This post was rejected for the following reason(s):

  • Difficult to evaluate, with potential yellow flags. We are sorry about this, but, unfortunately this content has some yellow-flags that historically have usually indicated kinda crackpot-esque material. It's totally plausible that actually this one is totally fine. Unfortunately, part of the trouble with separating valuable from confused speculative science or philosophy is that the ideas are quite complicated, accurately identifying whether they have flaws is very time intensive, and we don't have time to do that for every new user presenting a speculative theory or framing (which are usually wrong).

    Our solution for now is that we're rejecting this post, but you are welcome to submit posts or comments that are about different topics. If it seems like that goes well, we can re-evaluate the original post. But, we want to see that you're not just here to talk about this one thing (or a cluster of similar things).

I have two things:

  • Yesterday I wrote a text about AI: when I learnt the basics of Deep Learning, I would have liked more intuitive and simpler introduction: so when I reached with ideas to what is "simplicity" and "elegance" in my own mind, such as relating the equations to some physical parallels, I also reached a point to write this text: https://github.com/tambetvali/LaegnaAIBasics - I will keep this repo to add some texts about more or less general AI and what could be made for it more practically, or in longer term.
  • I made my own mathematics, and it's to support materialism and spiritualism, science and religion, and philosophical openness with more rigid structure of proofs and theorems (https://github.com/tambetvali/LaeArve):
    • Quantitative infinities and theorems: actual theorems to work with infinities, but not in general case, but with given size (such as that you can have infinity of points in 1 cm line, in which it's at least 1 cm in size relations, and not just an abstracts "continuation" - and rather, infinity starts far before the numbers end).
    • Around there, my proofs and structures to unify and connect materialistic and spiritual approach, and find rather approaches, which could be supported (such as for life in "7 traits of life" is defined or proven with no mention to cognition; indeed I did prove "mind-like qualities" in number system, namely that anything has space and the coordinates, and space is rather the mind if coordinates and value are rather person and his self).
    • Some part of my text is rather scientific, some is rather spiritual, but strict, and some things are entirely intuitive and creative.
  • I also made my own Logic I call Logex: it has another paradigm, not just "true" and "false", but real and imaginary axe.
    • With truth values Position, Posetion, Negation and Negotion I cover also how the truth evolves, and how there is bias in Nature (the law of Dukkha in Buddha: in mathematics, that there is no perfection, so where theory of Buddha starts from Dukkha of Life, mine as well starts from Imperfection of Mathematical and Thermodynamic systems, including life - to give more modern look to this).
  • https://assorted-canopy-961.notion.site/Exploring-the-Dual-Nature-of-Karma-Magic-and-Rationality-A-Scientific-Approach-1a575bfc115480be8de0f6e39b2b3f5a?pvs=4 - I also explore the conceptions of magic and mind and how to integrate it into modern science; where I think the key is to see the efficiency of mentally modelling the mind, instead of trying to map it merely with it's physical constitution: where the latter is less intuitive, the means to achieve the first are to be studied. So there are different types of content.
New Comment
Curated and popular this week