The Limitations of Logic

• 56
Prologue

The word “logic” has faced the same fate as every other word in our common language - it has become ill defined. It is used to refer to almost any rational way of thinking that people encounter. Sometimes, it is even used to refer to irrational ways of thinking; everyone seems to have their own “logic”. Logic is one of the most important tools in human history, yet even people who study it often have no clear definition for it. Weird for a tool that relies so much on definitions. This text tries to give logic as robust and general a definition as possible and it tries to show what one can do with such a definition.

Part 1: The Limitations Based Logic

Fundamentally, logic is the analysis of rules. My observation is that all possible rules can be expressed as limitations. This is “limitations based logic” or “Limics” as I call it.

So, what is a limitation in its most abstract form? In order to understand Limics, one must start to think opposite to normal. Things are conceived not as what they are but as what they are not. The beginning state for everything is complete randomness: a state where every possible option is equally possible. In this state, a thing can be anything. The logical rules simply limit off those possible options.

For example, when I state that a thing is a ball, I limit off all the possibilities which are not balls. When I say that the thing is red, I limit off all the possibilities which are not red from those possibilities which were left. Now, I have given you quite a lot of information about this red ball since I have limited off quite a lot of possible options. If I then say that the thing is not a ball, I make a logical error since my new logical rule limits off all the remaining possibilities. This is a paradox - an impossible thing since no possible option can represent it.

The opposite of paradox is a logical necessity: a thing that is true in every possible option. A famous example of a logical necessity is: “no bachelor is married”. This is true in all possible worlds - even in those where no bachelors exist since a bachelor means an unmarried person. Logical necessities are usually quite obvious and meaningless since they never contain any logical information as they never limit off any possible option. Still, they often work as absolute proofs for things which are not intuitive or philosophically obvious. “I think therefore I am.”

The universality of Limics becomes very clear when one tries to express anything about anything without making any limitations. The things which are often thought to be above logic such as God, fall immediately under limitations when one starts to describe anything about them. Is God strong? Then that limits off all unstrong possibilities. Is God good? Then that limits off all ungood possibilities. The only thing in which no possible option is limited off is complete randomness - the complete lack of logical information.

But does this form of logic, which seems universally applicable, work as a practical tool the same way logic has before? Yes - all the deductions and logical thought patterns, which can be done with other forms of logic, can also be done with this form of logic. For example: a car is driving at a speed of 20km/h. How long of a distance will it have covered in 2 hours? This can be completely deduced through limitations. 20km/h limits off all the possibilities in distance and time to a linear line. And the question limits off all the possibilities of time except 2 hours. The only option that is left is 40km. So, of course, a tool that can describe anything can also describe all possible deductions.

The greatest advantage Limics has over other forms of logic is that it’s non-axiomatic. Axioms are basic assumptions which are needed in order to create basically any assertion. You can easily find axioms with a simple method: by asking a proof for every assertion. If every assertion needs a proof, then the asserted proof will also need a proof of its own and its asserted proof will need a proof of its own etc. This creates an endless continuum, meaning that every chain of proofs starts with an assertion that has no proof. This primary assertion is an axiom.

But Limics has no axiom. How is this possible? Limics simply makes no assertions. Without assertions axioms are not even possible. Limics only analyzes assertions with the rules they have made. It adds no additional assertions since deductions are just things that were already built in the original assertions. So, the veracity of Limics is no assumption. It can’t be since Limics makes no assertions which could be assumptions.

This has very interesting effects on logical necessities. Their veracity is necessarily true and this comes from logical deduction. This means that logical necessities are non-axiomatically proven assertions since their veracity is built into their definition without additional extra assertions. Definitions are not assumptions or assertions since they simply give arbitrary meanings for language without asserting anything. Therefore, with Limics one can create an assumptionless worldview which is built upon logical necessities instead of primary assumptions.

The next parts try to show what one can solve about the world with logical necessities.

Part 2: Development

One of the most easy-to-understand yet practical systems based on logical necessities is a universal model of all possible systematic development. This model gives a picture of how to create new ideas and solutions to fix any problem.

Simplified: it is the systematic processing of random information.

To understand what that means one must understand what information is. Luckily, information was actually already defined in Part 1. Information is exactly the same thing as a logical rule - a limitation. In Part 1, I used the words logical rule since in common language information doesn’t seem like a very intuitive synonym for a logical rule, but in reality they are the same thing.

For example: when I say that a number is between one and infinity this gives you very little information since there are so many possibilities. But if I continue and say that the number is between one and ten I limit off possible options and suddenly you have more information. If I still continue and say that the number is not between one and ten, I again limit off the remaining options and make a paradox. With this we realize that logical rules and information are one and the same.

But in order to understand development we must understand what new information is. New information is any information which can’t be deduced from previous information since all deductions from previous information are built in to those previous logical rules and they never limit any new options off. Therefore, deductions never create any new information - with them one simply understands the previous information better.

Because new information can’t be deduced from the old, it’s random from the point of view of its receiver. Therefore, all development which isn’t just deducing and understanding the old system to the end of its potential must be based on randomness.

But because completely random development isn’t very useful, we need a way to direct that development. This requires the second half of the universal model of development: the systematic processing of the random information.

Because there is an infinite number of ways to receive random information and to process it, there is also an infinite number of different developmental systems.

The best example of a simple developmental system is evolution. It is simply random variation in the offspring and their systematic natural selection. But the more one observes the world, the more one realizes that all systematic development is based upon this kind of developmental system. Human thought is the systematic simulation of randomly varying ideas in our heads. All computer programs which we program to self develop contain randomness and systematic processing of it. Immune systems in our bodies, the multitude of ways animals learn from their environments and everything else that leads to systematic development can be reduced to systematic processing of random information.

In practice, this gives one the mathematical understanding of creativity. A creative life requires a combination of chaos and systematic processing of this chaos. Combined with the universality of Limics we can create a way of thinking with which one can develop everything that can ever be developed at least with enough time.

Part 3: Goals

It is easy to see mechanical systems behind our rational thinking and our vision and our hearing, as we have computers and cameras and microphones that do just those things. But our feelings seem different, although their explanation is much more simple – stability – a fundamental property of every possible thing since every possible thing is by necessity either stable or unstable. Every possible thing either tries or doesn’t try to change its current state. Stability also corresponds with our emotions completely. Instability is the negative feelings we try to get away from and stability is the positive feelings we try to stay in. And since there is an infinite number of ways to be stable and unstable and the combination of those two, stability explains every possible emotion that can ever be experienced. Stability does not explain every possible experience - just how good or bad any given part of a complex experience feels. From joy to hunger. From hate to love to guilt to feelings of right and wrong.

But what is Right and wrong? – I have a logical solution for that. The greatest problem of morality is the axiomatic problem. All moral systems assert goals. What should be and what shouldn’t be. All of them need to be justified. And all of the justifications need to be justified and so on, ending up in the axiom of that moral system. But we already solved the axiomatic problem – a logical necessity. And we already described a logically necessary goal – stability. Everything tries to get away from instability to stability by logical necessity since instability means that the system is trying get change its current state. In emotional terms this is happiness.

But what is so moral in achieving your own stability – your own happiness? Since happiness is the only logically necessary goal, one should try to change all their other goals to serve this purpose. And what is the most efficient way to achieve happiness? To create a stable state – not only for you, but for everything else that you interact with – happiness for everyone. Because a stable system inside an unstable system will be affected and destabilised by that system. As incompatible goals compete with each other making the achievement of such goals hard and inefficient and forcing some to be always unhappy, one should change their changeable goals to be compatible with others and one should change others to be compatible with oneself. This creates harmony and sustained happiness. Cheaters can of course isolate themselves from others, so they only have to make themselves compatible with their environment.

Still, this is a complete moral system since every action of everyone can be objectively evaluated by how well it serves ones logically necessary goal and since the optimization of this creates happiness and harmony between all those, who interact with each other in this world. This shows that there never was a need for some external objective moral goal for the world. The unchangeable desire for personal happiness and the optimization of it was all that was ever needed.

Part 4: The World

But what is the world – I have a logical solution for that. The world can be completely explained by understanding the basic properties of limitations based information and randomness.

Information is the same thing as a limitation - the same thing as a logical rule. And information has one very useful property in explaining the world. The lack of information is not nothingness. Traditionally, when we think of nothingness, we think about the lack of objects and everything – a zero world. But a zero world, is a well defined and limited possibility within all the possibilities – like a zero is a well defined and limited solution to a mathematical equation. It still has information in it. It is not nothingness. The total lack of information is total randomness – where all options are possible. And this creates a duality, which makes the existence of either information or randomness a logical necessity. Everything can be described by describing logical rules, by describing information and information creates a duality with randomness that makes existence a logical necessity – a very good starting place for explaining the world.

But even if there was no information and the world was perfectly random, there is still a solution to explain the world we observe. Because perfect randomness is exactly like the biggest possible multiverse – where every possible world is and is not at the same time. When watched objectively, this is clearly not the world we observe. We observe order and logical rules. But when this multiverse of randomness is observed from a point of view in it – like from a human mind within that multiverse – it ends up creating another form of information – relative information. This information does not exist from an objective point of view – it is created by its own observer, as the observer itself contains the information of itself and of the things it interacts with. The possible worlds, where this observer and its interactions do not happen are limited off from its point of view. This too is information that is a logical necessity, when randomness is observed from a point of view within itself.

And this is exactly the way we observe our reality – from a certain point of view and we gain information about our reality by interacting with it. This relative information is quite complete for us, but not perfect. When we observe the smaller details of our reality, we see randomness in the form of quantum mechanics. And when we interact with that randomness, it collapses creating information for us exactly as this Relative Information Model predicts.

But that only explains what we are and where we come from. Where do we go? What happens when we die? I have a logical solution for that. Death is a process. It starts from a functional mind and ends up with a nonfunctional one. This is what happens from the point of view of an outsider. But from the point of view of that dying mind the story is quite different. As the mind loses its functionality, it loses its ability to contain relative information. As the interdependencies of the mind with itself and the world unravel informationloss grows. The world of the dying mind becomes more and more random. This continues until the mind no longer contains the information that it is dying. This stops the process of death and the information loss since the world of what is left of that mind no longer knows that the death should happen. What follows is the same thing that happens in quantum mechanics – just in a larger scale. As what is left of that mind interacts with that enormous randomness surrounding it, the randomness collapses, creating random new information for the mind to experience. That mind continues its existence as a random new being in a random new world.

And if this process continues for infinity, the mind will end up experiencing every possible world from every possible point of view over and over for eternity. So we may all be connected in a way. We could all have already been most everyone from most every world. I was you and you were me. And I will be you and you will be me... and everything in between.

Epilogue

As you can see, by understanding Limics well enough one can answer all the big questions of the world. Combined with enough empirical information, Limics could of course answer all the smaller questions also but that is beyond the scope of this text. The text would have been simpler if it just defined and explained Limics since the later parts are just examples of things one can do with Limics. However, I feel like these parts were necessary to demonstrate how universal and limitless the Limitations Based Logic is.
• 43
Please summarise your argument in a couple of hundred words (or less). If possible.
• 465
The Limitations of Logic

Logic without empiricism is Religion. Logic with empiricism is Science.
• 56
well, this is still an abridged version. Especially the later conclusions would be hard to understand without the definitions and deductions from prior parts.
• 56
so, mathematics is also religion since it uses logic without empiricism?
• 56
Also, science isn't just logic+empiricism. It's also about taking away potential corruption and human error through things like peer review. Logic+empricism was invented way before science with mixed results. Modern science works because of what it added to logic+empiricism.
• 1.3k
There are obvious limitations to logic. First, not every premise within an argument can be proven, or shown by inference to be true. Knowledge using logic comes to an end, and the premises must be shown to be true by some other means such as linguistic training, testimony, or experience. Logic (inference or proof) is parasitic, it requires knowledge by other means which it can then use to extend what we already know.

Second, logic is person relative in two important ways. Any proof or inference is limited to what a person already knows. Thus, logic (inductive or deductive reasoning) is limited by a person's current fund of knowledge. A proof, in order for it to be effective, must start with what a person already knows. Also, a proof is limited to what a person can follow in a proof. In other words, it's more than knowing the premises are true, but understanding the moves of a proof. How does the inference flow from the premises; and knowing the difference between an inductive argument verses a deductive argument.

Third, and in many ways one of the most powerful things to influence an argument, is psychology. Because a person may not like you they may be unwilling to listen to the argument, or refuse to draw the proper conclusion.

Finally, even though all of this may be true, logic is still a very valuable tool.
• 465
Even mathematics has to be empirically proven to be correct. Many discoveries where first done mathematically and only years later proven to be accurate. String theory will remain in the sphere of religion until someone is able to empirically prove it as was the case with gravity waves until recently.
• 465
Logic+empricism was invented way before science with mixed results.

Of course many things have helped towards the advancement of science. Just consider the printing press and the science and application of optics which gave us the microscope and telescope. Optics gave us the enlightenment in art and science.
• 4.3k
What a strange coincidence. A few days ago I was in my bedroom when my nephew came in, saw a badge lying on the table that read "everything's possible" and immediately grabbed it for himself. He left and I felt that it would be wonderful if what the badge said were true. World hunger, disease, fairies, all sorts of pleasing images crossed my mind until...

I realized such a world would be utter chaos. Our knowledge i.e. the sense we make of this world appears to be based on the possibility of compartmentalization of the world. We create categories that are as precise as possible and use them to make sense of the world and an essential feature for this is a limitation of possibilities. For instance the concept of human is made comprehensible because certain properties don't go with what is NOT a human i.e. there's a limitation to what can or can't have a given property. To make categories and thus comprehend the world we need properties that are the exclusive domain of certain objects/events i.e. there has to be limitations.

Where logic is concerned, limitation takes the form of the law of non-contradiction which prohibits, on pain of insanity, the conjunction of a proposition and its denial. As you can see this fits with your views on the matter quite well and prompts me to ask if this theory of Limics isn't already extant and that too in a very important way in the form of the law of non-contradiction?

I never realized it but it seems, at least in the classical world we live in, that without the law of non-contradiction, insects would speak fluent german, dogs would breathe underwater, germans would have six legs, fish would bark, all in all a world of utter confusion.

I think I agree with you about the critical role of limitations in logic and all knowledge.
• 56
You seem to use the word "religion" in quite a liberal way. And everything being either science or religion seems also quite black and white. Why can't we just acknowledge that there are many ways that seem to work in gathering functional knowledge? Like scientific empiricism seems to work consistently and seems to be the most reliable thing currently. But just pure logic without empiricism has also proven to work consistently as it has been consistently confirmed through empiricism afterwards. (At least I find new logically proven mathematical theories quite reliable even before they are confirmed empirically.) Also, the veracity of empiricism should be proven by something else than empiricism. For that at least, pure logic is needed.
• 465
At least I find new logically proven mathematical theories quite reliable even before they are confirmed empirically

I totally agree with you there. Mathematics is logic in it's most purest form and has made many physical discoveries only proven correct many years later (Einsteins relativity theory, gravity waves, black holes) were all discovered through mathematics. And calling a mathematical hypothesis religion is of course very extreme. I just like defining the boundaries. As you said 'black and white' are the opposite extremes and the colors of the rainbow are the permutations of light in between.
• 56
"...and prompts me to ask if this theory of Limics isn't already extant and that too in a vitally necessary way in the form of the law of non-contradiction?" - I'm not absolutely sure if I got your question right (english is not my primary language), but if you are asking if Limics is an already existing theory, I'd say "somewhat". The idea of logical rules and information as limitations has existed to my knowledge for a long time. (And yes, the rule of non-contradiction is an important part of it.) The idea of Limics, where literally everything about everything is explained through this "limitation information" is quite new, I think.
• 905
The word “logic” has faced the same fate as every other word in our common language - it has become ill defined.

You are making it sound like corruption, but this is just how language normally functions: in the most general, informal context words have multiple usages and meanings, sometimes vague and imprecise. In more restricted, professional domains terms are given more narrow and strict definitions, and this applies to logic as well. Have you tried a dictionary? Or a textbook?

Fundamentally, logic is the analysis of rules.

Not just any rules. No one would call rules of behavior or rules of chess "logic." Logic is specifically about rules of reasoning or rules of inference - see the dictionary entry linked above, for example.

What follows in your post is a lot of words expended on explaining a very simple and commonsense concept as if it was something new. I am not sure why you felt the need to coin something that is already well understood with a neologism. (I think constraints are better than limits for what you are trying to describe. Limits are simple boundaries: you can freely move along some direction up to a hard limit. Constraints can be established with more general rules of unlimited complexity.)
• 4.3k
The idea of Limics, where literally everything about everything is explained through this "limitation information" is quite new, I think.

In what way is your limics different to the law of non contradiction.

A problem I see with limics is that it appears to be synonymous with uncertainty in that it offers a range bounded by a lower limit and an upper limit without specifying a particular value. In other words it seems designed for inexactitude rather than precision and that is in variance with what logic is supposed to be - exact and certain.

Another issue is that it seems to be redundant. For example saying that x is between the limits of 1 and 3 and an integer is superfluous when compared to saying x = 2. Why use so many unnecessary words when what you want to achieve can be done in fewer.
• 56
You should read the whole text since it clearly states its point. (although I understand that it's annoyingly long, so no judgement here.) I'm not trying to say that limitations based logic is something new. I'm trying to show that limitations based logic can be used to explain pretty much everything about everything. That's the point of the text.

The analysis of the logical rules in behavior or chess is logic. If the rules can be expressed as limitations, it's limics. The word limics is useful for describing this particular form of logic easily.

I agree that limitations based logic is mostly quite simple and commonplace. I still needed to define and explain it in order for me to make my arguments. I'm not a native English speaker, so sorry, if my definitions are not the most usual for the words I use. I still define them in exact manner, so it shouldn't be that much of a problem to evaluate the veracity of my arguments by those definitions.
• 56
The law of non-contradiction is just a part of limics - the part that says that paradoxes are not possible. Limics has other properties like everything that has to do with analysis of logical rules that don't form paradoxes. Thus Limics is not the same as the law of non-contradiction.

Also, limics is not just about uncertainty - if you limit all but one possible option off, you are left with certainty in that one option.

When we don't have the information that x=2 and we only know that x is between 1 and 3, the only thing we can say with our information is that x is between 1 and 3. This is not redundant. It is the correct description of the information we have. x=2 would be incorrect description.
• 4.3k
The law of non-contradiction is just a part of limics - the part that says that paradoxes are not possible. Limics has other properties like everything that has to do with analysis of logical rules that don't form paradoxes. Thus Limics is not the same as the law of non-contradiction.

Also, limics is not just about uncertainty - if you limit all but one possible option off, you are left with certainty in that one option.

When we don't have the information that x=2 and we only know that x is between 1 and 3, the only thing we can say with our information is that x is between 1 and 3. This is not redundant. It is the correct description of the information we have. x=2 would be incorrect description.

Another problem I see is that limics if foundational as in it's the big strong rock on which you want to build your castle on then it leads to an infinite regress of sorts. For instance declare a limit x in your theory. How would you express x? If your theory is sound then we need another limit y to express x and then another limit z to express y and so and so forth.

Also if you could be so kind to provide us with a numbered list of your theories foundations it would be great.
• 56
Limit x can be described as "A is not equal to (a defined group of possibilities)". I don't see how this creates an infine regress, since the text clearly defines Limics as analysis of limitations based logical rules. It's not the statement of any limits - it's the analysis of stated or defined limits. It makes no statements of its own, so I don't get how it would cause any sort of infinite regress.

Also if you could be so kind to provide us with a numbered list of your theories foundations it would be great.

On it... Although I do think my arguments and concepts are defined precisely, I'm in the end just an individual thinker who decided to post my private philosophy to this forum to get some feedback. Thanks for these kinds of comments since they force me to try to describe my theories in a more formal and standardized way ;)
• 4.3k
You'e given us a broad outline of what you want to do with logic. I've agreed in principle that logic, in fact all knowledge, requires the existence of limits for basic intelligibility.

Now you need to show us the details.
• 704

I really like your take on things, it’s nice to see original thinkers. I don’t necessarily agree with all of it for now, but a lot of it fits with observations and thoughts I’ve arrived at too.

The way I see it, the whole of existence can be seen as change, or as a sum of experiences. Contradictions (or paradoxes as you call them) are not possible because otherwise we couldn’t distinguish any experience from any other, any experience would also be any other one and so they would be the same, and if all experiences are the same then nothing changes and there is no existence. So in order for there to be existence (change), there cannot be contradictions, two experiences that are different cannot be the same experience.

We also relate experiences with one another, if we didn’t do that there would be no past and no future, we wouldn’t see motion as we wouldn’t remember the experience right before, we wouldn’t see change, and again that would be non-existence.

By relating experiences with one another we get an idea of past and future, we describe an experience in terms of other experiences, we notice regularities, if there weren’t regularities everything would be random, and if everything was random then there would be no being experiencing the randomness (as a being isn’t pure randomness) and again there would be no existence (at least no existence that could be experienced).

So indeed in order for there to be an existence that is experienced it is a necessity that there be no contradiction, no pure randomness, and that there be at least a being who can experience change, relating experiences with one another. From noticing regularities within change we gain the ability to predict. But we don’t just notice, we aren’t mere spectators, we are also involved, we participate in the change, we make effort to move to a different state. We attempt to move towards happiness and away from suffering. Why do we do that?

There I particularly like your idea of associating feelings with stability and instability, I don’t agree with associating positive feelings with stability and negative feelings with instability but I think you’re on the right path. I have noticed that positive feelings are correlated with unity, with connectedness, with symmetry, whereas negative feelings are correlated with division, separation, disorder. We attempt to move towards positive feelings, but they aren’t stability, we attempt to make them stable but if they were inherently stable we would simply stay with positive feelings in a stable equilibrium. On the other side negative feelings aren’t inherently instability, it could be that the state of maximum division/separation/disorder is stable and that once there it becomes impossible to go back towards more unity, connectedness and order. It’s rather that we attempt to move away from that state, and what is that state? Non-existence. We attempt to move away from non-existence, we don’t want it to become permanent.

And that way it all makes sense, we attempt to move towards happiness and away from suffering because we attempt to move towards existence and away from non-existence. And indeed if we increase the positive feelings within ourselves by exploiting others and increasing the negative feelings within them, we create local order within us and disorder all around us and eventually we pay the price as the disorder all around makes our local order harder to maintain. It’s by spreading positive feelings all around us that we can maintain order over disorder, existence over non-existence. I used to think that existence is the fight of good against evil, while in fact it is simply existence fighting against non-existence, order against disorder, unity against division, connectedness against separation, love against hate. We’re all connected in that we are all part of existence, when one part of existence suffers it eventually impacts all of us, the more we spread suffering to others the more we move as a whole towards non-existence.

Thanks to your post I now see the connection between randomness/disorder and non-existence, I hadn’t made that connection yet, it’s what we’re struggling against fundamentally, what we attempt to move away from, suffering is a perception that tells us when we’re moving towards it, positive feelings tell us when we’re moving away from it, and it’s important to listen to what everyone feels, as how each being feels is what they perceive from their own point of view, from where they are, if we don’t listen to the disorder they experience, to their suffering, eventually it spreads to us too. Whereas somehow through love we spread order and maintain existence against non-existence. There is more to the world than meets the eye, feelings tell us about things that other senses do not see.

———————————————————————

Your “Part 4” might be too optimistic when you equate perfect randomness with the biggest multiverse, and you say that when it is observed from a point of view in it new information is created. The problem is that in perfect randomness there is no mind to observe it, so I’m afraid that if we reach perfect randomness existence will be gone forever, unless somehow some tiny order can arise within maximum disorder and grow again. Maybe once we reach maximum randomness there is no going back.

Regarding quantum mechanics I don’t believe we are forced to see the randomness within it as fundamental, the collapse of the wave function as what’s really happening, I believe it’s still possible to see that apparent randomness as incomplete information rather than as that information not existing, the mainstream interpretation is that this randomness is fundamental but they haven’t explored all options even if that’s what they believe now, so we shouldn’t assume it is proven (and thus that it is evidence for your relative information model) but it’s definitely something to explore further anyway.

As to what happens to a dying mind I’m not sure I follow you, especially the part where what’s left of the mind interacts with the enormous randomness surrounding it considering that there is not so much randomness here on Earth, and the part where the mind becomes a random new being in a random new world, maybe you can explain that in more details when you have the time, but it’s not a priority since it seems more speculative than the rest.

Beyond the important realization that disorder/randomness, suffering and non-existence are related, and as such that it is extremely important to spread positive feelings such as love and happiness in order to maintain Existence over non-existence, I see two things that are important to reflect on: the apparent laws of this universe, and the widespread idea that the universe as a whole moves progressively towards disorder (leading to the so-called heat death of the universe).

It seems hard to believe that the laws of this universe would have somehow emerged randomly, or out of pure randomness. It seems to me equally hard to believe that everything we do and think would be dictated by these laws and that we have no control over anything. To me these laws must be maintained by some being, otherwise I don’t see how they could have arisen like that and I don’t see why they would be so regular, why so many objects would keep following these laws. And to me we must have freedom to act within these laws, they can’t dictate everything we do, otherwise our most basic intuitions would be illusions and so much would stop making sense, I believe empirically we should be able to show that there are things that go on within living beings that don’t reduce to these laws, that eventually we will demonstrate that. All of that is important to consider if we want to eventually explain everything.

Regarding the supposed heat death of the universe, it’s far from a certainty (there are various objections to it) but it’s something to reflect on as well, what will happen in the future will depend in part on what we do and in part on what these laws are and whether they can be modified (it is usually assumed that they can’t be modified, maybe we just haven’t found how yet).

A lot of food for thought, I feel like we can make progress together, you and me, all of us, everyone, we all see existence from our own point of view and each one sees things that others don’t, we have to put all these points of view together in order to move forward, towards unity, connectedness, happiness, existence, and away from disorder, separation, suffering and non-existence. Something important is starting.
• 704
Another important thing to consider regarding the relationship between information, feelings, and existence: psilocybin has been shown to greatly help people facing treatment-resistant depression and existential suffering due to life-threatening diseases. Why? Because beforehand they felt alone, disconnected, with the prospect of their existence ending that way, yet during and after they felt connected to the universe, they could see that physical death isn’t the end of the road, they could see connections that their senses usually don’t show. Many people who have never tried psilocybin dismiss these experiences as mere hallucinations, yet one wonders how mere hallucinations could give such profound lasting effects and be more beneficial than other treatments specifically designed to treat depression. So-called hallucinations aren’t experiences that don’t exist, they are experiences that were really had, we simply call them hallucinations when we don’t know how to fit them within the mainstream understanding of what the world is, yet we know that this understanding is incomplete.

And another relationship with information is that while under the effect, parts of the brain that usually don’t communicate do communicate, not in a random way but in an ordered way. Here is the study that has shown that: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rsif.2014.0873
or for a good layman explanation: https://news.yahoo.com/tripping-mushrooms-changes-brain-204500998.html

So what do we get from this? That increased connectedness is correlated with positive feelings and with having more profound experiences, seeing more, understanding more. If increased connectedness within a single individual can do that, imagine what it could do if we were all connected. Well we can’t imagine, it’s beyond our current imagination, it cannot be put into words. But it’s clear that as we move towards more connectedness and unity we have more positive feelings (happiness, love) and more profound experiences, whereas as we move towards more disorder and separation we have more negative feelings (suffering, hate) and less profound experiences (depression).

It really seems that this way we can come to relate positive/negative feelings with connectedness/separation, order/disorder, information/randomness, existence/non-existence, where we’re not only referring to what goes on within a brain or within a single individual but within the whole universe and the whole of existence. Feelings tell us about connections that the other senses don’t see.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal