For further deep discussion on Eternal Recurrence

@ProfessorX
The most basic argument against the idea that mathematics would be able to describe the totality of being is that it can not describe itself.

One may presume that, in mapping all the particles and quasi particles and possibilities of quasi particles and the related uncertainties, it would describe a brain producing mathematics - but this is of course such a vast presumption including so many assumptions and ridiculous conjectures that it fails even just on being too bloated to even relate to reality.

We must seek it in what we know of mathematics now, and what we may reasonably suspect it may become capable of based om what we know of it now. So we must look at the terms of mathematics itself, the system itself (in so far as it even is one coherent system), and see if from these we can derive math as a phenomenon. I don’t see any way in which it can even approach this task, but maybe you can.

Do you agree that this would be required for us to conjecture that mathematics might describe the entirety of being? Or would you take the path of the assumption that mathematics could describe every possible quasi particle and its uncertainties so as to come to predict itself?

I assume that you will say that mathematics is not merely a de-/prescription (model), but that the form in which we use it, namely as a model, is a derivative of its actual form which is simply the way existence operates.

I object first of all on the simple grounds that I can only know of mathematics that it is a model,
and the limits implied herein are demonstrated or strongly suggested by the diverging of paths of applied mathematics in recent centuries. That is to say, the divergence of different mathematical models of reality. (QM and GR to be specific)

You might object that there just needs to be invented (or disclosed) a new higher mathematics which integrates the two. But of course one needs to do this in order to prove that it can be done, and to merely assume that it can be done does not satisfy the mathematical ethos itself.

///

There are inconsistencies in QM mathematics as a result of which the Planck minimum has been introduced. The inconsistency is that the hypothesized size of the point of contact between waveforms had been set as zero, but it still holds the energy that gives its its substance/meaning, namely the change of energy between one state and the next. So, you get infinite energy.

This of course did not apply to reality so a few artifices were brought into being to limit the size of the contact point (the Planck length is one of these artifices), but also phycisits will simply replace the infinite values that follow from the model with finite values so the math does not collapse.

So on this level, math is just kind of a indication parts of which are pertinently false, but are still required to make sense of the model.

Again you can say: but this is imperfect math. Perfect math will describe everything correctly.
Then again, on what is this assumption of the possibility of a perfect comprehensive math based? To be it seems based on the charm that mathematics holds; the glorious appearance of its power. Not in its manifest power. Which is still pretty glorious, admittedly, especially in in cases such as this:

This is awesome.
Im not trying to pretend I don’t respect mathematical cosmology.
But that is still a far cry from mathematical ontology, on which a comprehensive, exhaustively detailed mathematical ‘full truth’ would have to be grounded.

Concluding, the points that were made about ethics are important.
The search after their ground is the topic of Heidegger, relates to his idea of primordial truth as a clearing (aletheia - where revealing something always conceals something else), within which factual/concrete truth is possible. Mathematics in this view is an attempt to standardize the clearing. Indeed as a physicists looks at a quantum field, the mathematics he uses has already determined how this field is allowed to appear.

Still math as a form of ontological tyranny is if not the way we make sense of things most powerfully and consequentially, at least up there and it’s magnificent if you’re able to conceive of a mathematical universe in any real way.

Conversation with a friend recently put me on to Finsler geometry, which claims to explain the acceleration of cosmic expansion without the need for positing dark energy, apparently because of how it defines points of force in terms of their anisotropy, degrees and shapes of selectivity of responses, like 4D selfvaluing. Apparently the validity of this guys thoughts is not undisputed though:

This is about some specific case I don’t know, but if Finsler is principally refusing to posit the possibility of closure to the system because this would violate its grounding logic (no idea if this is the case), this could speak to its realism.

This is wrong imo, the MWI interpretation splits the proposed universal MW wavefunction into branches, but we have no idea whether the universal MW wavefunction actually exists or not. The Cheshire Cat splits, or appears to split, a wavefunction of a particle within one of the branches of the MWI, and then recombines them. Path A and Path B are parts of the same reality (and the “split” parts of the particle’s wavefunction retain their entanglement, unlike the standard MWI’s branches).

Unlike Nietzsche, I get zero life motivation from the idea of ER. I don’t think ER is the case because I see it as inherently illogical, but even if it’s the case, we would’t carry our memories over, so imo it would be irrelevant to how we live our lives, one could just forget about it altogether.

What if someone thinks that only some beings have this Will to Power, and that “universally” there may not be any objective value to the Will to Power?

That’s not how will to power works. It’s not beings that have it.

But even Fxd Destiny (just a nickname I have for her) doesn’t really get it.

I skipped Nietzsche, how does it work then? Can’t say I’ve ever encountered it, can’t think of anything.

In a way, F Dest. was trying to do the same, find the will to power in the beings, the shadow of the Sun. Objectivize the panorama, in the sense of finding objects. Undoing everything that was smart about it to begin with.

Well, “smart.” I mean, Nietzsche.

Oh, then in that case, I don’t know. If you skipped him, it’s probably for a reason.

Oh dear. Now they’re doing the Will to Power.

It says there are all these different camps on how to interpret this Will to Power:

  • the Metaphysical / Cosmic Interpretation
  • the Psychological Interpretation
  • the Political / Domination Interpretation
  • the Existential / Self-Overcoming Interpretation
  • the Naturalistic / Biological Interpretation
  • the Anti-Systematic Interpretation

Looks like we can interpret him any way we want. I guess my interpretation would be that Nietzsche was this emo/edgelord guy who was taken a bit too seriously.

WTP theory is the spiritualisation of the feeling of power
 trying to ground ambition in some metaphysical principle so that it can be imagined as something more than brute force. But there is no Will in Democritus’s swirling atoms, no Will behind Schopenhauer’s blind suffering, no Will in the man going to the frig to get a soda.

‘Will’ is the thought that springs from the immediate experience of the illusion of freewill, more or less. From this original error, we then project and spread Will onto everything else; history as a guided process of improvement, god as the great ‘intender’, the designer, the Will behind everything that exists, etc.

Nietzsche looks a lot like Kant to me in this regard, I think Kant modeled his transcendental idealism philosophy a lot after how his own autistic mind worked, without realizing this. Nietzsche modeled this Will to Power a lot after his own personal psychological will to power, without realizing this. They both missed the part that these things may be a lot less universal than they thought.

Was this really the big Reveal???

I thought it happend years ago. But I can feel the sentiments. So sad.

Anyway given all that, it makes a bit of sense that you’d think there is way to ‘really get’ it - that the way you get it is ‘da’ wey - which kinda contradicts what you think you get about it and I don’t, doesn’t it?

We can climb that ladder into infinity of course.

Sigh

Where that math wiz now.

What?!?

By the way, 1000% better at math than you.

But what is it that drives you to pick one soda over another?

Taste, right? Preference and so on. What’s it that makes people prefer themselves if they think they have will? What’s making this ideas of ‘free will’ so tasty?

So maybe there’s no will, sure. OIbjectively. Nietzschje did not say it exists objectively, he says “MY world is a monster of energy” and he makes that world compelling. That’s the will to power. He gives it you you to defeat it.

So you use free will and then reject it. But don’t even believe at all in free will I don’t even understand what it should be free from. I jusrt believe I prefer one soda over the next. "I’ may not exist, but the preference still does. Why? Im built that way sure. But how did one atom stick to another and not to the next?

Infiite regredss into mindless bickering over words. Still how do you defeat the will to powerfeeling in someone who doesnt believein free will? I know, say I secretly do believe in free will. But then I can say but its your will tio power that makes you imagine that so you can trump me.

“words words words.
swords swords swords” - Mr Math

Who, you?

Or the mathematician? If the latter yes. If you, well o goodie, teach me something so-craytes.

Guess you meant the mathematician.

I guess I can just only now sit against this beautiful tree and mourn. Or let me climb back up in it for a second.

I want to understand this even if it’s an error.
I have hope socrates you were referring to yourself with te 1000 percents so you can explain.

So again there must be a criterion of some sort, for the concept of amplitude here to have any meaning, X agreed with this. Something which keeps the universe from being only one big chunk of nano-goo because of its pure relativity. Is this still math?