Probability... Improbability... Whoah... Is this like a madness combat reference?
Aight, in all honesty, this is a very interesting article, i, like many-a-normgroid, hated math, however, recently i have had an avid intrigue in Mathematics, which strangely started late 2023 when my 50 something old autistic math teacher which uncannily resembled Principal McVicker from Beavis and Butt-Head quoted the Pythagorean motto of "All is number" and that math was an universal principle, since then i have been captivated by various mathematical concepts, Probability and Improbability being one of them, and also trying to focus more on calculus.
I must say, you posting an article about probability around the same time my teacher told me about Pythagoreanism last year, is kinda improbable.
It's literally true dude you're forgetting earlier this year when the greatest Neo-Pythagorean of our time, FunnyMathJokes, pulled the extremely rare b²theist ThomasHeathsquaretheoremWard and c²theist AlgebraicsymmetricallyarrangedtrianglestheoremWard + Buttcrack Kamehameha combo attack to deatomize VRIL when he said math was fake bs
For what it is worth, pursuing a focus on statistics does make you more employable, in some sense, especially in a world that is obsessed with data and analytics, which you've pointed out. If you want a job and money quickly, then this makes that route a bit easier. You seem to be someone who appreciates the beauty if pure math enough already, so being a little utilitarian in your choice of degree won't hurt you.
I never studied math past introductory graduate level, but I basically noticed that 95% of people are suited to being a more natural algebraist, or a more natural analyst (in the sense of real/complex analysis, not statistics), but not both. The rare few who are good at both seem to take a hit elsewhere (e.g., unable to truly understand things outside of math).
> In fact, the probability of picking anything out of an infinite set of things is 0, so if you were to pick something out of such a thing you would break the laws of probability
One of my favorite things to explain to n00bz is how the Cantor set is uncountable but has measure zero. Entertaining way to blow their minds about how sets can be 'infinite' but have no 'substance' (and also the fucky nature of the real numbers.)
Interesting, I would say I prefer analysis a little bit more than algebraic fields, I enjoy proofs. And yet, I eat my corn in the algebraic way, not the spiral way.
I might bite my tongue though, I haven’t taken the hardest analytic or algebraic classes at my uni yet.
I might make an entire post about potentiality at the metaphysical level. It is probably the best way to describe ultimate reality because its intrinsically indeterminate, and indeterminacy must be naturally unlimited or infinite.
It’s funny, other people say that the ultimate reality is best described as pure actuality. Would you say it is actually maximal in both, or do you think potentiality precedes actuality?
Awareness or the potential to perceive is the grandfather of all conditioned reality. Actuality can only be reached in respect to potential. Actuality is what potentiality says it is. Because there are not a multitude of truths in the world, only indeterminate mind or the “pure potential of mind” can be said to be real. The actual is the virtual, conditioned and provisional. Potential is ultimate, and unconditioned.
Potential is the Ontic and Actuality is the Ontological.
This understanding is basically a summary of most forms of non-duality.
The metaphysical language goes a little bit over my head, but what do you think about something like the Boltzmann Brain as an example of the improbability of an atheistic, purely material universe with a totally random origin? Boltzmann, of course, argued that it would be more likely for a human brain to spontaneously form in outer space in a single instant, with all the right synapses necessary to create the illusion of human existence, with all its memories and experiences, than it is for the universe to have come about into existence in the way secular cosmologists say it did. Boltzmann wasn't literally arguing that the universe is fake and that it's all just an illusion of some being's solipsistic thought (like modern day "computer simulation universe" theories do), and is more of a criticism of physicists' and astronomers' calculations failing to add up to give a reasonable account of how the universe exists.
This argument seems to be able to apply to any view of the creation of life (e.g. with infinite time, the divine would eventually create your exact brain floating around), also there is nothing in the physicalists playbook that makes it necessary for a brain to form by itself, in fact it seems pretty much impossible. As far as we know, these synapses cannot be created through “chemicals meshing together” but only through the medium of a human brain and body working together in a specific environment to create such a memory
My personal preference is for the pilot-wave form of quantum mechanics. Though I'm also partial to the experimental work being performed by Stephan Wolfram. I find the idea of our universe actually being 2.9 dimensional (spatially) or 3.1 dimensional fascinating. It cleans up some of the weird intricacies that predominant high-dimensionality on the sub-quantum scale.
The reincarnation argument becomes more interesting when applied to a materialistic idea of consciousness, that is, if your conscious agent is a product of neurological and computational convolution, the probability it will exist more than once is non-zero.
Quantum physics is really interesting. I always feel like we are close to breaking out of the material iykwim whenever they are mentioned, but I know little. I wonder how this relates to free will.
Missed the part about quantum mechanics on my first scroll through. The last paragraph is kind of confusing. Are you saying that God and the metaphysical realm are fundamentally pre random? The number line reincarnation argument also went over my head. This assumption only works if one assumes that the soul is immortal and that consciousness is a fundamental, not an emergent property. But, assuming that the soul is immortal, why wouldn't this argument work?
>Are you saying that God and the metaphysical realm are fundamentally pre random?
God yes. ‘Metaphysical realm’ is para-random; it lacks a random element but also does not precede randomness ontologically in the way that God does. God generates randomness while formal “metaphysical” objects like numbers simply exist deprived of it. Meanwhile in our world everything is a mixture of both metaphysical objects and randomness.
>The number line reincarnation argument also went over my head. This assumption only works if one assumes that the soul is immortal and that consciousness is a fundamental, not an emergent property.
Well yes, but this is a good assumption.
>But, assuming that the soul is immortal, why wouldn't this argument work?
The soul is immortal but its descent into the world is not a random event. It’s not a physical event with physical causes, so it doesn’t make sense to measure it probabilistically.
I'm not, the question assumed immortality of the soul. But I do believe in the immortality of the soul, simply because there is no reason to think it is not immortal.
As someone who works all day with differential equations, I have crossed paths with stochastic differential equations, and boy are those a challenge! You have to use all kinds of things like Itô calculus and it gets messy really fast! I just try to avoid the stuff, to be honest. As much as I try to avoid the stuff it seems to keep popping up. I've already had to deal with other complicated stuff like differential inclusions and nonsmooth stuff, but I should just bite the bullet and learn stochastic stuff. As for you, all I can say is good luck. Statistics, probability, random processes, stochastic systems, etc, have always melted my brain and made me want to smash my head, but you seem like someone they would enjoy it, so I hope that you do! If you are interested, the field of control theory can always use more people looking into theoretical developments for stochastic systems (;
2. Epistemologically our knowledge that we are alive comes prior to our knowledge that we can potentially cease to be alive, so it makes sense to assume that our living experience continues in some other vessel. Reincarnation need not be reincarnation into this world, but I would assume it is if I have no reason to assume otherwise
I think that knowledge of being alive requires knowledge of death. If a kid doesnt understand death yet then i dont think they really understand what life is yet either. I would additionally argue that death is fundamentally impossible to understand. I think animals can and do operate without “knowing” that they’re alive.
More like a knowledge of causality. This life has preceding causes and conditions and the next life also will be founded on causes and conditions. Consciousness continues after death much like we wake up from dreamless sleep.
The mind is not equavialent to the brain, nothing about the mind is computational. The processing of information or having logical components doesn’t make it computational, as a machine does not have anything like qualia or subjectivity, consciousness of any serious kind is not present in it.
Probability... Improbability... Whoah... Is this like a madness combat reference?
Aight, in all honesty, this is a very interesting article, i, like many-a-normgroid, hated math, however, recently i have had an avid intrigue in Mathematics, which strangely started late 2023 when my 50 something old autistic math teacher which uncannily resembled Principal McVicker from Beavis and Butt-Head quoted the Pythagorean motto of "All is number" and that math was an universal principle, since then i have been captivated by various mathematical concepts, Probability and Improbability being one of them, and also trying to focus more on calculus.
I must say, you posting an article about probability around the same time my teacher told me about Pythagoreanism last year, is kinda improbable.
They say that Pythagoras could shoot kamehameha out of his buttcrack. They say that. I don’t know it it’s true but many have said it
It's literally true dude you're forgetting earlier this year when the greatest Neo-Pythagorean of our time, FunnyMathJokes, pulled the extremely rare b²theist ThomasHeathsquaretheoremWard and c²theist AlgebraicsymmetricallyarrangedtrianglestheoremWard + Buttcrack Kamehameha combo attack to deatomize VRIL when he said math was fake bs
Monarchtrump did disprove Pythagorean theorem once though didn’t he
i have a probability homework due this week, looks like i’ll be doing it on the last day
For what it is worth, pursuing a focus on statistics does make you more employable, in some sense, especially in a world that is obsessed with data and analytics, which you've pointed out. If you want a job and money quickly, then this makes that route a bit easier. You seem to be someone who appreciates the beauty if pure math enough already, so being a little utilitarian in your choice of degree won't hurt you.
I never studied math past introductory graduate level, but I basically noticed that 95% of people are suited to being a more natural algebraist, or a more natural analyst (in the sense of real/complex analysis, not statistics), but not both. The rare few who are good at both seem to take a hit elsewhere (e.g., unable to truly understand things outside of math).
There is even a funny blogpost you may have read before that shows a correlation between which field you prefer and how you eat corn on the cob: https://bentilly.blogspot.com/2010/08/analysis-vs-algebra-predicts-eating.html
> In fact, the probability of picking anything out of an infinite set of things is 0, so if you were to pick something out of such a thing you would break the laws of probability
One of my favorite things to explain to n00bz is how the Cantor set is uncountable but has measure zero. Entertaining way to blow their minds about how sets can be 'infinite' but have no 'substance' (and also the fucky nature of the real numbers.)
Interesting, I would say I prefer analysis a little bit more than algebraic fields, I enjoy proofs. And yet, I eat my corn in the algebraic way, not the spiral way.
I might bite my tongue though, I haven’t taken the hardest analytic or algebraic classes at my uni yet.
You should look into quantum mechanics
I might make an entire post about potentiality at the metaphysical level. It is probably the best way to describe ultimate reality because its intrinsically indeterminate, and indeterminacy must be naturally unlimited or infinite.
It’s funny, other people say that the ultimate reality is best described as pure actuality. Would you say it is actually maximal in both, or do you think potentiality precedes actuality?
Awareness or the potential to perceive is the grandfather of all conditioned reality. Actuality can only be reached in respect to potential. Actuality is what potentiality says it is. Because there are not a multitude of truths in the world, only indeterminate mind or the “pure potential of mind” can be said to be real. The actual is the virtual, conditioned and provisional. Potential is ultimate, and unconditioned.
Potential is the Ontic and Actuality is the Ontological.
This understanding is basically a summary of most forms of non-duality.
The metaphysical language goes a little bit over my head, but what do you think about something like the Boltzmann Brain as an example of the improbability of an atheistic, purely material universe with a totally random origin? Boltzmann, of course, argued that it would be more likely for a human brain to spontaneously form in outer space in a single instant, with all the right synapses necessary to create the illusion of human existence, with all its memories and experiences, than it is for the universe to have come about into existence in the way secular cosmologists say it did. Boltzmann wasn't literally arguing that the universe is fake and that it's all just an illusion of some being's solipsistic thought (like modern day "computer simulation universe" theories do), and is more of a criticism of physicists' and astronomers' calculations failing to add up to give a reasonable account of how the universe exists.
This argument seems to be able to apply to any view of the creation of life (e.g. with infinite time, the divine would eventually create your exact brain floating around), also there is nothing in the physicalists playbook that makes it necessary for a brain to form by itself, in fact it seems pretty much impossible. As far as we know, these synapses cannot be created through “chemicals meshing together” but only through the medium of a human brain and body working together in a specific environment to create such a memory
My personal preference is for the pilot-wave form of quantum mechanics. Though I'm also partial to the experimental work being performed by Stephan Wolfram. I find the idea of our universe actually being 2.9 dimensional (spatially) or 3.1 dimensional fascinating. It cleans up some of the weird intricacies that predominant high-dimensionality on the sub-quantum scale.
With that said, I think one can reasonably argue metaphysics based solely on macroscale phenomena. See the article I wrote on the nature of God and Truth for more on that. https://alwaysthehorizon.substack.com/p/materialists-have-not-slain-god-truth
The reincarnation argument becomes more interesting when applied to a materialistic idea of consciousness, that is, if your conscious agent is a product of neurological and computational convolution, the probability it will exist more than once is non-zero.
Quantum physics is really interesting. I always feel like we are close to breaking out of the material iykwim whenever they are mentioned, but I know little. I wonder how this relates to free will.
The final paragraph has an uncapitalized “I”.
Thanks for telling me, I fixed it.
Missed the part about quantum mechanics on my first scroll through. The last paragraph is kind of confusing. Are you saying that God and the metaphysical realm are fundamentally pre random? The number line reincarnation argument also went over my head. This assumption only works if one assumes that the soul is immortal and that consciousness is a fundamental, not an emergent property. But, assuming that the soul is immortal, why wouldn't this argument work?
>Are you saying that God and the metaphysical realm are fundamentally pre random?
God yes. ‘Metaphysical realm’ is para-random; it lacks a random element but also does not precede randomness ontologically in the way that God does. God generates randomness while formal “metaphysical” objects like numbers simply exist deprived of it. Meanwhile in our world everything is a mixture of both metaphysical objects and randomness.
>The number line reincarnation argument also went over my head. This assumption only works if one assumes that the soul is immortal and that consciousness is a fundamental, not an emergent property.
Well yes, but this is a good assumption.
>But, assuming that the soul is immortal, why wouldn't this argument work?
The soul is immortal but its descent into the world is not a random event. It’s not a physical event with physical causes, so it doesn’t make sense to measure it probabilistically.
Why do you assume the immortality of the soul?
I'm not, the question assumed immortality of the soul. But I do believe in the immortality of the soul, simply because there is no reason to think it is not immortal.
Interested in hearing a more extended comment on your thoughts regarding reincarnation (and the after-life in general).
As someone who works all day with differential equations, I have crossed paths with stochastic differential equations, and boy are those a challenge! You have to use all kinds of things like Itô calculus and it gets messy really fast! I just try to avoid the stuff, to be honest. As much as I try to avoid the stuff it seems to keep popping up. I've already had to deal with other complicated stuff like differential inclusions and nonsmooth stuff, but I should just bite the bullet and learn stochastic stuff. As for you, all I can say is good luck. Statistics, probability, random processes, stochastic systems, etc, have always melted my brain and made me want to smash my head, but you seem like someone they would enjoy it, so I hope that you do! If you are interested, the field of control theory can always use more people looking into theoretical developments for stochastic systems (;
DiffyQ’s are my least favorite things in all of math tbh. I think my teacher just sucked for them
This is probably why there isn't enough people studying stochastic differential equations. Lol
Why do you believe in reincarnation?
1. There is evidence of it
2. Epistemologically our knowledge that we are alive comes prior to our knowledge that we can potentially cease to be alive, so it makes sense to assume that our living experience continues in some other vessel. Reincarnation need not be reincarnation into this world, but I would assume it is if I have no reason to assume otherwise
I think that knowledge of being alive requires knowledge of death. If a kid doesnt understand death yet then i dont think they really understand what life is yet either. I would additionally argue that death is fundamentally impossible to understand. I think animals can and do operate without “knowing” that they’re alive.
By knowledge of being alive I just mean “experiencing consciousness”, probably not a great way of wording it
More like a knowledge of causality. This life has preceding causes and conditions and the next life also will be founded on causes and conditions. Consciousness continues after death much like we wake up from dreamless sleep.
What do you think about the equivalence between organic brains and digital computers?
The mind is not equavialent to the brain, nothing about the mind is computational. The processing of information or having logical components doesn’t make it computational, as a machine does not have anything like qualia or subjectivity, consciousness of any serious kind is not present in it.