[ot][spam][personal] nothing is impossible
the set of what is possible and what is impossible is a little hard for me i generally hold the value that everything is possible[???? not sure why question here
anyway considering what happens or does not happen is an important area of rationality for example there are proofs by counterexample or contradiction in rebuilding beliefs that things are possible at all (huge messaging that things are impossible, so sad to learn of so many people being severely disempowered by being told not to consider such huge swathes of potential) it ends up being hard to consider contradictory regions of logic, areas of inferences that don’t happen
i think the rule of thumb is that things can be impossible only when there are sufficient constraints on them that a contradiction develops from the constraints and that this is normal and is a basic part of how normal rational decisions are made
there’s something irrational wound into part of my sense of possibility that quickly judges things as impossible when they aren’t, maybe spread from “hyonotic slavery” like “it’s impossible to resist X” where X is roughly some unnamed mcboss cabal
maybe spreads extra from the time i went on tor and talked with people outside my bubble it also looks at things like bitcoin that historically broke economic class boundaries then the feeling-contradictions that arise from this seem kind of like little traumatic delusions. builds idea that trauma is related to logical contradictions emerging in our core feelings or such.
part of the spread might be a fear that i’ll be harmed more if more parts of my consciousness profile as believing X can be resisted relates to my complex coping strategy mentioned in other thread. barf.
maybe this general fear of experiencing various forms of harm could be cast as a biggest reason to believe irrational things hard to hold that adjacent to building basic logic, considering normal contradictory inference because lacking logic skill around, could make sense to separate concepts, uncertain/unsure
anyway, things are impossible if and only if there are constraints around them from which a contradiction emerges generally, things without sufficient constraints are never impossible, and that is why you can easily make a pig fly by taking it on an airplane. but in rational decisions, we generally have constraints
somewhat scared of constraint enumeration. want to use constraints for making possibility and wellness, not making impossibility and harm. nice to think of there being a clear logical system though. On 6/9/23, Undescribed Horrific Abuse, One Victim & Survivor of Many <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
anyway, things are impossible if and only if there are constraints around them from which a contradiction emerges
generally, things without sufficient constraints are never impossible, and that is why you can easily make a pig fly by taking it on an airplane.
but in rational decisions, we generally have constraints
a=1 b=2 prove that a+b=3 disprove that a+b=4 # in a proof situation, we are temporarily writing as if the axioms are always true. # there are additionally hidden axioms which are the rules used for the proof. # hence, our conclusion is true only under the conditions that all of the axioms # and all of the rules are also true. # this difference can come into play in formal logic where “if” has a nonintuitive meaning # hard # could use formalization of meaning of + and = with variables and literals a+b=1+2 1+2=3 a+b=3 3!=4 a+b!=4 # could use formalization of meaning of = and != and relation to prove and disprove # how did the contradiction arise from constraints on the parts? # maybe within the meanings of e.g. = .
# well, when does 1+2=4? # answer: in _different arithmetic systems_. so the constraints were indeed within the logic.
if we consider a=1, b=2, a+b equals 3 or 4 these things represent concepts in the real world if we transfer arithmetic to the real world, the constraints aren’t within the rules of the system anymore, they’re within the systems and behaviors of counted items for example, combining two items with makes 4 only if the items interact in a way to mutate their quantity in ways that don’t correlate with conventional arithmetic you could force this to happen by crafting or finding an object that replicates when combined, using an intangible system like something with lenses and light, working with subatomic particles that obey different rules, or monitoring a system and taking action such that different rules are consistently applied in it where is the bound? what is relevant rather than exotic? where is the logical bound?
maybe we look at portions of the world and observe that we can write patterns that fully describe these patterns (because it is so useful to do so). often this means adjusting the portions or the patterns a little as we learn more. then, when we engage those rules or patterns, we are tacitly assuming that we are engaging only the portions of the world where they apply. analogous to the rule axioms in a proof.
patterns that fully describe these patterns (because it is so useful *fully describe those portions
… so, when we communicate about logic, there’s an unspoken assumption that what matters to us, what we’re trying to talk about, is the portion of the world where the used rules of logic are true. because this isn’t communicated overtly, and because logic is almost pointedly about engaging and resolving human error, there’s a little complexity, it roughly derives to reasons — what are we trying to do, and does the logic and other stuff aid this or not. and with dissociation and confusion and conflict, what we are trying to do, what we share, can see harder to grasp.
this … space of e.g. dissociated, conflicting, delusional, confused, or misleading/misled behavior, has a situation of engaging portions of the world that are not relevant. if i start referring to subatomic particle interactions when debating arithmetic, you can be sure i’m avoiding something, and that something is roughly the truth even if literally there are systems where 1+2=4
so what’s the difference between the arithmeticion who refuses to count, and the logical mistake in a forthright argument? any clear logical differences?
maybe a core not-that-clearly-logic part here is conflict. i view conflict as often stemming from different views, beliefs, or _experiences_ — focuses on different portions of the world, where different rules apply when that happens, maybe it’s kind of like a forthright delusion. we’re using the same words, but talking about different things. things that are different but similar. maybe like a nonintuitive meaning of “if” in formal logic.
On 6/9/23, Undescribed Horrific Abuse, One Victim & Survivor of Many <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
if we consider a=1, b=2, a+b equals 3 or 4 these things represent concepts in the real world if we transfer arithmetic to the real world, the constraints aren’t within the rules of the system anymore, they’re within the systems and behaviors of counted items
maybe a simple relevant system is ones that are bounded. in a computer, values overflow. like putting marbles into a finitely-sized bag, adding 1 to a quantity only works until a maximum is hit. natural systems have this happen slowly, where relative acceleration behaves differently as the speed of light is approached, or a populated system destabilizes as the population exceeds a capacity. incrementation is a linear approximation of the behavior of a system. linear approximations work only on small scales: not when things become extreme.
thinking of an extreme where all particles in the universe are carefully in some way added to a sum then further antiparticles made so as to make more particles and continue increasing the sum to make it work you might need an intelligent agent that can enforce arithmetic, preventing the particles from collapsing into a black hole, and the antimatter from annihilating the matter … this agent would need energy, maybe that is addressed … adds a further concern of what is a sum or a grouping, seems like a conscious observer defines this with physical objects, maybe defines it as being within a custom spatial bound
maybe what the arithmetic-borg demonstrates is that the laws we find applying to portions of the world can be shown to relate to real laws that define our reality, and this helps make them more useful it seems intuitive that finding a law that mostly describes something would mean it relates to some part of the underlying process —- thinking the goal here is to build skill with normal inferences
On 6/9/23, Undescribed Horrific Abuse, One Victim & Survivor of Many <gmkarl@gmail.com> wrote:
maybe what the arithmetic-borg demonstrates is that the laws we find applying to portions of the world can be shown to relate to real laws that define our reality, and this helps make them more useful didn’t mean “useful” here — this helps show that they have inherent meaning and truth
it seems intuitive that finding a law that mostly describes something would mean it relates to some part of the underlying process
—-
thinking the goal here is to build skill with normal inferences
i’m guessing i avoid considering impossibility and universal constraints because i experience a need to deenergize a part of me that urgently acts on false constraints and false impossibilities
i infer we want to argue positive logic with demonstration and provision, so a machine that successfully navigates confusion or performs an all-possible logic could be helpful
one approach to still building a rationality could be to find experiences that are reasonable surrogates for dissociated reasons for example, the development of new political cults in my country, if i got myself harrassed overtly by one, maybe this would be much easier to conceive of or how paypal sends confirmation codes for me through a different registered text number that could be used for phishing, and support informed me they use their official text number only clear, observable experiences
i found a way to make money: somebody made a machine that enforces an arithmetic of 1+2=4. i put two dollars in one side, and a third in other, and take four dollars out the front. i took off the side and found a little robot that is scanning the bills and printing more. — but in reality it puts them in a certificate of deposit and waits a hundred years to spew out the 4
—— if we were to resist mcboss, basically it’s easiest to operate within mcboss’s constraints for example, it seems at least irritating for both me and him, to delete something i’ve uploaded to arweave (i guess? for now?). hopefully this becomes even stronger. meanwhile, there are areas where this is very hard. i find it very hard to resolve the paypal issue, at least right now. and that’s within a space that has changed — it’s easier for people to persistently control systems of people whom they are already observing and controlling. for me, this lands because i dissociate around protecting my own information security.
participants (1)
-
Undescribed Horrific Abuse, One Victim & Survivor of Many