Mintys.ChristopherLangan istorija
Rodyti nežymius pakeitimus - Rodyti galutinio teksto pakeitimus
2021 rugpjūčio 14 d., 18:17
atliko -
Pridėtos 1-169 eilutės:
[[Veiksmai]]
[+Laiškas Christopher Langan+]
Dear Chris,
I'm finding your thinking very relevant to my own life work. I've
started going through [[http://www.megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/IntroCTMU.htm | your introduction]] which I'm finding to be a good place to start.
When I was a child, I set out on a quest to "know everything and apply
that usefully". As I entered college, I realized that what little I
knew about quantum physics was that "reality fades away". So I looked
instead in the places where the knowledge might be most easily placed
within my reach, and also that people most avoid looking, which is
wisdom of human life.
I looked for absolutes and came across "divisions of everything". These
can be observed as perspectives that a conversation might break down
into. I observed that if we divide everything into two perspectives,
then one will be "opposites coexist" (as in free will) and the other
"all things are the same" (as with fate).
We may divide everything into three perspectives: "take a stand, follow
through, and reflect".
Or into four perspectives: "why, how, what, whether".
I noticed that "everything" served as an absolute anchor, and that it had four properties:
* no external context (if you put it in a box, it includes the box)
* no internal structure (hence nothing for meaning to cling to, so that all statements are trivially true, as in "everything is hot, cold, etc.")
* the simplest algorithm (accepts all things)
* a required concept (we all have it, and there is no analogue in the physical world, so we could not have learned it).So this is very much like your SetOfAllSets. One difference is that I also identify this with the state of contradiction in which all things are true.
I tried to imagine what it's like for a God who is all alone,
self-contained. The only thing that I can imagine for such a God to do
is to divide himself into perspectives. For example, he can create one
perspective ("everything") by going beyond himself, out of the unbounded
and into the (self-)bounded. For such a God, "exist" and "not exist"
mean the same thing at this point. What's interesting for such a God is
whether he necessarily exists? which is to say, exists even when he
doesn't exist? So this makes for two perspectives (as in a proof by
contradiction): one where God exists, hence he exists (as assumed in the
spiritual world), and another where God does not exist, yet ultimately
does exist (which describes the situation of the physical world). Yet
are these two Gods the same? Well, there is one God who "understands"
(the Father), and another "who figures it out" (the Son), so what makes
them the same is the God who is "understood" (the Spirit) which they
both share. So this yields the threesome, as God thinks it. It is a
self-standing structure (God's "self"); but what if something found
itself in that structure; what would that mean? This gives rise to a
"godlet" (like us) which is separated from that self by nothing, whereas
the others were separated from that self by everything, anything, or
something. This yields the foursome, and this operation +1 (adding one
perspective) gives rise to more divisions of everything:
http://www.openleader.com/index.php/GlossaryOfStructure/AddOne
(Note: this is quite the story of Genesis if we think of divisions as
events or "days"). Finally, we come to the eightsome, which is the
sevensome (the logical square: all are good, all are bad, not all are
bad, not all are good, all are good and not all are bad, all are bad and
not all are good, not all are bad and not all are good):
http://www.openleader.com/index.php/GlossaryOfStructure/Sevensome
but adding an eighth perspective "all are good and all are bad" which
means that the system is empty, and so it all collapses into the
nullsome. I think this operation +1 is for the "self-defining" that you
write about.
We don't actually conceive these divisions directly, but instead, we
approach them by means of representations (for example, the twosome has
four:)
* free will and fate
* outside and inside
* theory and practice
* same and different
The fivesome has two representations: time and space. There are six
representations in all by which we look on the whole: observer,
observed, and access (through an observational plane) to nothing,
something, anything, everything. There are also twelve topologies,
which are the backdrops for the imagination, what Kant would call
categories. They allow us to isolate a part of a division. They are
generated by mind games, such as: "search for constancy; either you find
*one* example of it, or it is *all* constantly unconstant, and in order
to search, you needed to assume that what you choose to inspect and what
you have inspected are one and the same, so it is *multiply* constant".
I'm currently working on deriving the representations and the
topologies in terms of an operation +2:
http://www.openleader.com/index.php/GlossaryOfStructure/AddTwo
and I've benefited a lot from Christopher Alexander's observations that
"(recurring) activity evokes structure, and structure channels
activity". I think the operation +2 is for what you call
"self-inclusion" and I will benefit from understanding your ideas.
Finally, I think there is an operation +3 which is the shift in mental
state that we call "consciousness". For example, the twosome is what is
needed for the issue of "existence" (we need to be able to ask the
question, Does the chair exist? (opposites coexist), but also be able to
settle it with an answer (if it does, it does; if it doesn't, it
doesn't; but it's settled). When we are "conscious" of this issue, the
our state of mind is given by three additional perspectives, which is to
say, the fivesome (for decisionmaking - space or time). I think this
particular equation 2 +3 = 5 is what Kant intended by his Transcendental
Deduction. And it's cyclic, so that 7 +3 = 2. I will be working on the
details of this operation. I think that it should relate to your
state-transition syntax, and presumably, the three elements for
resolving the set-of-all-sets paradox. I expect that this operation +3
will generated three dynamic "languages" (argumentation - how do things
come to matter? verbalization - how do things come to mean? narration -
how do things happen?) and I have good empirical bases to work with.
Underlying the languages is an "inversion effect" (like 1/1-x) whereby,
in order to imagine "a God who loves us more than we love ourselves", we
need to turn everything around, so that God is the smallest thing
(deeper than our hearts can reach) and the unknown is the largest thing
which engulfs us. (Your ideas make me consider that such a God may then
find himself needing to identify with us so as to undo the inversion and
not get stuck; all this to affirm that indeed the knowledge of
everything may be dispersed everywhere as you say).
That's an introduction of why I'm very happy to learn of your thinking
and your results. I certainly know that they are useful to me. I also
know they are for real, not invented, have a warmth towards God and
humans and a care for truth.
I will be sorting through your introduction, working on it at my
workspace, see Christopher Langan on:
http://www.openleader.com/index.php/GlossaryOfStructure/MeaningfulConcepts
and I will try to decode and interpret the various terms in your
introduction. I will also be working at my lab's working group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/livingbytruth/
where I will share my letter.
I have found myself alone as I think you have in pursuing such thoughts. Yet many along the way have helped by allowing me to think out loud.
In 1997, I moved to Lithuania and then founded Minciu Sodas,
http://www.ms.lt, an open laboratory serving and organizing independent
thinkers around the world, primarily through the Internet. I have found
that as independent thinkers we have a shared value of "caring about
thinking". We find ourselves everywhere on the periphery because the
people who are quick to agree end up in the center. So we each develop
our own private languages. And yet we are able to agree with each other
because our existential situation is the same. We are able to be
absolutely inclusive by filtering in all those interested who are able
to demonstrate that they can openly "work for free" on their own
projects so that all might share their work-in-progress. We currently
have 100 active and 1,000 supportive participants. We're working
especially on global villages, tools for thinking, open economy,
leadership development, loving God, social networking, global inclusion
and more.
All of my work is in the Public Domain and my philosophical work is
completely free-of-charge for people to use according to their best
judgement. I do alert you, though, to our lab's services:
http://www.openleader.com/index.php/MinciuSodas/Services
http://www.openleader.com/index.php/MinciuSodas/Clients
which might be helpful for you or the Mega Foundation. For example, I
and my lab could help popularize your work, provide support services to
the severely gifted, or explore business opportunities for your think-tank.
More about how my thinking unfolded:
http://www.openleader.com/index.php/GlossaryOfStructure/Andrius
my current research interests (pulling together all the structures that
I'm aware of):
http://www.openleader.com/index.php/GlossaryOfStructure/Overview
http://www.openleader.com/index.php/GlossaryOfStructure/Omniscope
and me:
http://www.openleader.com/index.php/Profiles/AndriusKulikauskas
The latest news from our lab is at: http://www.ms.lt and more about our
lab: http://www.openleader.com/index.php/MinciuSodas/MinciuSodas
A few participants I think you'd want to know about:
Anthony Judge http://www.laetusinpraesens.org http://www.uia.org
Joseph Goguen http://www.cs.ucsd.edu/goguen/
Sarunas Raudys http://www.science.mii.lt/mii/raudys/
[+Laiškas Christopher Langan+]
Dear Chris,
I'm finding your thinking very relevant to my own life work. I've
started going through [[http://www.megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/IntroCTMU.htm | your introduction]] which I'm finding to be a good place to start.
When I was a child, I set out on a quest to "know everything and apply
that usefully". As I entered college, I realized that what little I
knew about quantum physics was that "reality fades away". So I looked
instead in the places where the knowledge might be most easily placed
within my reach, and also that people most avoid looking, which is
wisdom of human life.
I looked for absolutes and came across "divisions of everything". These
can be observed as perspectives that a conversation might break down
into. I observed that if we divide everything into two perspectives,
then one will be "opposites coexist" (as in free will) and the other
"all things are the same" (as with fate).
We may divide everything into three perspectives: "take a stand, follow
through, and reflect".
Or into four perspectives: "why, how, what, whether".
I noticed that "everything" served as an absolute anchor, and that it had four properties:
* no external context (if you put it in a box, it includes the box)
* no internal structure (hence nothing for meaning to cling to, so that all statements are trivially true, as in "everything is hot, cold, etc.")
* the simplest algorithm (accepts all things)
* a required concept (we all have it, and there is no analogue in the physical world, so we could not have learned it).So this is very much like your SetOfAllSets. One difference is that I also identify this with the state of contradiction in which all things are true.
I tried to imagine what it's like for a God who is all alone,
self-contained. The only thing that I can imagine for such a God to do
is to divide himself into perspectives. For example, he can create one
perspective ("everything") by going beyond himself, out of the unbounded
and into the (self-)bounded. For such a God, "exist" and "not exist"
mean the same thing at this point. What's interesting for such a God is
whether he necessarily exists? which is to say, exists even when he
doesn't exist? So this makes for two perspectives (as in a proof by
contradiction): one where God exists, hence he exists (as assumed in the
spiritual world), and another where God does not exist, yet ultimately
does exist (which describes the situation of the physical world). Yet
are these two Gods the same? Well, there is one God who "understands"
(the Father), and another "who figures it out" (the Son), so what makes
them the same is the God who is "understood" (the Spirit) which they
both share. So this yields the threesome, as God thinks it. It is a
self-standing structure (God's "self"); but what if something found
itself in that structure; what would that mean? This gives rise to a
"godlet" (like us) which is separated from that self by nothing, whereas
the others were separated from that self by everything, anything, or
something. This yields the foursome, and this operation +1 (adding one
perspective) gives rise to more divisions of everything:
http://www.openleader.com/index.php/GlossaryOfStructure/AddOne
(Note: this is quite the story of Genesis if we think of divisions as
events or "days"). Finally, we come to the eightsome, which is the
sevensome (the logical square: all are good, all are bad, not all are
bad, not all are good, all are good and not all are bad, all are bad and
not all are good, not all are bad and not all are good):
http://www.openleader.com/index.php/GlossaryOfStructure/Sevensome
but adding an eighth perspective "all are good and all are bad" which
means that the system is empty, and so it all collapses into the
nullsome. I think this operation +1 is for the "self-defining" that you
write about.
We don't actually conceive these divisions directly, but instead, we
approach them by means of representations (for example, the twosome has
four:)
* free will and fate
* outside and inside
* theory and practice
* same and different
The fivesome has two representations: time and space. There are six
representations in all by which we look on the whole: observer,
observed, and access (through an observational plane) to nothing,
something, anything, everything. There are also twelve topologies,
which are the backdrops for the imagination, what Kant would call
categories. They allow us to isolate a part of a division. They are
generated by mind games, such as: "search for constancy; either you find
*one* example of it, or it is *all* constantly unconstant, and in order
to search, you needed to assume that what you choose to inspect and what
you have inspected are one and the same, so it is *multiply* constant".
I'm currently working on deriving the representations and the
topologies in terms of an operation +2:
http://www.openleader.com/index.php/GlossaryOfStructure/AddTwo
and I've benefited a lot from Christopher Alexander's observations that
"(recurring) activity evokes structure, and structure channels
activity". I think the operation +2 is for what you call
"self-inclusion" and I will benefit from understanding your ideas.
Finally, I think there is an operation +3 which is the shift in mental
state that we call "consciousness". For example, the twosome is what is
needed for the issue of "existence" (we need to be able to ask the
question, Does the chair exist? (opposites coexist), but also be able to
settle it with an answer (if it does, it does; if it doesn't, it
doesn't; but it's settled). When we are "conscious" of this issue, the
our state of mind is given by three additional perspectives, which is to
say, the fivesome (for decisionmaking - space or time). I think this
particular equation 2 +3 = 5 is what Kant intended by his Transcendental
Deduction. And it's cyclic, so that 7 +3 = 2. I will be working on the
details of this operation. I think that it should relate to your
state-transition syntax, and presumably, the three elements for
resolving the set-of-all-sets paradox. I expect that this operation +3
will generated three dynamic "languages" (argumentation - how do things
come to matter? verbalization - how do things come to mean? narration -
how do things happen?) and I have good empirical bases to work with.
Underlying the languages is an "inversion effect" (like 1/1-x) whereby,
in order to imagine "a God who loves us more than we love ourselves", we
need to turn everything around, so that God is the smallest thing
(deeper than our hearts can reach) and the unknown is the largest thing
which engulfs us. (Your ideas make me consider that such a God may then
find himself needing to identify with us so as to undo the inversion and
not get stuck; all this to affirm that indeed the knowledge of
everything may be dispersed everywhere as you say).
That's an introduction of why I'm very happy to learn of your thinking
and your results. I certainly know that they are useful to me. I also
know they are for real, not invented, have a warmth towards God and
humans and a care for truth.
I will be sorting through your introduction, working on it at my
workspace, see Christopher Langan on:
http://www.openleader.com/index.php/GlossaryOfStructure/MeaningfulConcepts
and I will try to decode and interpret the various terms in your
introduction. I will also be working at my lab's working group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/livingbytruth/
where I will share my letter.
I have found myself alone as I think you have in pursuing such thoughts. Yet many along the way have helped by allowing me to think out loud.
In 1997, I moved to Lithuania and then founded Minciu Sodas,
http://www.ms.lt, an open laboratory serving and organizing independent
thinkers around the world, primarily through the Internet. I have found
that as independent thinkers we have a shared value of "caring about
thinking". We find ourselves everywhere on the periphery because the
people who are quick to agree end up in the center. So we each develop
our own private languages. And yet we are able to agree with each other
because our existential situation is the same. We are able to be
absolutely inclusive by filtering in all those interested who are able
to demonstrate that they can openly "work for free" on their own
projects so that all might share their work-in-progress. We currently
have 100 active and 1,000 supportive participants. We're working
especially on global villages, tools for thinking, open economy,
leadership development, loving God, social networking, global inclusion
and more.
All of my work is in the Public Domain and my philosophical work is
completely free-of-charge for people to use according to their best
judgement. I do alert you, though, to our lab's services:
http://www.openleader.com/index.php/MinciuSodas/Services
http://www.openleader.com/index.php/MinciuSodas/Clients
which might be helpful for you or the Mega Foundation. For example, I
and my lab could help popularize your work, provide support services to
the severely gifted, or explore business opportunities for your think-tank.
More about how my thinking unfolded:
http://www.openleader.com/index.php/GlossaryOfStructure/Andrius
my current research interests (pulling together all the structures that
I'm aware of):
http://www.openleader.com/index.php/GlossaryOfStructure/Overview
http://www.openleader.com/index.php/GlossaryOfStructure/Omniscope
and me:
http://www.openleader.com/index.php/Profiles/AndriusKulikauskas
The latest news from our lab is at: http://www.ms.lt and more about our
lab: http://www.openleader.com/index.php/MinciuSodas/MinciuSodas
A few participants I think you'd want to know about:
Anthony Judge http://www.laetusinpraesens.org http://www.uia.org
Joseph Goguen http://www.cs.ucsd.edu/goguen/
Sarunas Raudys http://www.science.mii.lt/mii/raudys/
ChristopherLangan
Naujausi pakeitimai
网站
Įvadas #E9F5FC
Klausimai #FFFFC0
Teiginiai #FFFFFF
Kitų mintys #EFCFE1
Dievas man #FFECC0
Iš ankščiau #CCFFCC
Mieli skaitytojai, visa mano kūryba ir kartu visi šie puslapiai yra visuomenės turtas, kuriuo visi kviečiami laisvai naudotis, dalintis, visaip perkurti. - Andrius