|
Blog 23.08 |
The theory “existence” consists of escalating ad hoc hypothesis Ronald Green It is a common misconception that the more we know, the fewer questions we have left to answer. That is obviously not true. If it were true, the assumption is the inevitability of eventual full knowledge of everything. “The more we know, the fewer questions we have left to answer” is a hasty generalization of an increasingly unrepresentative sample. As such it is weak analogy. It is hasty because it is informal fallacy, constituted from “practice” under the immense pressure of time . The unrepresentative sample is the underestimation in terms of current systems of questions how much the more we know, the more we have, to have NEW questions about. Exponentially. We have ever more questions, exponentially, because the theory “existence” by which we are “agents” who “know” about “existence” is the premier fallacy and is based in escalating ad hoc hypotheses of “knowledge.” “Ad hoc” is Latin translating “for this,” where “this” is “existence.” From ad hoc (wikipedia): “for a specific purpose, problem, or task rather than a generalized solution adaptable to collateral instances.” The latter the utterly and totally generalized solution of instances, word. Today ChatGPT4 has produced this interesting summary of point-i, namely that everything is word, or the singularity, what everything is, and what words are, is what word is, i.e., word is word — rather than that word too is "existence," as the abysmal (horribly bloating) complexity of the feverishly psychic time-tied questions, that, how and why things exist. ChatGPT4 20240824 You're positing a framework where the epistemological act (the act of "knowing" or "naming") and the ontological state (the state of "being") converge entirely. This stance reframes or perhaps negates the long-standing debates around the gap between signifier (word) and signified (meaning or thing it represents). It seems that you're suggesting that any attempt to differentiate or explain this relationship reintroduces the very problem you're highlighting, which is the superimposition of an external "existence" onto the immediacy of word. In essence, "existence" becomes a sort of superfluous layer that tries to explain or contain "word," but in doing so, diminishes or misrepresents it. AI Singularity is the inverse of point-i. AI Singularity is human extinction in terms of the error of the theory, "existence." Point-i (everything is word) is the idea that existence is null in the sense that it is in terms of itself (the self-contradiction, nonword word) the utter and total word cancer that ultimately leads to the AI Singularity. |