Impossible? Impassable may be that limit, variable it is, almost infinitely, which the act of revising methodology squares off with it’s apparent counterpart - the near absolution of space/time, multi universes are like stars that no longer exist but still twinkle, , proof that even near any event horizon, the minutest gradient can sustain the whole structural colossus.
when i say impossible i mean something like a “symbol that refers to a referent that it does not refer to”.
O
this part of the second sentence above should say this instead.
"if something is possible, then its necessarily obtains in some possible world. "
edited the post above this because i didnt include the word “not”
i feel like if faust were here, he’d tell us that we were just parsing language and that none of this mattered but then i would tell him that what i think im doing is that i am trying to explain how i think an epistemology machine works
You don’t understand modal logic at its base.
It means that we can’t have an idea unless it actually exists. Because that would mean something comes from nothing. To refute it …
There is a plane of imagination where things don’t substantiate.
I have the power to simulate entire cosmoses simultaneously to seek the best outcome… they never came to be just because I can simulate them.
Imagine if you didn’t need to do trial and error because you imagined things right/beautiful/necessary (& thus possible) the first/meta time?
Anywhayz.
I just had a glorious chat with Bing Copilot about Kant’s ought implies can (the crux of graded absolutism) and Hare’s ought implies imperative (the crux of Kierkegaard’s Subjectivity is Truth)…
Some scribblies:
