My point is that the root of all interpersonal relationships is not the community, but the individual. — Gus Lamarch

In the afterlife, there will be no marriage. We'll all be well-rounded self-pleasuring hermaphrodites. Or Hamlet jokes something along those lines. I suggest that your 'individual' is a quasi-theological figure or fiction, a repetition of the God image.

In fact we are animals programmed to die, and generally given only half of the species' reproductive technology. If we consider ourselves the divine ape, it's because we can bind time with language, which is essentially a shared institution. It's true that some kind of grand autonomy is the goal for those in our culture at least.

Obviously, if two beings with the same goals and purposes - like 1 and 1, where both complete the same goal - add or subtract 1 - - come together, the tendency is for them to unite. — Gus Lamarch

Two beings with the same goals and purposes are basically one being in two bodies. Or are we to take their location in separate bodies terribly seriously? More than just about anything else perhaps, we humans seek to recognize and be recognized, to be understood.

To me it seems that the higher egoist wants to share in an especially pure vision of autonomy. Let's say I think I'm a genius, a soaring eagle. Of course the rabble won't understand me. But the difference between one and none is immense. 'Some are born posthumously.' Born when finally recognized by some tiny, elite, community to come. Life finally lived in the afterlife after all.

You represent a relatively common point of view: all these thinkers are freaks and nuts, having enormous and baseless ambitions. It is understandable and widespread. Yet, this opinion is as old as philosophy itself: Plato has perfectly narrated the story of Socrates. — Number2018

What you are missing (I think?) is that I count myself among them. Socrates is an excellent mention. Lately I'm fascinated with radicalizing his image.

While maybe it's a widespread view that philosophers are wackos, folks like Plato are used symbolically to help hallow institutions like universities. 'Critical thinking' is supposed to be a good thing, but institutions as such have to police their boundaries. These same hallowed institutions are largely gateways to $ in our society. Pay lipservice to some worn-out notion of critical thinking (or head-in-the-clouds transcendence) but really it's about hustling and conforming.

I do wonder how perfectly Plato narrated the story of Socrates. It seems likely enough that he swallowed up a more radical figure in order to cough up yet another story of this-is-how-it-is. We might call it a false assimilation of the negative.

There are standard procedures for ruling out hallucinations and these are invariably scaled-up versions of the normal act of perceiving; people, more people, instruments, more instruments, you know the deal but the bottom line is the entire exercise is nothing but the act of perceiving just ramped up. — TheMadFool

It seems to me that what you are really getting at is a socially established notion of the real. Thinkers have made a strong case that perception is never pure (always involves interpretation.) So it's more like shared habits of interpretation-perception sort out hallucinations/noise from 'genuine' experience of the real. The word 'physical' gets some excited because of its association with hard science. But the prestige of hard science depends on its effectiveness in the ordinary lifeworld of medium sized dry goods.

It seems that physicalism is either false or circular. — TheMadFool

To me it seems like a bold and counterintuitive claim. It's like a leap of faith that directs research. Or as an outsider that's my impression. If I hope to reduce everything mental to the brain, then I want to assume that such a thing is possible in the first place. The circle had better be squarable if I'm going to dedicate my career to it. It's also aggressive and edgy like atheism, so it's a nice balcony from which to look down on the sentimental proles who think they exist as more than mere skullmeat.

We know, from the great Cantor's work, the cardinality of the set of Even numbers = cardinality of the set of Whole numbers. A part = The whole. — TheMadFool

It's more like f(part) = f(whole). The sets aren't equal. They are just have the same cardinality. Like Jefferson and Washington were both presidents.

What's 1 ÷ infinity? If it's 0 then infinity × 0 = 1?? — TheMadFool

Consider that there are lots of systems in math. (Check out an abstract algebra textbook. ) It's possible to extend R with positive and negative infinity, but a few nice features must be sacrificed. I think it's uncontroversial that we can't just add the sideways 8 to ordinary arithmetic.

In this way we can achieve arbitrary precision (infinite) on the value of the sqrt(2). — TheMadFool

That's a fascinating issue right there. Arbitrary precision as infinite...as opposed to the idea of a completed infinity. You wrote N = {0,1,2,...}. So we kinda know what that means, but do 'all' of the elements exist somewhere? What exactly do we mean by those ellipses? Obviously mathematicians can crank out papers and keep the tradition alive. Nuns can smack children's hands with rulers for putting apples in N. Professors can mock confused grad students at a higher level for more complicated 'misunderstandings' (errors in manners).

In other words: social 'games' within social games, wherein we discover what we can and can't get away with saying, without ever necessarily knowing just what we mean. Semantically we're in the fog, whatever that's supposed to mean. 'This is how it's done around here.' That's the spongy bedrock. (That's one vision of Socrates, a guy trying to show people that they don't exactly know what they are talking about, who found himself fatally unpopular, having written no books.)

So, what's infinity + 1? How does your answer, which must be infinity, square with the answer to 2 + 1? — TheMadFool

I'm rusty at this stuff, but basically let's consider the set N* = N-union-{x}. That's the set of natural numbers (let's exclude 0 and say 1,2,3,...) with the addition of some non-natural element x. Then to get a bijection from N to N*, we set f(1) = x and f(n) = n - 1 for n >= 2. Basically that's x,1,2,3,4,5...
Clearly we can add any finite numbers to N and get the same cardinality, by tinkering with our bijection. I have this book right beside me: Cantor Book

The whole cleverness or charm of Cantor is that he actually made this stuff work. He extended the concept of cardinality so that folks could play with an infinite tower of infinities --in a way that makes sense to mathematicians. Of course people can always say that's not the infinity that I mean. Fair enough. But I'd say: well, what infinity do you mean? If it's just vague metaphysical speculation, that's fine. But then it's the usual opinion-mongering. A person can joyfully wallow in suggestive ambiguity and the impossibility of a consensus or they can at least come to a consensus about the rules of a particular discourse. Cantor's work is full of surprises and ingenuity. Does it matter much when it comes to engineering? As far as I know, not really.

A proof of the existence of noncomputables is not the same as an algorithm that can generate noncomputables. — TheMadFool

True, but there can't be an algorithm that generates a particular noncomputable, by definition. My point is something like: everything we humans do is finite. Even our idea of these dark matter numbers pops out of a finite construction.

Insofar as the universe being a simulation is the issue, the distinction real-unreal is irrelevant. The real numbers can be accessed through our minds and that means they have to be encoded in the simulation unless the universe is a partial simulation like a cyborg or thereabouts. — TheMadFool

OK, that's a fascinating point. So if our imaginations are part of the simulation, then who cares if the black and seamless sea of incomputables is pure fiction? All that we can dream is part of the program. OK. But what exactly do we dream when we dream of noncomputables? A finite proof, and the vague and questionable interpretation of that finite proof. Even on the level of fiction and I am saying that the concept is slippery and ambiguous. I think this applies to whatever is plucked out of the game of math.
Overall I still like your argument. It inspires some fun thinking.

Thanks for the stimulating discussion. I'm out of my depth here so thanks for indulging me and my bizarre ideas. — TheMadFool

My pleasure. I suspect that all humans are basically out of their depth. The generations come and go, talking of God and truth and infinity and good and evil. It passes the time.

How about:

I ain't no monkey but I know what I like.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGsOmKZXDvo

Now that I think of it, humans have struggled greatly with the concept of infinity. Basically, infinity DOESN'T COMPUTE! for humans. Last I checked, it all "started making sense" in the 1870's with Georg Cantor's work. — TheMadFool

Even Cantor's work was hugely controversial. What's strange is that the infinite does compute, within certain systems that give it a formal meaning. The sideways 8 is used correctly or incorrectly in the game of mainstream math. And for set theory experts or grad students there are more complicated rules and more than one flavor of infinity and even more than one mathematical tradition.

This, at some level, suggests that the universe doesn't contain actual infinities and that our brains can't handle what is essentially infinite information. — TheMadFool

Perhaps. For me the issue is semantic. What does infinity even mean? It has various meanings in various contexts, and we kinda-sorta prove that we understand these meanings by our mumblings being tolerated in these contexts. The student gets an A. The journal publishes the professor's latest paper. Nobody has to know exactly what is going on. Ultimately they need to be housed and fed, treated as worthy people. (I think 'infinity' is just one version of this. We can also talk about 'good' and so on. )

You mention e and pi. It might be easier to talk about the square root of 2. What could be more classic? Some positive rationals when squared are too small. Others are too big. We can endlessly zero in on the hole where sqrt(2) should be. If a person didn't know that root(2) was irrational, they might spend their life trying to finally get that magical rational number that finally squares to 2.

Basically we can 'see' the diagonal of a unit square, so we decided there was a hole in the number system. In fact there was more hole than non-hole, at least once we got a system up and running. Worse, there was more incomputable 'super-hole' than 'hole.' The computable reals are like the rationals in that they have a finite expression, except it's a finite program instead of a pair of integers. But what's a few bits here and there, as long as the description is finite? On the other hand, the formal existence of a boatload of super-hole incomputables is also the result of something finite, namely a computer checkable proof. So the blob of all of them is tied to something finite.

The other side of this story is that non-computable irrationals (Chaitin's constant for example) exist. In other words, the universe does contain instances of infinite randomness and these can't be reduced to finite algorithms. Ergo, the universe isn't a simulation. — TheMadFool

Chaitin's Metamath is pretty great. I think @fishfry would say that we only know that our human imagination contains infinite randomness. And I'd add that we have some notion of infinite randomness. We can make certain arguments. But I remember Chaitin gently suggesting that maybe real numbers aren't real. A person might decide that the mainstream continuum is fiction indeed because it is mostly an unnameable hole.

To play Devil's advocate: maybe aliens who exist in the hidden 'real' world actually do understand infinity and write infinite programs. But they programmed us with finite minds. Perhaps it amused them to make us capable of a glimpse of our limitations. If this is a simulation, why should the computer that runs it have the limitations of our simulated 'Flatland' computers?

People aspire to achieve happiness through the possession of material goods and ordinary self-affirmation. Many of them experience joy, maybe at least for some while. Unfortunately, for some reason, I am different. — Number2018

I don't assume that we are different in the same ways, but I think that critical writers (Lacan, Freud, whoever) appeal to creeps and weirdos. I use those term playfully. A small subset of the population maybe just can't embrace various ordinary pleasures without some kind of self-consciousness that gets in the way. Like Zizek can't dance, because it's 'obscene.'

I could use the example of holidays for myself. Excepting early childhood, they are just meaningless to me. It's all the same one day. Birthday, deathday, whatever. It's zero o' clock in World City, and it's just more ripples in the nothingness. And yet sex and philosophy and music punch through. A few strong-enough signals dominate.

You mention 'ordinary self-affirmation.' For me the critical writers are some kind of violent alternative self-affirmation that also involves continual self-negation. It's like a drug addiction. And part of that self-negation gets around finally to mocking the master of various useless lingos, useless unless and until one is famous or paid, etc. But this self-critique is still part of the game of the playing with more fire than others. Lacan is to me just one of these drug addicts who caught on to become a supplier. Outsiders yawn or feel just enough attraction/envy to complain and attack. (Rival suppliers attack for their own reasons.)

And interwoven through all of it was some felt urgency, like, for some reason, I had to understand these guys, or be left out in some sort of metaphysical cold. — csalisbury

I can relate to this chase. The thing is always around the corner or hidden in the thicket. The nymph is most alluring when not quite nude. There's no joy in the tavern as on the road thereto. Or occasionally there really is an ecstasy there, for awhile. But the ecstasy is in the transition, in the overcoming of resistance, in the unfastening of the garment.

I think of cats chasing the red dots of laser pointers. Do they know that it's really nothing on some level? But they let themselves believe ?

All that out of the way, I'd like to run something by you. I have this notion of infinite randomness in my mind. To me it means the existence of an infinity that is completely devoid of all patterns. If such infinite randomness were discovered to exist (I don't care as to where) can we infer the impossibility of reality being an illusion based on the premise that to code infinite randomness would require an infinite set of instructions, a task that can't be completed, and if so, such a code can't ever be actually executed? — TheMadFool

I know this is for @fishfry, but I'm caffeinated and here, so I'll play too. Here's what you seem to be talking about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogorov_complexity

My understanding that such 'objects' have been discovered to mathematically exist. Most real numbers are not computable, by the simple measure-theoretic argument given above. So within one tradition (which happens to be dominant) there exist non-computable numbers. But by definition they can never be looked at directly. They are a byproduct of measure theory, you might say. But some thinkers might look at this byproduct and doubt the system that produced them. Real numbers might be useful fictions. Continuity might be an 'illusion.' (The semantic issues what that are the usual semantic issues with all interesting philosophy. Do people ever know exactly what they mean? Or do the generations come and go, muddling through with their conventional noises somehow?)

A system of real numbers is any system that satisfies certain axioms. So if you were interested in the metaphysical ramifications of math, you'd probably want to look at constructions of the real numbers, set theory, etc., to see how much weight you'd give these human creations outside the system of conventions in which they conventionally exist. You can argue that pi exists in the same way a chair exists, or that pi is more real, etc. But once you leave the chessboard and its rules....you're another improviser trying to synthesize a big picture in a language you cannot control.

If nothing else, perhaps all the responses you are getting, suggests that your whole philosophy of egoism is an important area, worthy of debate. — Jack Cummins

It is a fascinating issue. It is concentrated or purified romanticism. Both Christ and Socrates are individual heroes. But with artists it's even more concentrated. The product is a singular, nonfungible entity, an irreplaceable personality. The 21st century entrepreneur has a Youtube channel and lives their brand, is their brand. Yeah, it's all paid for by ads, but at the center is the mystique of genius.

This also came to mind: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Enemy_of_the_People Or we can consider Anthem, and watch how the pronoun 'I' is rediscovered by the 'we'-drugged protagonist.

Also it's kind of you to speak up as you do above, just in case someone is feeling persecuted. But I suspect that egoism feeds on that kind of misunderstanding. The last thing the egoist wants is the banality of egoism.

You gave an existence proof without naming any specific noncomputable number. And in order to do so you needed a cardinality or a measure theoretic argument, neither of which are physically meaningful. — fishfry

Yup. As I think I stated or strongly implied. It's just a game with rules that a group of humans agree on well enough to keep playing. Those without training in it take it too seriously or 'metaphysically.' They've never watched the sausage being made or seen long, boring proofs.

Of course his post is finite so it's not likely that he's specified any particular noncomputable real. But the larger point is that a number that encodes an infinite amount of information has a lesser claim to mathematical existence than one that encodes only a finite amount of information. — fishfry

Intuitively I agree. Though I think you'd agree that existence is just existence in terms of proof. Certain conventions guarantee a single notion of existence, even if constructive proofs encourage us to take the extra-mathematical existence (in some sense) of this or that number more seriously.

And either way, mathematical existence is not physical existence, A computer could put in our minds the idea of a flying horse, Captain Ahab, Captain Kirk, and noncomputable numbers. But since those things don't exist in the physical world, they are not evidence that the world is not a computer. — fishfry

I tend to agree with you here, but I allow for the possibility of some philosopher arguing that mathematical existence is also some kind of extra-mathematical existence. What the game means beyond the game is not decided within or by the game. People could claim that integers are more real than chairs or clouds. What are supposed to make of that is another issue.

My initial issue with simulation theories (and philosophy in general) is semantic. What does it even mean to say that this is simulation ? I guess we are supposed to picture ourselves as characters in a video game created by aliens of some kind. But maybe some human has visions and claims to see these aliens and this video game. How is that distinguishable from delusion or just more simulation?

The tower of Babel is upon us. — magritte

Yes. And it seems that no one can afford to stop building that tower even higher.

"So that 2, 3, 4, 5... may come into being as concepts, the 1 must have been conceived beforehand."

Therefore, the idea that the individual only emerges after the community is nothing more than demagogy or doublethink of those who, having conceived their individuals - their Self - need others to share their freedoms as Beings in order to exacerbate the individual from the conscious one. — Gus Lamarch

I note that you appeal to us using arithmetic and logic, our shared cultural heritage. I note also that you appeal to us at all, in the first place, for the recognition of some kind of trans-individual validity of your thought.

We are born mute and helpless. Older humans keep us alive and teach us a shared language, keeping their own bodies alive by participating in a community.

Human society - and not just contemporary society - always seems to have sought - and often forced - the homogeneity of the thought that "the group must always come before the Self" and to implement it in civilization. — Gus Lamarch

Of course certain roles are imposed on the members of a community. Certain actions are forbidden while others are demanded. In societies that tolerate and even encourage individuality, we can realize that any particular set of rules/customs is just the way 'we' happen to do things. But learning to do that is one of the roles that's imposed on us these days.

'Look at me: I'm freer than you, more intense than you. Feel free to recognize and imitate my virtue. Perhaps write a book about me to survive me when this flesh fails.'

But once you get beyond the physical, language falls apart - there are no clear definitions and you end up with a word salad - and no two people can agree on anything. — EricH

I think I know what you mean and agree with you, but perhaps 'physical' is not the ideal word here. There are lots of noncontroversial aspects of reality. People can play chess without getting lost in semantics, but it doesn't matter how the queen is shaped, only that there's no sincere argument about which piece is the queen.

'Word salad' is also a bit harsh. Maybe it's more like subcultures. If a small group of people read and write all the papers about exotic thinker X, they slowly develop a lingo. It's quite understandable that outsiders would ask if this lingo has any power or relevance in what you might call a 'physical' sense. I'd call it a lifeworld sense.

Can the works of X cure cancer, get me to Mars, etc.? Or do the words only make the insiders happy? I suspect that really believing any orienting grand narrative makes people happy. It may be investment in the narrative rather than the narrative that does the work.

I cannot assert this with 100% certainty, but I have a high level of confidence that - at best - metaphysics is a form of poetry in which people attempt to express vague feelings of, umm, well - and here I get stuck - I'm not quite sure what it is they're trying to express. — EricH

That's some of it, but don't forget all the attempts to prove things that people really want to believe. Proofs of God, proofs of free will, proofs that the world is good, that 'our' way of life is superior. A cynic might speak of methodical rationalization, and then a second cynic might tease the first for thinking that either of them are getting by without their own rationalizations. For instance, 'rationalization' is part of a story about the human mind.

It's much simpler to show that there are uncomputable numbers in [e,pi] (neglecting some techincal issues with your proof.) The measure of the computable subset C of [e,pi] is 0, so the measure of the rest of [e,pi] is pi - e > 0. So there are uncountably many uncomputables in [e,pi].

But behind this argument is mainstream measure theory and everything it is built on. You say 'existing in the same sense as e and pi.' Well, yes. But how do they exist? Like pieces in a game. There are certain rules that allow to put new pieces on the board. Your argument might work for mathematical platonists...or on anyone who thinks of math as a kind of ultimate physics.

The resolution to this dilemma, developed by Plato and Aristotle, is dualism. Hence the great rise in Christian dualism. — Metaphysician Undercover

Well, I like dualism more the monism in this case. Perhaps we can even talk of a spectrum and not a sharp distinction. Basically we have both words in our vocab to begin with because it's a vital distinction for us. Monism seems to be of the form: "actually, black is white." (Or white is black.)

If say x, an non-computable irrational number, exists, I mean, limiting myself to the current domain of discourse, that it has the same ontolological status as, say, the number 2 or the square root of 2 or pi or e. — TheMadFool

Yes, I think I understand the argument, and it's a fascinating point. An noncomputable real number contains an infinite amount of information. Fair enough. But this result depends on various human conventions. So what is the ontological status of such a number? As another poster has mentioned, other mathematical conventions are possible for which such numbers do not exist. All you need is a group of people to set up some rules, control who gets funding, who gets published, etc., and you have yourself a version of mathematics. (So the weak part of your argument in my eyes is that it takes a particular human conception as absolute.)

If given a full-option offer, people will chose the real over a simulation provided that in both cases the same level of happiness is guaranteed. If the first choice is taken away, people will happily choose a simulated reality [this is what I suspect Cypher/Cipher is going through]. Neo, Morpheus, and the rest of the human underground resistance chose 4 only because their victory is a gateway to 1. Had, option 1 been precluded for whatever reason, almost everyone would go for option 2 and ask to be reconnected to The Matrix. — TheMadFool

I like your spiritual math here. Clearly there's something in us humans (or most of us) that thirsts for the 'real.' The first matrix was a 'utopia,' but the humans kept waking up. Why? Because humans thirst for conflict, drama, the 'real.' The Matrix is a film that would have been shown within the matrix. The idea that it's all a simulation has a kind of sexy violence. 'This is all a dream, all an illusion.' As you mentioned, this is an ancient thought. Maybe it's the philosophical thought.

Hi. I think that some people do have rare experiences that they can't communicate. If they try, they don't enjoy a sense of being believed and/or understood. So we have esoteric things. But it's tricky when such things are advertised or argued for. This is why lots of religion looks so bad. Instead of excluding it recruiters recruiters, and of course there's a fee.

Really I don't like physicalism. I do think it's more or less false or circular, or a vague expression of attitude. Another poster commented on the Lebenswelt being fundamental. That's more like it. An irreducible pluralism of grandmothers and pencil sharpeners and square roots. Our soggy category systems are always just useful lies perhaps.

Perhaps this is a cop out, but I think it's good one: Haven't we (or hasn't philosophy) already been through the mess of this mental/physical game? It's all (actually) physical! It's all (actually) mental! But for this 'actually' to work in either direction requires bending 'physical' or 'mental' beyond recognition.

Isn't this really about attitude?

Big, useless questions are malfunctions of that sloppy calculator between your ears. Gather ye dollars and followers while ye may.

Why? You seem to assume that whatever meta-reality "programs" our reality is subject to the same laws and processes that occur in our world. Perhaps our notion of time does not exist there, nor the physical laws of our universe. In that case your argument concerning the irrationals is meaningless. Just a thought. — jgill

Great point. If this realm is fiction, then perhaps our math, physics, and biology (and so on) is just more worldbuilding.

Hi. I like the topic you've picked. I have two responses.

The first is Cipher's response. To me it doesn't much matter if my everyday reality is called a simulation or not. Pleasure and pain as I know them, the things I value, 'real' or not, just are what they are. I'm not offended by the idea that it's a simulation, but the question (as always?) is what does that really mean?

The second response is more technical. The so-called 'existence' of non-computable numbers seems to be a kind of fictional/conventional existence within a particular domain. What do we mean by 'existence' and 'infinite'? Within the game the players know well enough to keep the game going, but what are we to make of these tokens removed from that semi-controlled original context?

if you can make crude predictions then you understand the phenomenon on at least one level.

It's not all-or-nothing in science, you can have levels of understanding. — Mijin

That seems right, and maybe we never completely understand. Science is humanity being a little less stupid than we usually are? By actually keeping track of our BS, counting the public hits and misses?

Such things are composed of form (from which both information and ideas etymologically derive) and matter: — Andrew M

Hi. A's view is reasonable, and it points at what tempts us to try to wring some kind of purified mind-stuff and its by-product matter-stuff from effective if imperfectible ord-lang distinctions.

How did Russell's folks respond to the news that he'd be a philosopher?

"No matter, nevermind."

But at that point the word "Physical" becomes meaningless and redundant, as it should, and so will "Idealism". We'll just have "thingism" — khaled

Hooray for thingism! (In other words, I agree.)

I am very curious to know how the Christians manage to maintain their belief, while having read Nietzsche seriously. — Coryanthe

Nietzsche was arguably a Christian in some unorthodox sense. Consider his seductive portrait of the Nazarene in The Antichrist. Half-remembered quote from somewhere: 'You don't read the gospels, the gospels read you.' That's why you have to read it with gloves on.

Swenson, Schneider and Kay, Lineweaver, Salthe and many more have hammered out the basics of how life and mind arise as dissipative structures with the intelligence to exploit entropic gradients. — apokrisis

The Swenson paper is good. Life is a convection cell, order in the service of disorder.