🤔 A Thread for my Thoughts

all right Charlie Brooker

this is the plot of a Black Mirror episode

2 Likes

ah right cool! Does he explore it well?

There was an episode of Black Mirror that played with this (‘Be Right Back’) was quite good.

1 Like

yeah it’s one of the better ones actually! a woman loses her partner and then finds out that there is some fancy new tech that allows him to be ‘resurrected’ using his social media posts to recreate his personality and it sort of escalates from there. worth checking out I think.

1 Like

Yeah that’s cool, I guess I was thinking on a grander scale for society though like the effect of living with very specific and relateable data about people from the past is going to be very interesting

There are only three numbers conceptually speaking.

1 is the totality of everything
2 is the diametric relationship between all things
3 is the complexity of independent concepts (which are of course also 1 and 2 depending on how you think of them, which is why 3 is also the sum of 1 & 2).

(0 is the same as 1 so isn’t needed)

All other higher numbers are just the number 3.

Perhaps this is why there are only 3 dimensions, a point (everything), a line (the relationship between two points) and 3d depth (independent points on a different axis that also relate to a point or a line). There could be more dimensions but there would still only be 3 dimensions because the third dimension already covers all levels of complexity.

Time is the fourth dimension, because you are describing spatial dimensions here - I see what you’re driving at, but you have to move to a different frame of reference for time, it can’t be described on the same axes as the previous three dimensions.

I think on the larger conceptual level time is no different to space, in terms of interrelationships between concepts I mean. Time is also only observed in terms of space. Space is also just a relationship between concepts I think

I get what you’re saying. I think it falls down a bit conceptually when you think of how you would envisage time in this regard. Your third dimension as postulated describes 3D space nicely, but you can’t point to a place on your axes and say “This is time,” because you’re still describing it in terms of 3D space. It’s sort of about measurements too, you can measure anything in 3D space with a long enough ruler, but you can’t measure time with a ruler unless you add a conversion factor (speed)

Yeah I’m trying to look a step removed from what time or space actually are and what they represent as categories or something. It’s all just a metaphor for the relationships between things, we can’t conceptualise beyond 3 dimensions because a 3rd distinct category is different in kind to how it relates to 1 or 2 categories whereas a 4th 5th 10th millionth category is not different in kind only in number

1 Like

Yeah, go on then. I’ll buy into this.

Time ain’t nothing special. It’s just an additional dimension. Not even a dimension, really, is it? No more than hue or audibility or whatever. Doesn’t tell us anything about relevance, intensity, regard in which it’s held by the observer, or anything, other than atomic vibration and atrophy.

1 is the whole and totality. Zero is merely the absence of that. Which gives the legitimacy to the acceptance of the whole 1.

2 is a comparison, a reference, a simple acceptance of a heterogeneous non-uniformity.

3 is context, but simultaneously chaos. A step beyond 2 with significance such that any further step tends toward irrelevance (i.e. zero relevance, and nothing of significance, which is to say it’s impossible to go beyond 3 in any meaningful sense).

1 Like

I would say time is a broken watch

1 Like

I both find this absolutely hilarious and completely buy into it

3 Likes
3 Likes

Was about to start googling the “one two many” people, but yeah @bamnan as someone who’s spent a lot of time thinking about numbers, and did a fairly shoddy attempt at a maths degree, you’re basically not far from being totally spot on.

Numbers are basically a massive scam, one way or another. Our brains can’t comprehend stuff much beyond about 20, and usually work more in a “this thing is smaller/bigger/the same size as this other thing”, or “there are a lot of sheep, but there were a lot more. What’s going on here then?”

3 Likes

Except gravity is curvature in spacetime so without time you just fall off the earth.

2 Likes
1 Like

:+1:

A nice pair of quick commentaries here, giving some context on that link about the ‘one, two, many’ counting, for anyone interested.

One from a prior researcher, and the other from the author of that paper, cutting through some of the misinterpretations that appeared in the press around that time.

http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001387.html

http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001389.html

1 Like

Gonna post in here again so I’m not clogging up other important threads with my musings

When you die which is the trust version of yourself? When you were nicest? When you did your most evil deed? When you had the most friends and were most connected to your community? When you were alone? If these are all equally you then you are a process.

Which is the truest note in a song? Nonsensical question

1 Like