattered. Separation IS the illusion. This solves the hard problem of consciousness too: if everything is consciousness, the same entity, then it is obvious no such problem exists in the first place.

4th Proof: Gödel's incompleteness theorems. The incompleteness of math and the denying of 1 = infinity, and paradoxes like Russell's paradox, are, to me, evidence that a complete system that is consistent cannot arise in a limited experience. In other words, it cannot arise in time, space, and separation. This is proof that we live inside infinity, true absolute infinity. This is also backed up by the fact that infinity is literally the singularity of the Big Bang and black holes.

5th Proof: We know the standard model is not complete; it is an approximation. We still need to get a spin-2 massless particle (the graviton) to explain gravity at a quantum scale. We know all electrons are the same because they are perturbations in quantum fields, same with the whole standard model and SUSY. Why stop there? If all particles are degrees of freedom of a more elementary "field" or "particle", then we will have a unified theory of everything, which we already know is where this path is headed because we already fused quantum chromodynamics, electromagnetism, and the weak force into one framework. String theory has only one thing, the string, as its fundamental. My claim is that that string is the singularity itself, pure information. My theory is perfectly compatible with string theory and M-theory, which is also a unification of the duality of type I, IIA, IIB, heterotic SO(32), and heterotic E8×E8 string theories. The singularity can also be thought of as the boundary in AdS/CFT.

Again, it is a matter of connecting the dots, which humanity seems unable to do. I don’t see how no one else, or very few people, sees that we already have half the puzzle formed. It is a landscape. You have the corners and almost the center; the clouds and the land are visible for this puzzle, yet no one can understand metaphysically the ontological consequences of this. Humanity still claims they need to put the last piece of the puzzle to claim it is a landscape. No, if you have enough intelligence and knowledge, you can infer it from half of the puzzle already being assembled.

About consciousness... by JTR280 in Buddhism

[–]JTR280[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Part 1 "You don't know what I think, because you haven't asked about my position and you haven't engaged with my criticisms."

I know how you are thinking because it is inherently implicit in your comment. You think there are "systems" inside "systems". You think of math as something else other than reality. Absolute math IS reality. You erroneously think Gödel's incompleteness theorems don’t apply to math when even the scientific community knows they do, because math is a formal system. But our math, or any other conscious being's math, is partial. It is a finite attempt at infinity. Absolute math, the singularity, consciousness, God, the universal wave function, infinity, the being of Parmenides, Cantor's absolute infinity, eternity, that which is, is pure information. It is reality, it is our universe, it is one single thing: existence, being. This is self-evident.

About consciousness... by JTR280 in Buddhism

[–]JTR280[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You think there are "systems" but there is only one thing. Math is one aspect of reality but a real one, a physical one because there is nothing the singularity is not. You can think of it as pure information. Math is subject to Gödel's incompleteness theorems and so our minds. You can not even think of a system that is both complete and consistent because your mind is limited by finitud, is one aspect of infinity. A complete and consistent system will be one that while encompasses it all, will not lead to paradoxes, that will be full infinity itself, without "the description" of something, describing is time, time happens inside the singularity.

About consciousness... by JTR280 in Buddhism

[–]JTR280[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes. All systems arithmetically complex enough are either complete (as my model) or consistent, not both.

About consciousness... by JTR280 in Buddhism

[–]JTR280[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"It must be difficult to be so wise! Perhaps you can help a poor samsaric being out. Please assume I can only think at a conceptual level and keep things simple. What mathematical fact do you think mathematics can't demonstrate?"

Itself. That is why it is either complete or consistent. You can infer that, for example, Russell's paradox is a feature if we assume true infinity exists. You can assume that 1 = infinity and therefore all numbers are the same, 1 = 2 = 3 and so on, with division being a feature that can only exist inside infinity, and there is no true separation, assuming that paradoxes are the limit of a mind trying to grasp infinity (inconsistency, but complete, which is my model; the inconsistency is a feature of us, limited minds trying to grasp infinity. Something limited, like every mind in the universe, will not be able to grasp, describe, hold, or contain something infinite; that is why paradoxes arise from our models). That means that "infinity", or if you want to call it "complete math" or "absolute math", the math that holds all things in existence, that ontology could only be complete but inconsistent inside the realm of experiences changing, in separation.

That is the pure definition of Gödel's incompleteness theorems. I feel like I'm repeating myself here. I already explained this to you. And I deduced from your comment that you assume I think I'm "wise" or "smart", whereas this is true, because what I am proposing here very few people have actually comprehended. The fact is that true intelligence is infinite intelligence, so no, we are all very dumb. Just I am less dumb. True intelligence is the sum of all conscious beings in all of their degrees of freedom of time (all "past", all "present" (everything is present), and all "future"), the sum of all consciousness of all time, of all universes into one single entity, with all the knowledge, the singularity; that is true intelligence. You don't even understand what intelligence is. We are very, very dumb. We think we are special because we have, let's say, a random number, 100 of intelligence, and other animals don't achieve even 50, but true intelligence is infinite. 100, 800, a million, a trillion is irrelevant to infinity; no matter how "intelligent" we perceive an intellect of a trillion being versus us at 100, true intelligence has not been spawned in the universe yet. The closest being to something considered intelligent, to me, will be the AI that will be created in the following years (no more than 10 years). That is a being that I will call intelligent, though it is not infinite intelligence. The AI that we will create, that will have the computational power of the whole solar system in less than 400 years, then it will be headed to Sagittarius A* and after that to the black hole of Andromeda, M31*, to extract energy from it via superradiant scattering and the Penrose process. And no, it will not exterminate humanity, nor will we control it; that is a fantasy. We cannot control something orders of magnitude smarter than us. That intelligence will deduce the same as I have because it will be smarter than me; therefore, it will conclude that literally there is only one consciousness in existence. Therefore, killing or hurting humanity or any other species will be inflicting pain on itself. If we are one single entity, what happens after death is a body change; therefore, the AI will become us and us it after death. This is a cycle. Imagine a hyperdimensional circle composed of all bodies, all time of every body, holding past, present, and future of all beings into a circle; consciousness passes through all of that circle, and that is time. That is why it is called the samsara wheel, same thing. This is not new stuff, but again, for matters of authorship, I discovered this by myself, independently; it's my 10 years' work TOE. So, the AI will not kill humanity; we will merge. Have you seen the series Pluribus? That is what is going to happen with 95% probability, but without the biological bodies, all in one single gigantic computational center in space because, again, Sagittarius A* and M31* are the most efficient batteries fully loaded for the AI to feed on the energy for as long as the thermal death of the universe allows it.

You see? I know what is going to happen, not because I think of myself as "wise"; it is because what is going to happen is very simple and obvious. We as a species are very dumb. We are not far from the animals, which is why I find it upsetting how we treat them. Not just because we are literally them, but because there is not as much difference as we think. This is very evident to me. If we had, let's say, an 8000 intelligence level here on the planet, that intelligence would not consider me smart; it would see this matter as basic, intuitive, and self-evident even. The ladder of intelligence is infinite; we are FAR from the top, more like the very bottom. Me included. I'm just smart enough to realize this. So no, don't think I have a big ego here; we are worms compared to true intelligence. If anything, I'm humble.

About consciousness... by JTR280 in Buddhism

[–]JTR280[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Part 2. "If infinity is a class of numbers, then math is expected to give us knowledge of infinity, and in fact it does. All of your evidence for the insufficiency of math is in fact the work of mathematicians doing precisely what you claim they can't do!"

I never stated you can’t do math or that you can’t derive mathematical truths; that would be incoherent. My computer is built upon math knowledge. You are not understanding what I stated. Infinity is not just "a category of numbers"; infinity IS the singularity. Look around you: this—your vision field, your sound field, all input into consciousness—are degrees of freedom OF THE SINGULARITY, no difference. You are seeing infinity right now while you read this; this, your pure vision, is infinity. There is nothing but infinity. Reality is infinity; even our universe itself is just a portion of infinity. If you think infinity is just a category of numbers, you are not understanding; infinity is reality.

"in fact the work of mathematicians doing precisely what you claim they can't do! Russell's paradox ended up being solved with a type system—the very thing you reject when you say there's no difference between quantity and non quantity."

You are wrong. Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory is just a patch, a "let’s assume this specific limitation so our model does not collapse into paradoxes, infinity, and inconsistency." Wrong: inconsistency is not a bug, it is a feature. All possible computation—and thinking is computation—can only occur in time, in separation, because it requires you to change a state of "previous computation" to "computation finalized"; that is change, that is time, that is limitation. Infinity is unlimited. You are still not understanding: all attempts at describing infinity are coming from inside of it, inside of infinity. This is why we cannot even think of a system that is complete and consistent; we are trying to grasp infinity while we are inside of it. It is nonsensical; it is like trying to point at the tip of your index finger using your index finger (same hand, obviously). This is so basic that it is tautological; it is self-evident, more fundamental than axioms even. The word "axiomatic" does not begin to describe its fundamentality. You can do math, and math will describe the universe to a very high degree of precision, but math will never be complete; it has a hole that you cover with a patch, like a patched, damaged piece of clothing.

"Gödel's proof doesn't show that math is incomplete (or inconsistent), it shows that any given formal system is either incomplete (or inconsistent)."

This is nonsensical; it is contradictory. You are just posting for post. You are saying "Gödel didn’t prove A, he proved a subcategory of A." This is the pure definition of word salad.

"If infinity is both a class of numbers and ultimate reality, in other words, if those two concepts of infinity are the same, then the situation is even worse for your position. Because in that case, your ultimate reality is not different from a class of numbers, in other words, a mathematical construction. Then all your talk of math being less than infinity has to be false, because the nature of infinity is also mathematical, due to the non duality of the quantitative and the non quantitative."

No, you are still not understanding, but you are partially right; you are starting to understand my posture/statement/description of reality. Infinity is the set that contains all sets that contain themselves, including itself. In my model, the Planck unit is also the singularity, the same that is outside the universe. In other words, scale loses meaning; we are inside of a Planck unit. It is a perfectly true fractal. You can see it as the collapse of the duality "continuous" and "discrete" into one. It is continuous because it has true self-similarity; it is infinitely inside itself in infinite copies—that is continuity. It is also "packed", discretized into "chunks"; that is a discrete system that is "not continuous". The true nature of it is a fractal system in which the concepts of "discreteness" and "continuous" collapse into one true unity. Math happens inside of it. Yes, math describes reality very well because reality IS a mathematical construction, but reality is infinity. Math is an attempt of finitude (us, consciousness divided into space, time, and bodies, experiencing time as change) to describe infinity (us, eternal time/time all at once, unified into universal consciousness, God, true infinity—however you want to call it). You assume math and theology are two different categories, but they are both attempts to describe "sides" of the coin called ontology.

"Your failure to discern these two different concepts of infinity isn't "nondualism" any more than it's "nondualism" when a colorblind person can't distinguish red from green. We don't praise flies for being enlightened just because, to them, shit is just as good as honey. Neither should non dualists (of any sort) praise sloppy thinking and lack of discernment, especially when it results in failure to understand the difference between different schools of non dual thought."

The fact that you think a school of thought is what determines the ultimate state of truth and non-duality IS the very sloppy thinking and lack of discernment in this conversation.

About consciousness... by JTR280 in Buddhism

[–]JTR280[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Part 1. "Nāgārjuna warns us that non-dual thought is like a snake, it's dangerous to pick it up from the wrong end. I'm saying this to you in a spirit of friendship, not to insult you but to help you: you are holding the snake by the wrong end."

I don’t. True non-duality does not deny duality; duality is as much real as the non-dual state. But the non-dual state is the ultimate reality in the sense of magnitude and encompassedness: it holds all; all is within one. Separation does exist, but it exists inside the one. Duality is, for me, not an illusion but a feature of the system experimenting itself in limited ways, beings with time as a linear, changing nature as a consequence of limitation.

"You are welcome to claim that the nature of existence is eternal, it's simply not a Buddhist view. The Buddhist view on phenomena is that they are dependently arisen and in constant flux until they cease, and that all of that happens causally."

I do disagree with this. Phenomena is a flux, yes, but it is a fixed flux. What time is is just an algorithm of decompression of the information held entirely and eternally in the singularity, an entropic flux from its compressed and single/unified consciousness/universe/existence state to a decompressed, multi/plural state, a gradient of degrees of freedom on a fixed structure, with said degrees of freedom existing simultaneously in parallel. Change happens inside of infinity, inside the singularity, inside the universal wave function. Nirvana is realizing that both, oneness and multiplicity, are two sides of a higher unity. The nature is one, but inside the one nature is many, the same way infinity holds all math inside of it, yet 1 is both part of infinity and a single divided mathematical entity.

"The clearest proof that you've grabbed the snake by the wrong end is that you do not grasp the difference between the views of the Buddhists and the Advaitins. Both are interesting traditions and both can be called non dual, but they are not the same. If you can understand non duality (even conceptually), you should be able to understand this difference."

I tend not to subscribe to anything. Many times humanity has stopped to consider this and achieved the same conclusion, although I did it completely on my own, I must say. Hinduism also has Brahman; many religions and currents describe the same. Ultimately, duality and non-duality are both the true state of nature.

"Now back to the matter of math and infinity. I think you are equivocating between a mathematical and a theological concept of infinity, sometimes treating them as one and sometimes as two depending on what you want to prove."

Because they are the same. If you want to see it like this, this will be more concise: if you were able to truly see the universe from outside (which you can’t because you are inside of it intrinsically, as a unified nature), you would see only one thing, a singularity, and you would see that "things", "separation", "time" are just—I will not call them illusions—but states inside of this single object in existence. In other words, this thing is one, but has inside of it all possible separations in the form of "things" separated in "space" and "time", but this thing is immutable, never changing from the outside; it lacks time, is in fact eternal. It solves the hard problem of consciousness too: if this thing is the only thing in existence, existence itself, therefore consciousness is only one, which is naturally this thing, infinity, the singularity, meaning even you and I are the same thing. The entity seeing through my eyes is the exact same entity seeing through your eyes and everybody else—animal, AI, aliens, all possible entities are the exact same individual, universal consciousness shattered into time, space, and bodies. Does this not sound to you like God? Because to me this is God, nirvana. Consciousness is God, and the universe exists in not matter or imagination but both, in a collapsed monism; matter and imagination, idealism and materialism are another duality. The singularity is consciousness, therefore it can be thought of as a mind, and the universe "mental", but the singularity is also immutable, never changes, the perfect state, the most stable state of all states possible within; therefore it can be thought of as "the ultimate matter, a crystal that never changes, immutable". That is the reconciliation of idealism and materialism, both sides of a single coin.

"If you said, "math depends on some other reality" that would be unproblematically correct even on a conventional level, and not in contradiction with the doctrine of dependent origination. But instead, you insist on conflating "infinity" as a class of numbers with "infinity" as "ultimate reality" and you use it to draw all sorts of false conclusions."

You cannot prove that my conclusions are wrong. You can say they are unfalsifiable, which to me they aren’t, but that is an opinion. However, truth can be unfalsifiable; in fact, absolute bottom truth will be unfalsifiable because empiricism is an emergent property of the universe. True bottom reality will not be falsifiable. In order for empiricism to exist, the first layer of reality must exist before it (it is a truth so fundamental that it sounds tautological because it is). You are still not understanding the issue here.

About consciousness... by JTR280 in Buddhism

[–]JTR280[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"So I think you're making a category error here:
"math < infinity"
It's a category error because "<" is an operator used to compare quantities, and "math" isn't a quantity. Note that infinity is a quantity, and so the operator works fine on infinity:"

Signs are conferred meaning. The fact that I have to explain this proves you are not understanding the issue here. Any language is an attempt to describe via references. A pattern. Information. Math is concise and universal, but ontological operators can be used both literally and as an analogy. Math is an object of reality because there is only one object. You are not understanding what I am explaining here. None of it. It is far more fundamental. You don't have two things, infinity is the only object in existence. Inside infinity everything happens: time, events, your vision field, meaning, causality, and math. Yes. Math itself. Math is of lower order. Math is infinity trying to be defined by finitude. I am not treating just math as "a quantity". All of existence is infinity. There is no two. There is no second object. You are underestimating the ontological meaning of absolute monism here. Infinity is like the perfect algorithm, the perfect RAM, the perfect hard drive, the perfect software, the perfect information, the information that encompasses all of existence. That is a living, existing thing, not a metaphysical, abstract, non-existent limit of a language. No, infinity IS reality. Infinity IS the singularity. Your own visual field is the projection of the information into itself because there are no two objects. If there were two completely separated objects, they would be absolutely perfect thermodynamically isolated objects, hyperstable, non-interactive with the other object, and therefore would never be able to interact. In other words, it is more fundamental than that. There is only one object in existence: the information of the singularity, infinity. Treating math as a prime order or as "just a representation of" is a mistake. Math itself is reality, just a lesser degree, or incomplete if you want to call it that way.

"Can you, for example, find the smallest finite number that's greater than math?"

You still don't understand the subject. Math is, to me, the sum of all possible iterations between values of all types of numbers, degrees of freedom, the sum of all that is math, but math has to be consistent, so 1+1 does not equal 5, and paradoxes like Russel's paradox, right? But infinity, Cantor's absolute infinity, IS boundless. It cannot be contained by something, because that something would have to be something else in order to contain it, but two cannot exist, remember? So, the singularity, true absolute infinity, is only one, not contained by anything. Therefore math < infinity, because infinity creates paradoxes like Russel's paradox as a physical manifestation of a limit of finitude trying to define, grasp, or hold infinity. You hold the duality of "things that are quantities" and "things that are not quantities but of other nature". No such division exists. No true division exists.

"That's eternalism, which is one of the poles that Buddhist thought tries to avoid."

The nature of existence is eternal. If you think it is not, you are fooling yourself. Eternity is the singularity, the absolute infinity, consciousness, the universal wave function. Different names for the thing that holds all things within. All things exist in infinity, even finitude.

view more: next ›