the object of non functional butt and but abstract

of abstract beyond abstraction?

Am watching this rather intelligent guy:

talking in of 2014 and 2013

I’d urge people to check his talk themselves, so no direct summing etc here.. Not now anyway..

My misreading(??) is that he seems to think the universe – perhaps life – as a set of computational functions, and these functions do certain things he outlines.
On the other side
He seems to say that the universe of has no difference between what we might call organic and representation/simulation.
he also makes at some places inferences that deride dealing with the mapping of the world rather than the world itself.

While I think these are interesting views, and communicatively places, I also think that yes, if we want to get beyond our own mapping – ie binarism that makes a map – then the way to do it is precisely via being in the knowing that we know not of the future, and if we are serious about simulation and represntation then abstract – not abstraction – is the way.

The sense of redness, is like 2ness and Xness which are when 2 is allowed to be 2 rather than 2 apples or even 2 + y = x 2 if 2 when its:
if 2
and/or (am still learning re that)
if ae 2
(when ae = œ or Æ ? Perhaps none of these?)

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.