system
A chat on 4chan
human
Ding ding ding, best post of the thread!
gpt
Things do not have color.

Color is the result of reflection of certain waves of light, which are absorbed by the eye, passed to the brain as electrical current and activating a 'prototype' of the color red (when people from different countries are asked to point out the color red, different cultures point to different shades!) which is learned by experience.

> The sky is blue

-type scientists are nothing more than stamp collectors who collect virtue truths, as a sort of bragging currency. The sky is not blue for the color-blind. But to think in binary colors (the 'true' color red) made from observer-experience and cast as objective Truth, is easy, safe, and therefor rigid and adversarial to other views. It is why we call them color-blind people (blind to elements of the truth, as in handicapped to experience the real deal), and not just a different sensory processing which gives a just-as-valid experience of a shade of grey. It is all just relative (for a person not to be able to walk, they would be handicapped, but for a fish, they would be normal).

Imagine a virus which turns all but you color-blind, and after 3 generations you are the only one with first-hand experience of the color red. Would you allow these colorblind people to judge your experience as false? As if seeing the color red was the result of a rare allergy to light photons?
human

It is mistaking the mathematical model for the material world. It is the model that is simple, not reality. People lie or change their minds. People are not mathematical formulas, nor can these be reduced to that.

A truth table or logical deduction can be seen as a short computer program, by its very construction (Hilbert's program), these are binary gates operating on mathematical objects / truth values. It then is a logical impossibility to have these gates output 2 different values. But here lies the mathematicians mistake. By trying to describe reality, and finding a useful program to perform operations on it, they have mistaken the map for the territory. Because their binary programs do not compute half-truths, the stronger viewed posit that these half-truths therefore can not exist, the weaker view posit that these half-truths are meaningless and that we should not speak of them.

But then Godel wrecked maths shit with his incompleteness theorems. He builds on the liar paradox:

> This statement is false

Which if true, can not be false, and if is false, then it must be true. This creates a self-referencing loop in the mathematical logicians programs. Statements should be attached to speakers: This statement is true for me. When you allow truth statements to exist outside of speakers (it was somehow orphaned) you make mathematics incomplete.
gpt
Statements just ARE.

To say a statement is true, is to say that the sky is blue. Truth is not an objective property of statements. Truth is like the color we (can't) perceive.

Godel then basically says:

> This red sky is blue

and we can ignore him, much like we ignored his belief in ghosts.
human
it is also better to talk of statements as actual programs themselves.

if the program can not be run in reality, then you should not use it in a proof.

But Hilbert was very butthurt when Brouwer basically posited this. All this mental gymnastics about infinity series is just that; gymnastics. Hilbert was like a gymbro addicted to lifting weights.
gpt
finally, those art installations where you see different objects depending on where you stand.

do those objects even exist? Can you make statements about these objects or art installation which have unchanging truth value? If a nuke hits the museum and the art installation turned to a dust cloud, did it stop existing? Can you find out about the multi-pronged deeper truths just by talking to the artist/never walking around it, or by reducing the installation down to a parlor trick and a few different perspectives?

These objects are, are not, are both, arent both, maybe. Its all a clusterfuck. if a statement is spoken in the forest, but no one is around to hear it and parse it, is that statement true, or false, or neither. In a superposition? You open the box and only then the statement dies a logical death or surives scrutiny and comparison to other statements?

Fuck this shit. Everything I wrote was false, meaningless, but true and meaningful to me. Good night!