addendums…

I must make earnest moves toward preparing my speech for a wedding next month and also with the GCSE exams approaching I should put down these topics until June. Hopefully then I will be able to do some proper intensive learning and get up to scratch on mathematical logic etc altho it is still my hope to get through the SRH without being too embedded in the subject (it is only a tool), for people like Godel, Zermelo etc it was their whole life!

The SRH/Plus-One/Horatio Hypothesis

It occurred to me that at first sight the “complement of a formal system” lent little to a “proof” itself that systems exist outside themselves – it only serves to show that a system is built from the outside rather than the inside. The SRH was based upon the loose intuition that a full scale of a system could not be “known” within the system, and so the very existence of a system of knowledge meant that it could always expand its knowledge by adding itself. This I see forms a new hypothesis the plus one or Horatio hypothesis after Hamlet saying “There is more in Heaven and Earth than is accounted for in your philosophy Horatio”. I need a clear and un-distracted mind to approach this and I see that putting off the wedding preparations has actually been distracting me!

I think the best formulation of the SRH will be of the form that any system can always accommodate another “term” (quite probably “itself”) and so will always be short of “totality”. It is the notion of capturing Totality in a formal system that is being attacked here from the start. The God principle is that any formal system will always fall short of capturing the “entirety” so that some notion of a god must always be included to include what is “not known” by necessity. In other word a system can never capture “itself”. But what does capture actually mean? A lead for June not now!!!

My Muse

It occurred to me after watching Stardust last night that I do still believe in “love” even after having thought I had totally removed all relevance of it and even recently of sexuality. I realise that my mission to escape my love for “my muse” which has been running since the day I met her and when I had that single thought “yes”, from that moment it was a lost cause. Given this I have to simply accept that I love her and there is nothing I can do about it. Reality seems to be like a broken space in which she is simply obscured from view by some folds, that the division between the void and existence, or between life and death doesn’t seem so absolute anymore and that peer over the edge and you can see into the realms of non-existence just as easily as we see into the realms of existence. Anyway I have to just love with this now and move on.

OK that is the last update on this blog for a few weeks, in a probably vain attempt, to focus on some pressing issues that require actual action rather than words and theory.

=== just clearing up notes and buffers

> SRH - what is produced by the world becomes the exactly the only raw materials for the next cycle. It feeds on itself. But this violates the SRH so Time (& space) are necessary so that the start and the end of the cycle are distinct. Suggestion that SRH could be an axiom from which time and space are derived!

> Ouroboros

The Viper/serpent is the original symbol of the unchanging because it flows through all things! But cf with the Devil in Xianity who led Man to the Tree of Knowledge and brought us to eat via the woman! Knowledge in Jewish thinking is opposed to God, or at least leads Man to challenge God. Interesting that the serpent also feeds on its own tail to show the eternal recycling of the universe (the Universes efficiency and completeness). - indeed the "things" are made from the universe only so the "things" are illusions and the universe real, the knowledge is of "things" (emergent properties), the serpent = the universe that seems to flows through the things because the "things" are changing so the serpent seems to flow, but really it doesn't, and it only seems to feed itself, because the "things" are flowing.

> Opposites both violently oppose one another but also enable balance when their oppositions are matched. The scales can only be equal because of opposing forces! This is the essential nature of dialectic!!

> Sexy Son Hypothesis

There is a certain self-fulfilling nature of genetics, but I can’t remember quite what I meant by this note:

> SRH sexy son = if i do then other girls do if not no them either

> “My” Child’s genotype

I was also interested by the probability of someone else’s child being more genetically similar to me than my own. Taking gene frequencies of each gene in a population there is a probability that someone else’s children could be more genetically related to me than my own. Want to look at this quantitatively… would certainly throw the genetic argument for having children.