Talk:Telic Principle
I would like to bring up the last portion of this page to review:
The Telic Principle is so called because the universe must self select itself from a realm of boundless potential (Unbound Telesis). Telesis is the unreal raw ontological potential that becomes refined by reality in reality's self creation/configuration.
Is calling UBT "unreal" a misnomer? Would "unrealized" be more accurate? I know it's a semantics issue, but terminology must be precise. I understand that UBT isn't required to fulfill much of the CTMU's requisites, but I don't know... I suppose I'm happy either way, if it's agreed upon. BRA1N-b0X (talk) 18:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Realizability
In the context of mathematical logic and higher-order computability, realizability has a specific meaning. I found research on Herbrand and Nested Realizability Toposes among others. http://www.tac.mta.ca/tac/volumes/28/32/28-32.pdf
In the context of the CTMU, telesis is infocognitive potential, which may be realized and expressed both locally and globally. How teleses interfere with teleology constructively or destructively is what determines their realizability.
- Interesting; I will have to look more into this. Its technicality is beyond my current understanding, so please forgive me. However, I think you bring up the point of proper semantic intent to greater focus. The interchangeability of terminology is important to follow, since certain terms can be taken colloquially, while the very same term might have other meanings in formal mathematical references, for example. In the case of the part of the page's text which states UBT as "unreal", should we take it mathematically or not? There may be a place where the mathematical term and the colloquial term actually intersect in meaning, in order to find definitive closure. Does this relate? Should "unreal raw ontological potential" still be used as a descriptor of UBT? Is realizability a prerequisite between potential and actual? Must potential be realized in order to be available for actualization? BRA1N-b0X (talk) 05:11, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
It seems the links for the ISCID forums do not work, although they are listed on the CTMU Sources page. I salvaged this quote from an old blog.
"...according to the CTMU, intelligence inheres in the universe and distributed over its contents. The universe isn't just assumed to be intelligent; it is shown to possess a collection of formal properties which together imply intelligence and volition (this involves the concept of "conspansive spacetime", which adds a certain kind of connectivity while making the universe evolve like a generative grammar as well as a dynamical system. It also involves the Telic Principle, analogous to the Anthropic principle but tailor-made for an informationally self-contained system. ... Since UBT is the absence of all constraint, it contains nothing but possibility. It's pure self-actualizative potential. Self-actualizative potential is not ordinary potential, which pertains only to states, but telic potential, which applies to "infocognitive" relationships of natural law and state. One has to be careful about the word "contains" in this context. Ordinarily, to be contained by something means to be somehow "bound" or "bounded" by it in a logical or geometric sense. Obviously, that's not the case here. UBT precludes any distributive binding constraint and can be likened to "anticonstraint"." - Langan, ISCID Forum, T-Duality Universe
Unreal UBT
Since UBT is what is left after taking away the constraints which make something real, then yes it is in that sense "unreal", however it may also be thought of as being free from having something to lose in the first place. We are able to think with the aid of the conservation of freedom, however freedom is not self-limiting or meaningful without "equi-logical co-freedoms" which self-actualize it.
I also use certain specialized terms loosely sometimes, although I would like to seek a rigorous footing for applications.
Real vs Unreal may be compared to Typed vs Untyped.
In terms of semantic duality, a "type" means something slightly different in economics than it does in mathematics, although both treat the subject in formal ways, and in a sense, utility and property have recursively inter-definable contexts.
When UBT has nothing left to "lose", this implies it only has something to "gain" if it has something to lose.
This leads to MU.
What it means for an algebra, object, word or a term to be free or co-free also has a technical history.
I believe the CTMU is original, however the problems it addresses are at the intersection of various topics.
Equilogical Spaces https://ncatlab.org/nlab/files/BBSEquilogical.pdf
Topoalgebra https://indico.tifr.res.in/indico/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=1121
Langan mentions this problematic term or concept of "unreal" or "unreality": http://www.megasociety.net/noesis/46/index.html
- Just a reminder: be sure to place four ~ (tildes) to sign anything you author. It would help keep a discussion connected and so forth. Thank you! :) BRA1N-b0X (talk) 01:37, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Remarks/Asides
I didn't know where or how to put this, so please correct me if there is a better fit for this. Please allow me a little digression, for what I'm thinking at first seems a little tangential and abstract, but may bring some meaningful bearing to the subject at hand here. It has always struck me how the power of analogy, metaphor, symbolism, and other linguistic devices could some how "tie" things together. As vague and abstract as that may feel to some, this ability for our language and other conceptual and communicative activities -- things that obviously render thought into transmissible and cogent forms -- to adjoin ourselves with one another and our world is a whisper of language's deep connection to reality. Terence McKenna has said many times that "the world is made of language" and the CTMU is almost a technical manual on how this is done. And now, the paradox...
In the effort to dig deep to the root of oneness from which all reality springs and put language to it, it gives the impression of almost like trying to define unity through its separateness. (I know it's something like "syndiffeonesis" in the CTMU.) It just strikes me as a self-destructive method of construction. The dive into fractal, kaleidoscopic difference-in-sameness can feel like some descent into a feedback-loop of endless regurgitating thought. It's almost as if reality is rendered unreal in its revelation of its own self-discovery. Am I going mad?
