If you never accept analytical, eternal, infallible, a priori reasoning alone - and instead only trust empirical data (which is ipso facto, by nature, second-hand always) i.e. what can be measured - then you can never be convinced of a wholly truly rationalist worldview.
First off, this is to discuss the structure and nature of reality itself (where everything, not just matter and spatiotemporal interactions) originates from.
This entire subject area is monumental and spans far more than is usually possible to convey, but I will attempt to provide an overview.
Mike Hockney's books (The God Series) fully and completely lay out this ontological mathematical philosophy (it's categorized as mathematical rational idealism, as opposed to empiricism or non-mathematical conceptions of reality).
A number of key points are central to this distinction between rationalism versus empiricism. One really interesting and central one is whether or not the universe is originated by randomness (what most scientists today call the "indeterminable", "indeterminate" wavefunction collapse). Is the universe random? How can true randomness ever even be calculated?
So, scientists who accept the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics (practically all of them) literally believe/think that reality is random, and ALL of our thoughts and feelings, moment to moment, millisecond to millisecond, are, ipso facto (by that very nature) all decided by a cosmic randomness mathematical equation (or some other source of this randomness or "indeterminable" whatever, ill-defined as it is meant to be) and we have totally zero free will or choice in the matter. This seems absurd.
On the other hand, rationalists of Mike Hockney's stripe would say that a universe originated through randomness would first have to be based on something that could be defined - WHAT would this reality be, hence how would it function? It doesn't just originate all things (matter, interactions) through some ill-defined, undefinable mechanisms/rules. That's nonsense. It can't even be defined, for starters, so how could this possibly furnish the BASIS of our entire reality and what comes out of it? If something cannot be defined, then it can rationally ipso facto (by that very nature) be ruled out because it therefore by definition cannot have a mechanism; it can't come about.
So then the question is - is there a type of something we simply can't understand yet, which is the true basis and originator of reality? If something like this was true, then why would it be too complex for us to understand? How would that be guaranteed? And wouldn't base reality be simple in its conceptual structure, given that a lot of minds have to be using the same default (simpler) template to produce a resulting more complex behaviour?
One of my "science-minded" friends said that it's strange how the universe always obeys its own rules, and isn't a chaos.
What Sapolsky says here ([45:45 - 49:21] youtube.com/watch?v=_njf8jwEGRo&t=45m45s) about "systems" in reality being unintelligible unless you have the data at each previous step for what you want to know.. is complete unsubstantiated bunk and mere speculation. This is because, there is no reason why reality itself does not involve thinking as part of its basis (think how it would be possible to have thoughts in a type of reality that didn't have an inherent built-in support for this) and hence, there is no reason why reality cannot allow for thoughts to model highly abstract, nonlinear functions of (again, simply) pure analytical mathematics in a zero-dimensional domain. Sapolsky at 45:00 - 45:15 there talks about understanding clocks versus clouds, but he totally misses the point because it's not randomness and nonlinearity which is somehow "added" by reality and missed by the mind; but it's a difference in types of cognition and mental processing (intuition provides nonlinear, unconscious glimpses of interconnections between things in our world and our own minds; whereas conscious human thought is much slower, more reductive and logically based, and operates in a more linear manner).
At 1:07:26 Sapolsky then says that we get noise in complex systems which cannot be understood. However, it's only happening at the microcosmic level. In everyday reality, abstractions that we are generally accurate at modelling are essential (stereotypes; spatial reference frames and hand-to-eye coordination; colors and shapes; how we understand what is being done by people).. none of this is impacted in an overarching way by minute, miniscule variations at the atomic level and so on. In fact, a universe full of unconscious minds would naturally produce such unconscious free will (choices which are seemingly random to an observer who can't fully model the free choices of other minds that constitute a universal grid of souls that control moving points/atoms) at the microscopic level. The macroscopic level, however, would in such a universe be ipso facto rational, ordered and consistent. That is the answer (once you've read The God Series by Hockney) to why the universe both "obeys its own rules" and also offers, ultimately, interactions that are undefinable or unpredictable ahead of time given any one state of the entire universe. We can't ever intuit or grasp the next actions/choices of other minds because they are fully enclosed agents of causation (however, given our knowledge of variables, we can guess the overarching patterns, the abstract models, of how people will behave).
Causation is another interesting one. Where does causation come from? Scientists with the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics state that causation comes from an "indeterminate", "indeterminable" cosmic wavefunction collapse. But it's not possible for causation to come from one source - be it in the middle of the spatial universe of matter, or from black holes, or from "indeterminacy" or whatever ill-defined thing you want to conjure up. This is because causation cannot ever conceivably be applied to every other base something-else in the universe. If that were possible, then why wouldn't it be possible for every node and atom of the universe to similarly influence everything else at a moment's notice? How would that ever be ordered consistently (or inconsistently)? It simply cannot ever arise. It cannot happen as the underlying forming structure of reality itself. Whatever happens has to be based on a totally and completely, genuine, thorough, uniform set of rules for every node (atom or mind depending on your worldview) in the universe. Each mind must have total free will and total control over what it does. This is because there can categorically be no overlap between free will and a "universal causation mechanism law". If it was so, it would have to be defined and to define it would contravene the exact mechanism of having either any free will at all or having total agency imposed on you by randomness (because neither brings us to a resolution and a split between the two; there is in fact nothing to differentiate here, because there is no true agency of any mind, and thus there is nothing to decide, and thus nothing to define or be defined at all).
This type of exploration is the analytical, a priori, eternal, infallible, inarguable deductive reasoning about how base reality MUST be. Not "how it is currently" or "how it seems in our limited capacity of data and experiments to be behaving", but the reductive, analytical, inarguable and invariable form of base reality.
So, causation must come from all minds, and also, it actually must be allowed to come at different speeds (given different grades of mental evolution). Minds simply share a mathematical, analytical language (sinusoidal zero-dimensional mathematics where waves overlap to produce thoughts, just as in music creation software) which simply appears to be "physical" and "real" and "concrete". However in reality it's completely buzzing at the atomic level and below with the frenzied unconscious acts of lower life (similar to how insects seem to us).
pleb tier girls, not even gonna save tbh. Also not reading, shit taste in girls is equal with shit reasoning.
Brandon Nguyen
In reality, what is happening all the time is that minds are recalculating their contribution to the cosmic wavefunction collapse, and submitting it along with every other mind, in concert. We unconsciously are converting back and forth between zero-dimensional mathematics (sinusoidal waves overlapped together) and spatiotemporal mathematics in our 3d time-based interactions in our world. This means that the mind is mapped for time as well as space, even though the mind sits outside of time and space, in eternity. Fourier mathematics allows the conversion of signals (pure frequency in the zero-dimensional frequency domain) to spacetime forms of shape and colour, and back again. These must be interchangeable and they must be the basis of how we interact with the physical/spatiotemporal domain, because otherwise there would be no inherent means to do so and there would be an impossible infinite dependency link chain to resolve (no roundabout methods of conversion would ever cut it). Minds have to inherently unconsciously "understand" how to convert signals using Fourier mathematics, and there is no substitute. Minds are either capable of grasping it totally, or they are not (being able to "learn" it would constitute not being able to learn it because there would be no basis upon which to cross such a categorical gap embedded in base reality), and so it's simply built into reality and also our bodies (like our eardrums and eyes). All of our thoughts are either simplistic or complex, and always compatible between zero-dimensional frequency and spacetime domains, rather than being convertible or not. Simpler thoughts are often found at the very lower end (atoms buzzing around unpredictably, controlled by the lowest forms of mental life in the universe).
If you think causation can come from one source and propagate to all the atoms or minds in the universe - then how is this form of causation restricted? Why doesn't the universe explode (or implode) and come back again? Why don't any number of things happen, like the ideal utopian world coming to life before our eyes? It's simply because, such a mechanism is impossible and is not actually happening. There is no such thing as a randomness (or "indeterminate") wavefunction collapse that magically makes sure the universe doesn't implode right now. That's because, similar to the universe exploding and coming back again - there are no possible actual definable meanings or outcomes that can be defined with such a poor reference space. It cannot mean anything to affect the entire universe in a way that does not inherently relate to one mind (or node or atom).
Okay you cant go wrong with ledamonsterbunny. Ill read but only this one post
Noah White
In reality, all that is happening (at the higher and lower ends of life) is minds are each trying to maximize their power insofar as they understand and grasp (consciously or unconsciously) their world and their interaction with it. That's all there needs to be. Anything more than that (an "indeterminable" wavefunction collapse) actually cannot be defined and cannot have bias/favouritism towards anything and as such, cannot execute; cannot have a mechanism. There is nothing to do or choose. There is literally rationally nothing to decide, by definition. There is nothing to operate on. Minds, by contrast, always have an agenda (unconscious or conscious) and they are always striving towards their goals. No cosmic wavefunction collapse, and no Abrahamic skydaddy, are ever in the picture orchestrating things for some unknowable/unintelligible reason. Such a thing is pure bunk and nonsense, because it is by definition an impossible resolution of which causes or individuals to champion and favor (there are no possible rational criteria to appeal to, because none would appeal or apply for some mechanism completely detached from the world "below").
So - how about there being zero evidence of a universe of minds, separate from the domain of matter?
There is precisely zero eternal inarguable proof that the universe is random or "indeterminate" as scientists think, or that the material spatiotemporal domain is concrete and all-encompassing as regards basis reality (a universe of mind actually underpins the universe of matter and time).
The double slit experiment shows that particles always behave like waves; this is because waves literally analytically, mathematically and eternally define how particles behave. If atoms come from waves, then where do waves come from? What are they made of? What could randomness/"indeterminacy" possibly be made of? The only answer, and the ultimate answer which has been wholly reduced to the simplest possible structure and form of reality itself, is that individual sinusoids are basis concepts by which we can construct information (matter/activity and frequency/thoughts) and by this nature, they are the ultimate irreducible parts of existence's information. Minds are the ultimate irreducible nodes (causation without prior causation; uncaused causes) of all possible existence. This must come under an umbrella of what is eternally, inarguably, infallibly true. It must always be true, and it must apply outside of space and time.
Empirical science has no such constraints on what its definitions are to be. Rationalism a la Mike Hockney's The God Series is about investigating what reality must be, eternally, analytically, irrefutably.
So, Euler's Formula. What's so special about that? How exactly does Euler's Formula in any way mean anything significant about reality or minds/souls?
Euler's Formula is special because it literally mathematically expresses/defines the mathematical space upon which all possible numbers of the entirety of reality can interact. It gives a mathematical reference space which shows us how each number maps to all the other numbers. Without this, you wouldn't be able to understand intuitively how real and imaginary numbers can be converted between one another (it would be another thing left vague so you assume they weren't intrinsically related), and neither would you understand how the scale of real verus imaginary numbers in their conversion is actually irrelevant. The simplicity and elegance of it is profound. This is because we are now talking about how ontological mathematical waves compounded together overlapped (i.e. thoughts) can be convertible to spatiotemporal mathematics, such as in the case of a mind piloting a body.
If the PSR (the Principle of Sufficient Reason) isn't at the root of reality and its origins, how is it that analytical a priori reason, when properly formed, is able to illuminate so much of what reality must be? How, eternally and consistently, would a cosmic randomness function ("indeterminacy") provision rational consistency and order everywhere (as the mind reasons, thinks and compares) when it doesn't need to? How would order come about if this wasn't literally necessitated at the very basis of all possible existence itself? Why is there something rather than nothing? There's too many consistencies to ignore them. As soon as you put your rational thinking cap on, you have to admit that all this order and consistency must be definable and must come from somewhere. That "answer" is Euler's Formula, as it's the closest we are going to get today (generally speaking) to understanding everything with a whole, unified, eternal/infallible/inarguable conception.
Some have said that science is a conspiracy against rational thought - given that scientists/physicists will only accept data and sensory analysis of what the universe of matter is revealing to us; and also given that scientists are not open to hard rational philosophical debate, particularly on the questions of randomness and causation and the PSR.
Empiricism is against the notion and conception of a mental universe underpinning the spatiotemporal domain. Hockney's rationalism embraces and defines it using reason and Euler's Formula. One is ignorant of a deeper basis reality and the other is not. Empirical data, measurements and studies (always limited and always poorly funded by the psychopathic financial-elitist system we have) will never reveal what reality must be, analytically, eternally, necessarily and invariably and inarguably. That's what a priori reason is in the business of investigating.
Ontological Mathematics offers a grand unified Theory of Everything that explains both science and spirituality through a wholly mathematical rational backing.
Hegel introduced the concept of thesis, antithesis and synthesis - the idea being, that every interaction we have with others offers an exchange which builds upon the last. This applies to ideas and ideations, political systems and societies, conceptual modellings of reality that fight it out in the world every day as people interact with the society at large and with individuals, and even conceptual understandings of reality itself. He was talking about the transience of the understanding we grasp along the way (the Becoming aspect of existence) but this bears no significance upon the Being aspect of existence, which must rationally be fixed. If it wasn't, and reality had no form - that doesn't even make sense enough to complete the sentence.
If you don't believe in an absolute truth or a true understanding of reality, then you would have to prove this.. and in doing so, would have to invoke a single encompassing true conception of reality.
It's true that we will always be refining our understanding and knowledge, and it's also true that no two minds will ever be referring to or conveying the exact same conceptual structure.. until such a point that that's actually possible. And given Ontological Mathematics' universe, that is eventually possible in the distant future.
Rational investigation like this involves the thorough, heavy and brutal examination of every little assumption and conceptual nook-and-cranny; and that's exactly what drives the dialectic towards its dialectical endpoint in the end (true full knowledge of existence and what's contingently the best current action to do). Conflating Becoming and Being is the issue. They are not one and the same. Reality has form, and it also has transient content. The content starts to increasingly reflect the overarching form and that's where philosophy, intellect and conceptual abstract long range thinking comes in. We certainly can know overarching patterns about the ultimate timeless nature of reality, irrespective of the entire current state of space and time in the universe. The difference and the key distinction is, the conception you carry of reality itself. We don't need to know the details! This is because of how thoughts are inbuilt with reality, hence they are directly scalable to different scenarios, models and problem sets/domains. That's why skills are transferrable between different domains of life. That's why some things help you get smarter at other things. There is no arbitrary barrier regarding thoughts. A thought that models basis reality must be a "legal" thought, possible to be formed along with all the others - if this wasn't true, there would have to be some mechanism, some explanation or arbitrary constraint, to deny us having thoughts that roughly model reality as it truly is.. there would have to be a means to prevent us from accessing or intuiting the informational modelling of reality irrespective of time and space. But since thoughts are devoid of time and space (they are pure frequency; pure math not existing in any certain place or time) this problem is avoided. In fact, it must categorically and necessarily be avoided if life is to take place at all (i.e. if this must sometimes be so).
btw OP if these are your geniune beliefs, and not just just a shitty copypaste. You need to get friends. They would've stopped this a long time ago. You've clearly intellectually isolated yourself, and built upon assumptions until you could no longer distinguish real from fake. it happens alot to friendless losers so dont feel bad. but get help
Owen Long
Good Lord you sound like an idiot. Work on yourself.
Xavier Parker
no u
Julian Brooks
Uber, come back to Stranglewank.
Brayden Robinson
>analytical, eternal, infallible, a priori
Okay, let me at least attempt to break this clusterfuck of philosophy diarrhea down.
First of all, define eternal, a priori, and infallible reasoning. It sounds contradictory and I've never heard them used before.
Second, yes everything is random, but only at the sub-atomic level, where the behaviors of particles are unpredictable by modern models of physics. The universe "follows it's rules," sure, but what that phrase actually means is that we've observed the universe acting in such a way that would suggest objects violating the Law of Conservation of Mass can't exist. They're not rules or laws in the traditional sense, but facts about how the universe behaves.
Third, you're focused too much on the "base" state of reality, completely discounting that understanding its nature is something far and beyond the capabilities of the human mind.
Just sit back and enjoy the ride dude.
And go outside.
John Bailey
user. I hope this isn't real. You need to leave your house. Take a walk and realize that none of this matters for one shit.
Leo Reyes
Yo OP you fucking suck. You posted a huge wall of trash that this man had the damned decency and insanity to actually sit down read, and respond to it. And youre just act like you didnt even see his response. fuck you OP, you insane lonely narcissist
