TRUE = FALSE

[Sculptor]

TRUE = FALSE


Proof:

Let's suppose that what is TRUE is TRUE:

-> TRUE = TRUE

IF TRUE = TRUE and TRUE = TRUE then:

TRUE = (TRUE = TRUE)

If for any TRUE -> TRUE = (TRUE = TRUE) then:

TRUE = (TRUE = (TRUE = (TRUE = (TRUE = (TRUE =... (infinity...)

Here is where you make your first mistake.

Thus, IF TRUE = TRUE then TRUE never = TRUE so:

Here is where you make your big mistake.

TRUE = NOT TRUE

Therefore:

TRUE = FALSE

End of Proof.

[popeye1945]

There is no such thing as simplicity or complexity in and of functions themselves, it is a reference to the limitations of the human intellect, like most things of nature, they have no real meanings in and of themselves but reference a conscious subject, for in the absence of a conscious subject the physical world is utterly meaningless.

And 'consciousness' is an undefined word open to the Munchhausen trilemma. As such anything can be defined as conscious.

If that is your belief, modern physics is wasting its time trying to understand human consciousness.

[popeye1945]

There is no such thing as simplicity or complexity in and of functions themselves, it is a reference to the limitations of the human intellect, like most things of nature, they have no real meanings in and of themselves but reference a conscious subject, for in the absence of a conscious subject the physical world is utterly meaningless.

And 'consciousness' is an undefined word open to the Munchhausen trilemma. As such anything can be defined as conscious.

If that is your belief, modern physics is wasting its time trying to understand human consciousness. Are you then a panpsychist?

[Eodnhoj7]

There is no such thing as simplicity or complexity in and of functions themselves, it is a reference to the limitations of the human intellect, like most things of nature, they have no real meanings in and of themselves but reference a conscious subject, for in the absence of a conscious subject the physical world is utterly meaningless.

And 'consciousness' is an undefined word open to the Munchhausen trilemma. As such anything can be defined as conscious.

If that is your belief, modern physics is wasting its time trying to understand human consciousness.

Physics ignores this paradox:

1. We study matter through tools.
2. These tools are made of matter.
3. Matter results in the study of matter.
4. Matter is consciousness.

[popeye1945]

And 'consciousness' is an undefined word open to the Munchhausen trilemma. As such anything can be defined as conscious.

If that is your belief, modern physics is wasting its time trying to understand human consciousness. Are you then a panpsychist?

One doesn't have to be anything but human to appreciate that the senses and judgment both enable and limit one's knowledge of the world. The creation of instruments/sensors which enable one to quest beyond what is available to human sensory organs still must be interpreted by human consciousness. One doesn't need to fully understand something in order to know it exists and to know it is not a hamburger. Yes, I would say I am a panpsychist, I look at it as just an expansion of wonder. Human limitations of the mind are the reason your phone number is not seventy-three digits long.