Jarhyn
Wizard
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2010
- Messages
- 18,392
- Gender
- Androgyne; they/them
- Basic Beliefs
- Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
So, something that's been rattling around in my head lately is the seeming relationship between Undecidability and philosophical absurdism.
To make an example, I have to reference a particular shape, the Spectre.
In this image, there is what is known as an "aperodic" field, which contains repetitions of the same fundamental shape.
Because of its shape and limited number of attachment points for other shapes, all finite sub structures seen in this shape will be seen an infinite number of times, but not in any way that allows them to repeat "periodically".
Instead, all finite patches seen to repeat will happen at different angles, similar to the way an irrational number's digits do not repeat exactly the same.
This means that, if one were to imagine a different aperiodic field with this same property, one that exists in a greater number of dimensions, we can then imagine such a field where whole systems are seen to "operate dependently across a time dimension".
From this perspective of this much more exotic extension of the idea of this property, we can imagine a "being" in such a setting understanding such a property and seeing "there may be an infinite number of this finite construction that implementation me in this moment scattered across this grand field".
Furthermore, there are an infinite number of fields of Spectre that will never *perfectly* align with one another.
This means that within the field, "where you are" is an "undecidable problem", as well as "which field in which you are embedded".
The link this has to absurdity, to me, is that from the perspective of any such local "being" in any such field, the answer as to why they are the ones observing from their perspective is absurd in the sense that Albert Camus discussed insofar as this property was required by the structure of the system that there is no deeper understandable meaning as to why; it's just a property of the system and that's that.
To make an example, I have to reference a particular shape, the Spectre.
In this image, there is what is known as an "aperodic" field, which contains repetitions of the same fundamental shape.
Because of its shape and limited number of attachment points for other shapes, all finite sub structures seen in this shape will be seen an infinite number of times, but not in any way that allows them to repeat "periodically".
Instead, all finite patches seen to repeat will happen at different angles, similar to the way an irrational number's digits do not repeat exactly the same.
This means that, if one were to imagine a different aperiodic field with this same property, one that exists in a greater number of dimensions, we can then imagine such a field where whole systems are seen to "operate dependently across a time dimension".
From this perspective of this much more exotic extension of the idea of this property, we can imagine a "being" in such a setting understanding such a property and seeing "there may be an infinite number of this finite construction that implementation me in this moment scattered across this grand field".
Furthermore, there are an infinite number of fields of Spectre that will never *perfectly* align with one another.
This means that within the field, "where you are" is an "undecidable problem", as well as "which field in which you are embedded".
The link this has to absurdity, to me, is that from the perspective of any such local "being" in any such field, the answer as to why they are the ones observing from their perspective is absurd in the sense that Albert Camus discussed insofar as this property was required by the structure of the system that there is no deeper understandable meaning as to why; it's just a property of the system and that's that.