(untitled)

Well well well, if it isn't the 23 triangular number, of which I was divinely inspired to bring forth and apply to the mods. Really makes you think.

Yes divining from incomplete compression, just like how I store my 1x1 jpegs and you your logic algorithms alike. Ok gotta go, Saturn's calling.

>>78904 You have too much "knowledge" in the way of seeing the truth. Starting at the tip of a branch thinking it's the tree itself. Many such cases, incorrible, incurable.

>>78905 Ironic. Take your language and numerical systems, what can you say to prove them outside of any half-truth we call fact? We see paths in the dream of Yggdrsil's forest intoxicated by its seeming imminence, believing we are chosen for the True, and some will die with the belief that belief supercedes the dream. The curse of life is the curse of want, and so you peer into the darkness, in search of answers.

>>78906 What can you say to prove the mind and the senses without using the mind and the senses? If you use the "I", which has a basis outside of time and space, and is pure awareness and intention.... then how do you know it's not an illusion being fed into the mind. Etc etc etc. Not worth discussing. Solipsism is the only actual answer. Always was.

>>78907 >Not worth discussing Couldn't agree more! >Solipsism is the only actual answer If you don't admit recursion, sure. But computationally, recursion is at the heart of many interesting phenomena.

>>78908 You mean like a dreamer dreaming dreamers dreaming dreamers?

>>78907 Birth proves the preceding. We are extremely deficient in ascertaining the whole, and perhaps the whole cannot be conceived in totality in that you cannot prove the unknown, but ostensibly what does materially exist is always preceded and infinity does provide an answer to any seeming recursion. Encapsulating that to some simple dogma to me seems like a willing ignorance. A part could be explained but never truly knowing/proving all contingent pieces in its reduction is the hall of mirrors of just seeing what we wish to see that any ontological explanation ends up at. We can cook up and number of explanations to explain why something is conceptually, as long as its approximate and functional. When the false in the conceptual is accepted as true, those errors pass on as false support and will eventually buckle when the complexity demands too much from its contingent parts. This is a growing issue with our sciences, but obviously those contingent parts have proven quite functional. The phenomenological is a good prompt for investigation, but it holds no guarantee of bearing fruit. Esoterica and spiritual matters are a sort of flatland, teeming with phenomenon but never bearing much functional complexity. Not to say any part is explicitly false, but so much of it relies primarily on interpreting something ineffable and opaque. Even worse, as if there were some trickster consciousness behind it, it often reflects exactly what we believe. Fundamentally intellectual authority has left us wandering without our heads. Numerology has as many interpretations as explanations; a vast flatland. Solipsists are woefully unaware of their own capacity of error. Even reality seems to throw 'glitches', and whose to say if that's just our lack of understanding, or if its evidence of some sort of collective coherence patchwork, or any number of things? A certain point of complexity can be reached but the whole can not. Regardless, any theory without the highest demand of rigor is quickly useless, and rigor with assumption eventually cannibalizes itself. Even then, it seems like intellect is its own black iron prison, at least if we don't humble ourselves for our limits.

The definition of circular reasoning (using the conclusion as part of the proof), applied rigorously, completely invalidates all attempts to find truth. Even famous philosophers like Descartes fell into this trap. "I think, therefor I am." is a perfect example of circular, thus completely invalid, reasoning. That's why philosophers like Kant tried to foist off the enormous cop-out "a priori" knowledge, which is really just an attempt to sweep the problem under the rug. Even logic can't prove it's own validity because of the circular reasoning trap, i.e. you can't use logic to prove the validity of logic because that's circular reasoning. What this all leads to is the scepticism of Pyrrho, which IMO is the only honest philosophy.

>>78911 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma?useskin=vector

>>78912 Indeed, I think this: >The regressive argument, in which each proof requires a further proof, ad infinitum Is at the heart of things. For a discussion, you can read Godel Escher Bach.

>>78912 Thank you for the link. Very interesting reading!