Reality is a self-resolving paradox. Or more specifically, a self-inclusion paradox. This paradox is due to reality being the set of all sets. To any casual observer this should be obvious.
This directly leads us to conclude that reality is a self-simulation. Since it resolves the self-inclusion paradox.
The word moron is not spelled g-e-n-i-u-s.
I resent morons trying to cheapen words they obviously don't understand.
DO YOU NOT SEE MY GENIUS???
FUCK YOU.
No one sees it, dipshit. But keep having a little temper tantrum like your avatar would. It's a good look on you.
(Nov 11, 2023 09:11 PM)Ostronomos Wrote: [ -> ]Reality is a self-resolving paradox. Or more specifically, a self-inclusion paradox. This paradox is due to reality being the set of all sets. To any casual observer this should be obvious.
Maybe. But where does possibility fit into this scheme? Reality would seem to consist of the actual, while the set of all sets would include the possible along with the actual.
Quote:This directly leads us to conclude that reality is a self-simulation.
It does? How?
Quote:Since it resolves the self-inclusion paradox.
It does? How?
(Nov 11, 2023 10:47 PM)Ostronomos Wrote: [ -> ]DO YOU NOT SEE MY GENIUS???
FUCK YOU.
I don't see your "genius" either.
Just throwing out incomprehensible Langan-jargon doesn't solve the deepest ontological problems. You need to explain what issues Langan is addressing, how his theories resolve those problems, and why his theories should be believed in the first place.
Even if you could do that, they would still be Langan's ideas, not yours.
(Nov 12, 2023 02:52 AM)Yazata Wrote: [ -> ] (Nov 11, 2023 09:11 PM)Ostronomos Wrote: [ -> ]Reality is a self-resolving paradox. Or more specifically, a self-inclusion paradox. This paradox is due to reality being the set of all sets. To any casual observer this should be obvious.
Maybe. But where does possibility fit into this scheme? Reality would seem to consist of the actual, while the set of all sets would include the possible along with the actual.
Quote:This directly leads us to conclude that reality is a self-simulation.
It does? How?
Quote:Since it resolves the self-inclusion paradox.
It does? How?
(Nov 11, 2023 10:47 PM)Ostronomos Wrote: [ -> ]DO YOU NOT SEE MY GENIUS???
FUCK YOU.
I don't see your "genius" either.
Just throwing out incomprehensible Langan-jargon doesn't solve the deepest ontological problems. You need to explain what issues Langan is addressing, how his theories resolve those problems, and why his theories should be believed in the first place.
Even if you could do that, they would still be Langan's ideas, not yours.
The self-inclusion paradox is pretty self-explanatory. However, one should not fool oneself about what it actually takes for reality to fulfill its promise of existence.
As you may notice I incorporated the set of all sets paradox in my argument. One can discover the limits of reality and the nature of God through the comfort of their living room, using deduction.
I cannot stress this enough. The secrets of the universe can be known through the language of logic.
Thank you for sharing.
Self inclusion paradox explained
The collective set of geniuses that Ostro ascribes to are morons as well as each having the uniqueness of being a moron who is a genius.
Without tirelessly promoting this subject, I have suggested that all of existence can be placed on paper, in mathematical form.
This fact is indisputable and demonstrates the illusionistic nature of existence, a Quantum construct. Consider for example the self-inclusion paradox. From this paradox it naturally follows that reality is entirely all-inclusive and therefore self-inclusive. This relates to the set of all sets paradox.
Illy.