Wilson’s algorithm for maze creation uses random walks to find itself and reconnect repeatedly with itself until it forms a maze. I made this video 1/2 hr ago to illustrate.

Wilson’s algorithm for maze creation uses random walks to find itself and reconnect repeatedly with itself until it forms a maze. I made this video 1/2 hr ago to illustrate.

The question I have for Brian Ketterer and Alex Jean-Jacques De Silentio : “What’s your function?”


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZDCkCPtmEY

—-

Awesome :) I get these notions that make perfect sense to me but then when I present them I’m never sure if they make sense. I get told they’re “abstract” so I take people’s word for it. But to me it’s very logical – I just like metaphorical logic a lot.

===

There’s some flaws in the sciences, some fundamental. Overall, i think it’s mostly useful though.

One of the biggest flaws of sciences is the same flaws you see in philosophy quite often: the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominalization of descriptive or active concepts that should not be turned into nouns.

Love, for example, is not a noun.

====

Freedom” is a concept that causes confusion because it shouldn’t be a noun. I haven’t analyzed “freedom” itself but it seems like it should be an adjective: “A free ‘something'”.

Is freedom the “state of being free”? Then one has to describe the opposite state.

But what’s a state of being? It’s being. A verb. An activity. A manner of doing.

====

Sin is an interesting word. “Misses the mark” There’s a target aaaannd, you missed it. Easily fixed though. Just try again. Keep practicing.

I’m agnostic now but spent a few years experimenting with the Eastern Orthodox Christian folks, almost became a monk. Far cry from my Methodist upbringing. Learned a lot of things that I learned wrongly about. Good stuff.

====

I was raised with a more metaphorical/allegorical understanding of God, so it was no big deal to me. One can easily substitute other words for God if it makes them feel awkward.

====

I’m not generally a fan of ‘self-evident’ type statements. It’s often used in the negative, as in, “Anybody who says [x] is clearly a fool and an idiot!” I’ve heard many versions of that.

“Clearly” is a substitute for ‘self-evident’. It’s hard to avoid statements that attempt to be plain assertions.

====

I guess it’s a matter of picking a starting point. For some, they start with God and work from there. For others, they start with Logic and from there.

If you try to pick-apart ‘nature of God” to someone who believes, you’ll have a hard time.

If you try to pick-apart the ‘nature of Logic” to someone who sees logic as the foundation for all things you’ll have a hard time doing it.

Been in many conversations where speaking historicaly about the development of logic to show that it’s *not* the foundation of all things has led to a few nearly lost friends

=====

There’s always *something* one “must accept” to start with in order to have a coherent discussion. For a lot of philosophers and logicians and mathematicians, it’s logic. Can’t mess with sacred logic. I do anyway ’cause it’s a challenge. Sharpens my brains.

====

Thanks :) My youtube channel is mostly weird quick projects I dump there. I get an idea and do it. Try to do it as fast as possible as I’m impatient then I move on to something else.

===

 

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


+ seven = 8

Leave a Reply