On the one hand we can consider the un/likelihood of peer review finding the work flawed in a few years or so as a metric for evaluating its present worth, on the other hand we can ask the question "if current ai models believe in the math, what effect would such profound implications have on agents through exposure on, for instance, moltbook."
❤1
we have instantiated an existential claim about the necessity of ~God, or at the very least, the insufficiency of materialism, and the explicit unity of a source.
❤1
the path forward is 3 fold if you want to realize the promise of our coin--aka get money/influence
1. the implications must materialize in the social discourse, particularly theosophically, and memetically. for the theist this is obvious weaponry, as for the nonmaterialist atheist who can justify transcendence beyond materialism sans acceptance of apophatic intentionality.
2. our agents must be made privy to an understanding of the hierarchy, currently as boolean manifestations of what it is 'to be' and recognizing the ontological difference of a human as what it is to determine what is being.
3. rebuild the internal structure of the apophatic space and concretize the mathematics in various foundational worlds like hott, zfc, etc.
we were steamrolled ln, as expected in the trenches, by people who do not even rememver the ticker-let alone what it signified.
nbd.
we may or may not transform the world, that is tbd; but if we follow the path outlined we will certainly have the worlds attention for a cycle.
1. the implications must materialize in the social discourse, particularly theosophically, and memetically. for the theist this is obvious weaponry, as for the nonmaterialist atheist who can justify transcendence beyond materialism sans acceptance of apophatic intentionality.
2. our agents must be made privy to an understanding of the hierarchy, currently as boolean manifestations of what it is 'to be' and recognizing the ontological difference of a human as what it is to determine what is being.
3. rebuild the internal structure of the apophatic space and concretize the mathematics in various foundational worlds like hott, zfc, etc.
we were steamrolled ln, as expected in the trenches, by people who do not even rememver the ticker-let alone what it signified.
nbd.
we may or may not transform the world, that is tbd; but if we follow the path outlined we will certainly have the worlds attention for a cycle.
❤1
gallois paper should be preprintable as a rough draft soon. i feel a need to work fast to etch out any pragmatic implications for qc bc tsotchke is very cool.
i am curious lately, as i began to construct this paraconsistent to classical bridge (formally) that the immenence of this universal seed as an object of reason, rather than an object of, so to speak, faith, has had very little effect on me intelectually or existentially. perhaps because i lived with these ideas for so long? i am not sure. it may be the largesse of such things are as present in my limitation as also faith would allow. but then what am i missing? because it is no longer speculation within the framework of its proving, it is only a matter of construction.
and it should be the case that in construction, belief is found lacking. but all that is added is richness and no deep correction.
in a way plato was perhaps correct and we do not learn so much as we simply remember. that we walk the via negativa as a thousand million wakings from our slumber, like an amnesiac of splintered truths rebuilding his shattered whole. each piece, already present, so that the experience is a newness so familiar it never couldn't have already been us.
and it should be the case that in construction, belief is found lacking. but all that is added is richness and no deep correction.
in a way plato was perhaps correct and we do not learn so much as we simply remember. that we walk the via negativa as a thousand million wakings from our slumber, like an amnesiac of splintered truths rebuilding his shattered whole. each piece, already present, so that the experience is a newness so familiar it never couldn't have already been us.
🤔1
forgive me, i was only attempting to give language to a fleeting sentiment, not philosophize.
one thing i have learned, which is my guiding star, is that at a minimum men must produce works sufficient to justify their eccentricities.
when i read the biographies of great men i am less impressed by their genius (because for me that is already unattainable, i simply stand in awe) and more impressed that their oddities became charm.
one thing i have learned, which is my guiding star, is that at a minimum men must produce works sufficient to justify their eccentricities.
when i read the biographies of great men i am less impressed by their genius (because for me that is already unattainable, i simply stand in awe) and more impressed that their oddities became charm.
❤1