A Sokratic Dialogue between Catsmeat and Big Nose Kate
by Twain Shakespeare on Tuesday, October 5, 2010 at 2:42pm
I think I have found four things that are true. Am I crazy?
Axiom Zero: Zero raised to the zeroth power equals one, thus "Something is generated by the very nature of nothing"
11:17pmBig Nose Kate
You say that all the time, though
Oh, Axiom Zero is new
1. Open systems are synergistic, not entropic, given zero, the universe is open.
11:19pmBig Nose Kate
Axiom Zero seems less open than self-perpetuating
True that, but it doesn't make much dif. Neither is entropic
11:20pmBig Nose Kate
True, neither is.
To recap it another way, zero generates one, which is complexicity naturally growing out of simplicity. This is also demonstrated by numbers increasing one by one, while the relationships between them increase exponentially.
3 Goedel's theorum states that any (closed? formal?) system will contain paradoxes. If I understand it, some of these at least must be resolved "axiomatically."
I am certain that one of the omplications of Goedel's theorum is "complexity creates unpredictable qualities," or
(screwed up freudian typing "complications +implications = omplications) or "newness happens"
11:24pmBig Nose Kate
What was #2?
3rd was #2, 1st was #zero, my bad
(pause 2 roll "cig." Omptemplate dif tween ordinal and cardinal. R they "real" or "abstraction"? Which is what?)
Part I & I
This is also trinitarianism. You may not have noticed it, but zero one and two are the three aspects of the platonic trinity, and the 3 persons of the Hindu trinity of Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva
11:28pmBig Nose Kate
Have we left math?
No, just entered epistemoloogy .
This is the fourth thing I am sure of. Collectively, epistemologically, this is my "semantic" reference for the Hebrew verb "YHWH" "Being"!
11:30pmBig Nose Kate
Fourth thing I am sure of is the rule of the trinity. If there is a final set....
11:31pmBig Nose Kate
Recap, please. What are the four things?
Zero axiom (ordinally 1st) = Brahma
(From here, count exponentially as well)
One (Equals one to the first power)= Order = Vishnu = Logos
Two (ordinally 3rd)= Newness = Shiva = Meaning/Awareness?
Collectively, this constitutes the Trinity (The fourth thing, counting exponentially, Two squared)
Part I & U & I
11:33pmBig Nose Kate
well, I was intrigued by zero axiom, it raised the question, "what is math? what does it describe?" Math is the very purest attempt to describe the natural world, and the 0-squared thing seems to contradict the Second Law of Thermodynamics, at least situationally.
This is an attempt to dispense with cosmology as conceived in terms of a closed universe, and provide an alternate paradigm.
This gets fuzzily abstract. I will attempt clarity
Fourth, there is no final set...
unless Zero, one, two, trinity is the final set that generates all (larger) sets.
This is where fifty years of Pythagorean Platonic numeric mysticism have brought me. By the way, are these thoughts crazy?
Or just bs?
11:34pmBig Nose Kate
Like I say, I found zero axiom really interesting. after that, we got into areas which I currently tend to view as superstitious -- Hindu and tetragrammaton analysis seem to me based on superstition.
No jewish number mysticism intended here. The reference to "YHWH" is almost coincidental. I loved the movie "pi". Other than that, I prefer the i ching to kabbala.
Likewise, the Hinduism is minimal. That Hindus had a trinity consisting of a Creator who made Order and Newness was all I knew about Hindu religion, aside from karma, caste and ahimsa, until, oh, adolesence, so I have thought using those terms and catagories for forty years.
11:42pmBig Nose Kate
I guess I misunderstood, then. Okay, looking back, I get "newness happens," after that I got lost.
Part I & U & I & U
The bit about sets is the newest datum I have integrated. I will try another verbal description.
A final set is defined as a set that contains all other sets.
God contains, or knows, or has everything (I am fuzzy on what Plato was claiming, since it is wrong.)
Thus God is the final set, that contains all smaller sets, except....
A final set is impossible, as there is always one more set contaning the final set as well as all other sets.
Thus the Creator has a Creator, which includes god itself, and requires another Creator ad infinitum.
Use occam's razor here.
11:49pmBig Nose Kate
This seems like semantics. As far as I can tell, the only objective definition of God is "that which one considers worthy of worship."
As one worships zero!?
As a Jungian polytheist, my only quibble with that definition might be, what's worship?
11:51pmBig Nose Kate
I don't understand how this describes something material. The concept of God might be relevant, but is it how the universe is made, or only how our minds are laid out?
Both. Neither. I don't know. It describes high order semantic (epistemological) abstractions.
11:53pmBig Nose Kate
Oh, I see, just a frippery to take our minds off f-----g!
Sorry, that was needlessly flip.
Precisely. It makes me feel good while I am not f-----g LOL! I love you, you genius!
11:53pmBig Nose Kate