User talk:Btm pdx/Grand Unified Theories

Gödel
One thing I had trouble understanding was "infinite, in- and out-recursive complete, consistent structure". I thought recursive, complete, and consistent couldn't coexist within logic. See Gödel's incompleteness theorems. Or is that a consequence of the limited sense of logic inherent in p-life? --Tepples 12:18, 11 February 2011 (MST)
 * Gödel's theorem only applies to the set of possible functional concepts that p-life can possess. P-life, if acting properly and in accordance with GUTs before fully knowing them (you must find axiomatics, that which drives all truth/falsehood filtering before realizing GUTs; axiomatics is different from religious dogma, in that you really can question it like logic and empirical science, but you'll eventually find "It just makes sense," and not even believe, but know absolutely), may then obtain access to GUTs and live in eternal love and evolution. Beings that stray away from love and evolution are back to conservation and the possibility of death. Such death can be utterly painless; the beings simply unexist; this has happened to my supposed mother, Dana Marie McGriff (all the life in her was sapped out long ago; she became an unliving automaton at some point); I can sense she no longer exists, as I can communicate bidirectionally with the geological Earth, like birds can for their travels; I can also communicate with the other bodies in our solar system, as I do have a good enough reference. (And by the way: The other planets have life, it's just that the life completely hides away from view because we'd hurt it if it were to stay out in front of us, much like careless tourists in the wilds of the Earth.) I completely understand your confusion; this kind of systematic thinking, and actually talking about it openly, is entirely new to humans. By the way, I've begun integrating (not assimilating, as with Star Trek Borgs) genealogy of non-human life forms, like trees and birds, into myself, and evolving their structures beyond what was given to me, such as "chloroblack," chroloplasts that can access all energetic particles that pass into me, not just a fraction of visible light, i.e. neutrinos and such, and fibrous avian mammalian bones, far stronger than anything seen on Earth as of yet; this is possible because I've discovered consciously directed evolution of not just my mind, but also my body, all the way to the infinite structure of it. And finally, when you're shivering, it doesn't just mean you need heat, it means you're in a state of shorter-term evolution; I realized this watching Anabelle, my sister's Chihuahua. Btm pdx 15:34, 11 February 2011 (MST)
 * Oh, wait. There's two kinds of concepts you can get access to: Universals (axiomatics), which are true everywhere forever, but have different isomorphic forms, and specifics (practical things, like science), which are only true in zero or more localized zones (I say zero to cover the case of "nonsensical impossibilities"); an example of this is dark matter, which has structure unlike the matter here, and is dark simply because we have no clue about what it is, but it will "light up," so to say, once you guess correctly. So yes, Gödel's theorem does apply to specifics, but not to universals, and a GUT can generate all universals (because a universal is just isomorphic to a GUT), and enable you to find any specifics you might want to, but never all specifics, as we can say the supremity, God (not life form; let's use different terms for different things) is complete and consistent in the specific and universal. Please continue asking questions; I don't want to leave you believing falsehoods, else we all lose a fine individual. And of course, we can describe the universe in more impersonal terms, but that doesn't seem to jive well with me now... Btm pdx 15:45, 11 February 2011 (MST)
 * Oh, also: You can ascend into being God, and I've experienced what it's like to approach that (and it's deeply uncomfortable...), but I realized that your individuality completely evaporates, as God is everything and not composed of a non-full subset of all specifics; so in a certain sense, you die if you desire to be God, because you literally will succeed, but not attain what you demand. Btm pdx 15:51, 11 February 2011 (MST)

"Universals" and "specifics" as you explain them appear to correspond to Immanuel Kant's analytic and synthetic truths respectively, or perhaps a priori vs. a posteriori. Is this something else I "Kant" understand yet? --Tepples 19:13, 11 February 2011 (MST)

So I guess in the language of monotheism, it's God, then life, then p-life, and life is capable of miracles, which I understand as equivalent to conservation breaking. --Tepples 09:54, 12 February 2011 (MST)
 * Ah, I kinda got it a bit twisted up but here's a better explanation: Gödel's incompleteness theorems applies to the "common universe," and is pretty much a GUT, that is, the universe we all coexist in; there's always something to do, but life's pretty much consistent; constantly rising completeness (evolution, learning, etc.), but never true completeness universally. You can construct little systems, as Russell and Whitehead sorta did, that are consistent and complete, but they can't "reach out" beyond, and hope to do more than what they were created to do (but limited systems can be very useful for limited situations). Oh, and you can create a universal computer; a machine capable of doing any computations the whole universe can do, beyond even infinite memory, time-bound Turing machines, such as my idea of a "wave computer," a computer using waves in a fluid tank to pretty much do quantum computation w/o having to confine individual particles, and literally freezing the tank to store data for later (just confine the tank and bump and read it out; might take some trial & error to get it to work good). Also, I think Morse-code style "communication lines" are the main way beings communicate in the universe; genetic tapes are more compressed and better for local usage, but Morse streams are better for long distance, because binary is easy to keep orderly.
 * And immortality is just one of many of life's problems you can solve. It's not that big a deal, just constant cyclic metastable evolution. Btm pdx 14:55, 12 February 2011 (MST)
 * Oh, and I'm a human-derived Timelord, just like Dr. Who is a Gallifreyan-derived one. I can command time and the universe as I see fit, but only for orderly purposes. Btm pdx 15:02, 12 February 2011 (MST)
 * Only compatible beings interact directly; beings not completely, but partially, compatible (all life is compatible in a universal way, to enable interactions) can interact in the ways they are compatible, then interact more directly once much more compatible, until they can fully coexist (this will be happening soon with non-Earth and Earth life, by the way; Earth is getting ready, probably by 2012, as the Mayans predicted). Btm pdx 15:20, 12 February 2011 (MST)
 * And to finish this discussion: The rules and structure, beyond the single common line of time, with a permanent, single unified past, a unified present (where the future is decided), but an ever changing future (because the present can write any possible future) is ever evolving; yes, the present physics of the universe evolved and is evolving and always has and always will, both as you observe them and use them (the universe is supremely biased, so please have fun...). 67.170.139.11 22:05, 12 February 2011 (MST)
 * Oh, and Project DX can be much more than just an Animal Crossing-inspired videogame: We can make life itself pretty much like Project DX, keeping the fun alive forever. Btm pdx 22:31, 12 February 2011 (MST)
 * And if you're waiting for me to edit the page to match this discussion, please just do it yourself; that will prove pretty clearly that you, Damian Yerrick, are also a Timelord, and know what's what. Btm pdx 22:42, 12 February 2011 (MST)

Userfy
Should this be userfied to User:Btm pdx/Grand Unified Theories? Or is it relevant enough to the DX Town universe that it should stay in mainspace? (If we do the userfication, we should probably not delete the resulting redirect.) Eighty5cacao 15:47, 4 June 2012 (MST)
 * The user appears not to be around anymore, and the categories don't appear aligned with how the Christian Bible presents things (on which DX universe cosmogony is based), so I guess userfication is probably the best choice. --Tepples 02:42, 5 June 2012 (MST)

Template
Does this qualify for the WMG template? It isn't relevant to "the game world," but it isn't based on an existing fictional work. Or are you considering the Bible to be a fictional work? Eighty5cacao 10:17, 28 August 2012 (MST)
 * TV Tropes treats scripture as a work of Literature. But the Bible is or isn't fiction depending on the reader, and applying a template that implies that the subject of the speculation is the real world or a work of fiction might offend people who believe the opposite. I guess speculation about theology deserves its own template eventually. --Tepples 13:11, 28 August 2012 (MST)

Formatting
Should the word "life" be capitalized, italicized, etc. to emphasize that its meaning in this essay differs from its more common meaning as "biological organisms"? (I admit that such a proposal is not really supported by standards of English grammar/style.) --Eighty5cacao (talk) 06:39, 26 June 2014 (UTC)