Carleas wrote
This makes sense: inverted sets where ontic/ontological thought processes relate to the ideal(simplified ad infinitude) and real (enriched-for lack of a better word) are interpreted on basis of inverse, exclusive logic).
However this is only a simulated inversion, because conceptually it is impossible to de-associate completely , one type of set from another.
You are a YES man, this I like.
Just had a horrific realization that could be irrelevent, or possibly relevant.
If this simulation of ours has no grand design, or it’s design is by a grandiose sadist…
We (consciousness) could be like the file browser, wading through millions of aeons of garbage data to get to the good stuff. Essentially (consciousness) is what experiences the data sorting, and we must be conscious of the tedium of the data process before we experience any sort of true good stuff (buddhist meditation and nirvana not good stuff, just people not knowing any better.)
You guys are wasting your memory on “factoids” and unnecessary stuff which makes you feel secure, which is slowing you down with all sorts of technical nonsensery. Catch up please!
Harley dear, go back to the pudding project you are on. We are currently unveiling the fabric of the illusion of Gotham City.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYSNUL2hrQM[/youtube]
Carleas, re:Maniac’s critique, his notion of not being to simulate while within the simulation, may or may not have a probability value, however minimum or maximum. Here, it is indeterminate.
It may be said that even apart from this, an ideally maximum may at a certain stage arrive at the total separation of the absolute ideal from the real-simulation, where these seem not to belong to each other, as intersecting sets.
But that is not possible on ground of hypothetical logic of resemblance theory as Wittgenstein etc although would suggest, and the grounding of regressive identification would result in absolutism.
So a charge can be made here by scepters, that this is nothing else then the exposition of Anselm’s tautology.
But is it so? Not if the vision of worlds upon/inside of-other worlds/minds have been visualized as turtles upon the back of turtles.
Perpetual and variable inclusion upwards-simplification/entropy and downwards, increasing redundancy may occur in simultaneous process at different overlapping levels may be a way to look at Carleas’ inquiry on disintegrative and integrative processes.
Integration is not a priori to differentiation, because of the idea of apparent relative simulations. In fact disintegration may in fact be the result of a total rupture of the limits involved.
Total rupture is evident in nature in both the very large and very small elements. The transformative forces of both : atomic and astrophysical objects prove this notion. However absolute simulation beyond the very minimal atomic particles, and the largest possible come upon new limits, such as the horizon after the loss of light in a black hole, where even light can not escape the singularity.
That does not mean , however, that there is no ‘beyond’ that limit.
Are you saying that Harley is as dumb or dumber as the dodo men around her? 
=D>
Jerky, I think I have it. In my book, I define a simulation as having 3 key requirements.
A. A simulation is only a simulation if it can be influenced by a master controller.
Influenced defined as one or all of these things:
- Generated/spawned by the master controller (consciously or unconsciously, procedurally or artistically.)
- TImeless (infinite) and not spawned, but hijacked by a master controller (master controller being an entity which can override the causality of the simulation. For instance, Imagination is an example of this phenomenon. Day-light living is not, as the experiencer does not percieve itself to have the capacity to fully master or dominate it’s affecting components.)
- An deluded master, who has (or had) absolute control over their reality, but has deluded themselves to believe reality dominating them, wiping their knowledge of this as part of their pre-devised entertainment plan.
B. A simulation is only a simulation only if the consciousness contained within has the possibility of exiting the simulation.
C. A simulation is only a simulation if it mimics the original world it was spawned from. Otherwise, it is not a simulation, but a virtual reality, game, or alternate world.
She may be more enlightened than bats (A cis white male who doesn’t ever check his privilege) but she will never be on the same level as joker.
Harley who? I used to love motorcycles after my last horrendous spill out.
Fact of the matter is a long time ago my uncle made the fatal mistake to rev his harley. She went in full reverse, shattering his leg bones. But to this day he has healed, and he has walked more miles than many men.
Ultimate: B and C are interesting, and commendable. A , a master simulator is problematic, and questionable, for I can not draw the analogy between a computer programmer on higher levels of the sort at hand.
To B and C, will try, after more carefully re-reading it.
Can relate to that
The degree of complexity … the very foundation of consciousness. The games that you suggest are extremely simple minded relative to our lives. The effort to simulate gets exponentially more difficult as the complexity grows. And there is a physical limit as to how complex anything can get…
Within ANY world.
“You can fool some of the people all of the time. And you can fool all of the people some of the time. But you can’t fool all of the people all of the time” … merely because of the complexity issues.
Never mind. Pudding looks more hopeful.
These are non problems, because mimicry relies on a prior model, and in that sense, it has to stay within another simulation.
Getting out of that simulation has practical applications in prior differentiations of each models such as in those dealing with escape velocity in future space travel.
Space travel? You all think too small.
If that’s thinking small, what’s thinking big?
I would like to “meet” the Godhead and start a dialogue where there is no guessing about our exchange of information on my part. During which I would ask questions that plague his creations in this dimension and receive unquestionable answers so those inquiries could be laid to rest. Then I would like a tour of the Godhead’s mind. For starters that is, a complete tour.
Get in touch with your higher sense, by praying to IT, conversing with IT, in private, or in a place built for IT, or even in public places, overcoming the inquiring glances of those who think talking to your self is not quite right. Do zazen, yoga, revisit your private spaces, do drugs and drink, but deprink only in private.
All of those will help you to guide you to attain sartorial, climbing the ladder to it incrementally, reach that which is possible for a very select few to attain immediately.
Oh, and be kind to animals, and don’t feel guilty about eating them. It is not their fault, so it should not be yours, either.
And most of all don’t blame IT, who or what made all of this possible.
Because they all want IT. It can’t refuse.