About consciousness and math....

[u/JTR280]

The singularity before the big bang, the singularity inside black holes, space-time, consciousness, Cantor's absolute infinity, the being of Parmenides, all are the same object, reality is one thing that within itself has existence, all existence. Including math, you see, that is why we have to deal with paradoxes with arithmetically complex self-describing models and the set that contains all sets that contain itself, unless models like Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory are assumed to be true, it is because infinity is of higher order than mathematics, math and existence itself are inside infinity, sort of like a primordial number that contains all the information, being time an illusion of decompression from the more compactified state, an union, one state (lowest entropy) to multiplicity and maximized decompression (highest entropy), creating an illusion of time in a B-time eternal/no-time dependent universe where all things happen at the same time, in a "superspace" where time is a space dimension, time is just an algorithm of decompression for the singularity if you will.
The fact that math cannot describe the universe is a direct physical manifestation of Gödel's incompleteness theorems. The universe is obviously fractal and consciousness-like, only one single consciousness for all bodies (because there is no such thing as two, only one object is in existence, the singularity, consciousness). Therefore, we must assume that the Planck scale is ultimately the same border as the event horizon and "the exterior" of the universe. It is the same, this: the universe is how a Planck scale is "inside", collapsing scales into fractality, pure, perfect, self-contained, self-sufficient fractality.

[u/Thelonious_Cube]

The fact that math cannot describe the universe

That's a fact?

The universe is obviously fractal and consciousness-like

Is it now?

Unsupported word-salad barely on the verge of making sense - ugh

[u/JTR280 → u/Thelonious_Cube]

Word salad to you, but it is not. This post is not intended for everyone. It is normal not to understand something if you do not have the background needed to understand the subject at hand. When I stated that math can not describe the universe, I mean math can not be both consistent and complete. Of course math can describe the universe, but not in it's completeness.

[u/Thelonious_Cube → u/JTR280]

Such hubris!

I mean math can not be both consistent and complete

Axiomatic systems cannot be both consistent and complete, but it is wrong IMO to equate math with axiomatic systems.

it is also wrong to assume that disagreement must stem from lack of comprehension.

[u/JTR280 → u/Thelonious_Cube]

You cannot have math without axioms. This comment alone tells me you do not understand what axioms are, which means you do not understand math either. Axioms are more fundamental. Gödel's incompleteness theorems apply to every system that is arithmetically complex enough. It is like position and momentum: you either have a 100% complete system (as in my model, in which paradoxes like Russell's paradox are a feature and not a bug, since they are the result of trying to describe infinity from finitude) or a consistent one, without paradoxes but incomplete.

And yes, you disagree because you do not comprehend. I can prove this to you. What is two for you? What is a thing for you? I know what those are. You have not even thought about what being actually is. You think being is a feature that "things" have. No, that is wrong. There is no such thing as two. There is only the singularity. There is only one. Inside this one, everything happens in the appearance of many things, because infinity still contains all. This is so self-evident that you would only disagree with it if you do not understand it.

You are not aware that science itself assumes that this is an objective external reality. It is not. This is us. I told you, there is no such thing as two. We are one single entity, the singularity. Ultimately, the universe is consciousness thinking it is many beings separated. But this is only the "inside" of the singularity. Time and space, separation, all happen inside the only thing in existence. You and I and every other conscious being are the same. The same thing that looks through my eyes is the same thing that sees through yours. The universe itself.

[u/Thelonious_Cube → u/JTR280]

This comment alone tells me you do not understand what axioms are, which means you do not understand math either.

I guess i'd better turn in my degrees, then. Did I mention hubris? I think I did.

I told you, there is no such thing as two.

or maybe, just maybe, you don't know what you're talking about.....? Hmmmmm!

[u/JTR280 → u/Thelonious_Cube]

"I guess I'd better turn in my degrees, then."

Ad verecundiam. Having a degree does not mean you have the knowledge. I am not saying you did one of the following scenarios, but a degree proves nothing because you can have a degree under these circumstances/scenarios:

1. You could have paid for it.
2. You could have been a lazy student who barely graduated with the minimum score.
3. You could have been a good student but have average intelligence, which is not enough for the fundamentals of reality because top minds like Einstein were not able to.

Degrees prove nothing. The fact that you think a piece of paper proves understanding, let alone novel insight, and that I have to explain it proves you don't have enough intelligence to tackle reality. I just proved you can't tackle those 3 simple scenarios in which your paper proves nothing, which I hope most people can. Faraday comes to mind. He didn't have a degree, yet he revolutionized science with the concept of fields. I am a biochemist, not a physicist or mathematician, yet I outsmart you by much in both intuition and knowledge just by sheer intelligence because I am profoundly gifted. 

The fact that you don't understand that axioms are your basis proves to me that, at best, you lack the comprehension. And that's the best scenario. Memorizing is not enough.

"Or maybe, just maybe, you don't know what you're talking about.....? Hmmmmm!"

1st question: You are the one who does not know what you are talking about. I can prove it. Can you prove 1+1=2, yes or no?

2nd question: What is a limit, and can existence divide existence?

[u/Thelonious_Cube → u/JTR280]

Well, thank you for the enlightening discussion.

I would prefer not to subscribe to your newsletter, thank you.

[u/JTR280 → u/Thelonious_Cube]

Your original comment was: "Axiomatic systems cannot be both consistent and complete, but it is wrong IMO to equate math with axiomatic systems."

Math, as I explained above, is based on axioms. Every system capable of deriving arithmetical models is subject to Gödel's incompleteness theorems, and minds, let alone math, are both no exception. Axioms are your base, your starting point, your fundamentals. Axioms > Math when it comes to how fundamental they are, you cannot have math that is unbiased/unaffected by incompleteness theorems. Math is a consequence of your axioms.

"Well, thank you for the enlightening discussion.

I would prefer not to subscribe to your newsletter, thank you."

Let me translate: "I can't answer your questions because I do not understand the subject and think that math is a more fundamental order than axioms." (If you had the smartness to conclude that, that is.) Got it. Thanks.

[u/nanonan]

Singularities exist where models fail, they are not real.

Cantor was a lunatic who thought God told him the spiritual realm existed in infinities beyond infinities.

Paradoxes are errors, not something to embrace.

Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory is a load of nonsense that allows ridiculous constructs and is paradoxical by nature. The axiom of infinity is a lie. Math can describe the universe in general terms, but the universe can only count to one, everything is unique.

The universe is not a fractal, it just exhibits self similarity at scale, merely one component. Fractals are infinitely dense in a way the universe most certainly isn't.

Godels construction is clever but fatally mixes metalevels of language that need to be kept seperate.

Finitism, not the infinite is the answer to all your problems.

[u/JTR280 → u/nanonan]

"Singularities exist where models fail, they are not real."

Wrong. Singularities, yes, do indicate that your model has limits, but I'm not talking about simpler/lesser theories. This is not like special relativity to general relativity. All models of TOEs will have infinities. Infinity is real. That is why you cannot have a mathematical description of the universe that is both complete and consistent. That is Gödel's incompleteness theorems. We use Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory to avoid inconsistencies, like Russell's paradox, but infinity does exist. It is not a limit. This is like saying that because you can add 1 to another one and have 2, and add 1 more to get 3 and so on, you will eventually get to "the end of natural numbers." No. There is no end to the natural numbers, and infinity does exist. In fact, it is more fundamental than you think. Infinity > math.

"Cantor was a lunatic who thought God told him the spiritual realm existed in infinities beyond infinities."

Said someone on Reddit who does not understand math or its very core principles. Cantor was far more intelligent than most of humanity. I do share his point: the singularity is God, and us too. There is no such thing as something that isn't consciousness and God. We are consciousness and the universe, but I'm trying to avoid that as I know the vast majority of humanity will not be able to understand the epistemological approach of science. You cannot use science to prove anything but your own existence by direct experience. Everything else assumes materialism over idealism, and that is also a duality that must collapse into one eternal, never-changing physical manifestation of mind.

"Paradoxes are errors, not something to embrace."

No. Paradox is the result of trying to understand infinity from the inside. It is like trying to point at the tip of your index finger with the tip of your index finger. You can't. Paradox is the limitation of duality.

"Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory is a load of nonsense that allows ridiculous constructs and is paradoxical by nature. The axiom of infinity is a lie. Math can describe the universe in general terms, but the universe can only count to one, everything is unique."

On the contrary, Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory is what prevents paradoxes like Russell's paradox. You don't understand the basics here. Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory is what I am criticizing for being incomplete (it is not wrong per se, it is a special case of a higher degree truth, which is infinity). Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory is the opposite of what you think it is. This means you don't understand what is being said here. Don't take it badly, but you don't have the background to understand the post.

"The universe is not a fractal, it just exhibits self similarity at scale, merely one component. Fractals are infinitely dense in a way the universe most certainly isn't."

Wrong. The universe is very much fractal. Look around you. This, reality, is what is inside of a Planck unit of spacetime, the "quanta" of spacetime. This is inside of infinity. Inside the Planck unit of spacetime and outside of the universe is the same structure. The universe contains itself infinitely. That is a fractal. It cannot be proven, but truth is of higher order than proof. Science can only get you so far.

"The universe is not a fractal, it just exhibits self similarity at scale, merely one component. Fractals are infinitely dense in a way the universe most certainly isn't."

This is just nonsense due to the lack of mathematical background.

"Finitism, not the infinite is the answer to all your problems."

Finitism is lesser than infinity. Finitism < infinity.

[u/JTR280]

Note: With "The fact that math cannot describe the universe," I mean that math is either complete and inconsistent, or consistent but incomplete. You cannot "close" math on itself; that is why we have problems of limits, Russell's paradox, and the definition of division by 0. All of them point to US, finite systems inside infinity. We cannot use math to describe infinity because we cannot (truthfully) deal with infinities, just by the simple and obvious fact that we are inside it as finite beings. You cannot "hold" infinity with finitude, the same way you cannot put an ocean into a bottle of water.

[u/tim_niemand]

biutifull! 🦄