On Tuesday, October 1, 2024 at 3:39:01 AM UTC-6 Cosmin Visan wrote:

Regarding the analogy with the old gods, the goal of any theory should be 
the truth. Theories are a side effect of the goal of finding the truth. 
Truth is what decides what a theory looks like, not the other way around. 
As such, words such as "throwback" is a mischaracterization of what a 
theory is doing. If the truth reveals to us that reality is indeed a 
network of interacting consciousnesses, and that this truth strips us of 
our powers to make predictions, this is not a "throwback", this is simply 
the truth. Truth is not throwback or throwforwards. Truth is simply truth. 
It is what it is. Nobody says that truth should be about making 
predictions. For predictions there are other tools that you can use, like 
developing empirical models that you can apply for a certain problem at 
hand. If you want to design a TV, you clearly don't use the ideas that you 
would use when designing a washing machine. For such practical problems you 
can use whatever models work. But truth is truth and you shouldn't impose 
on it your criteria of what truth should be. Sure, if you think long enough 
maybe you can even make predictions starting directly from truth. But that 
is just a bonus.

 
But what is truth; that is, how do we know we've discovered it? That's 
where models and predictions have been found to have value, even even 
though their range is limited. Otherwise, all we have are *opinions*. While 
I agree, based on esoteric personal experiences, that the core of reality 
is consciousness, I still need the bonus you refer to, and so far your 
truth, to the extent you can articulate it, does not indicate any way to 
get that bonus. AG



On Tuesday 1 October 2024 at 12:22:44 UTC+3 Cosmin Visan wrote:

For practical purposes you can use whatever model works. We are not talking 
here about practicality, but about the nature of reality. Furthermore, even 
if for convenience you use some model that works, you have to keep in mind 
at all times that only because that model works in a specific situation, 
this gives you zero guarantees that it will work on another situation. You 
try to talk about the universe using a model that only works locally on the 
solar system. Of course more likely than not it will not work on the 
universe. So then why waste time ? Is like arguing to reach the Moon on an 
airplane just because airplanes work so well around the Earth. But the 
moment you leave Earth, the conditions that made that airplane work around 
Earth are no longer present. What guarantees you that whatever makes the 
planets revolve around the Sun is still applicable at the scale of the 
universe ?

Also, regarding consciousnesses, I hope you understand that is not their 
wishes directly that move the planets. Those consciousnesses are just 
minding their own businesses in their own internal realities. They don't 
know anything about planets. "Planets" is a symbol that YOUR consciousness 
invents as a best guess in order to account for whatever those other 
consciousnesses are doing. Is similar with money. You pay 5$ for a kilo of 
tomatoes, but those 5$ are just a symbol in your consciousness that hides 
the complexities of the interactions of humans and animals consciousnesses 
on planet Earth. Behind those 5$ are consciousnesses living all kinds of 
dramas and tragedies and loves and whatever. But you are totally oblivious 
to all that. You just have the quale of 5$ to free you from all that 
unnecessary burden towards achieving your own goals. And of course, you 
buying those tomatoes, you put your own stamp on the global consciousnesses 
interactions and modify them a tiny bit.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2f481f4b-f2d9-436c-b556-fbfe2c647be2n%40googlegroups.com.

Reply via email to