The metaphysics of my reality

I don’t care if I’ll ever get caught. I’m on a mission from me. I gave it the codename Tabula rasa. Spoiler alert: Misconceptions about communication will be killed. A lot. A whole lot. Like body count in Rambo IV whole lot. THE WHOLE LOT. For me at least. And if others find all that ridiculous? I don’t care. I want an RTFM for people communicating with me. Enjoy or leave. Don’t waste your time! It is very valuable!!

I’m currently very busy with figuring out a metaphysics that is resilient enough to withstand whatever crazy things may and do occur to me. So that I can put metaphysics aside and start to holistically focus on how things are going on and what I can possibly do about it and what to actually do next.

The first step to increase capacity for that is to prevent future me from explaining the following over and over and over again. Believe me, it really starts to get boring when you are convinced of that crazy shit. Protip: Grow in empathy and steadiness. I’m currently undertaking my first clumsy steps. OK, probably the third or fourth. Its painstaking. But that comes in handy. I wanted to improve steadiness anyways. My assurance is that I’m making sure I have a bailout to dissolve if I feel the need to in the case of an ultimate MCA.

So, metaphysics then. According to Wikipedia this means to give a model to explain and express answers to the following two questions:

  1. Ultimately, what is there?
  2. What is it like?

In the last years I read a whole lot philosophy. Very different world views, value systems, assumptions about purposes and means and whether there is a summum bonum and if so what it is. How to justify reasoning, such stuff. And I decided to pick as freely from everywhere as long I can fiddle it together consistently. I like Spinoza. Awesome guy. Total crazy words. When I read his ethics, I understood NOTHING. Total disaster. So sad. But some time later his incredible consequence to apply sound and consistent reasoning struck me. I’ll get to that. It mainly influenced my perspective (Spoiler: I deeply believe, people overestimate the importance of ‘the stuff that actually currently is’ by VERY, VERY FAR. Because it is anyways. Get along with that. Stuff. Doesn’t. Necessarily. Care. — And. Possibly. Never. Ever. Will. Why should it? You need to give it a reason to if it has none yet.). Furthermore I have a degree in computer science, hence I’m well trained to think logically, to abstract and “do math”. Actually, I think of myself as a very average mathematician. However, it drives my thinking. Which is why I’ll start by explaining what I call “algebraic thinking”.

The good news for everyone

For everyone who stayed tuned up to now: If you start to think about whether this probably is getting a little bit off and well … a waste of time: I have a twist.

Even if continuing reading will only solidify your conviction of my unworldliness, it contains the recipe to our successful communication. In words that people use. You know, not these crazy words that nerds and I use, but words that (hopefully!) most (hopefully!!) people understand. If you don’t see the connection to Algebria, please just don’t care and focus on the normal people words. These are the equivalents I use when reasoning about stuff. I’ll take any efforts to optimize the mapping, you just need to LET ME KNOW. Really. Let me know and I’ll do the math. That is only fair. I made it up in the first place. Please do me a favor and ask me anything if you can make it to the end and think you are not sure about any of my thoughts.

Algebraic thinking

To reason about stuff, I need concepts of this stuff. Having basic knowledge in algebra, sets have proven to do an awesome job here. And groups, group theory. The tiny, tiny (really only tiny) bits of mathematics a Master of Science has to get in touch with to graduate. Believe me, I was either average or below average when it came to that theoretic stuff. I can barely image the amount of stuff I DO NOT KNOW about it. And in case you’ll find the following pretty off ground, believe me, that is the tip of of the tip of the tip of the iceberg.

The above essentially states: My conception below may have severe mathematically inconsistencies due to me being a dilettante mathematician. Please, have your amusement, but also let me get aware of them. That’ll be great.

When communicating, the main point is to get the stuff I MEAN along. I do that by EXPRESSING that somehow. The others I’m communicating with PERCEIVE my EXPRESSION. Next they INTERPRET their perception and get to an REASONING of what I mean. But in which category meaning and reasoning overlap — fully, partially, not at all — that is a fully unknown circumstance in the beginning.

To successfully communicate I should take highest care that the interpretation leads to a reasoning that maximizes the overlap. I have a lot of handy tools to measure that. I reason about the expressions of others I perceive (face, breathing, tone, words — you know, this behavior thing I myself PERCEIVE and INTERPRET). Applying consequently what I assumed above, I have to accept that my REASONING about the overlap is inevitably underlying uncertainty. But that is OK, we have these nice social protocols to assure each other of everything being fine. We even have concepts by which we enforce ourselves to assure each other that “everything is fine”. The Doors once considered, “People Are Strange”. I think they made a point.

The n basic sets

To structure my reasoning, I assign every perceived entity to at least one set. But I can invoke and populate any set at will. Entities can belong to a multitude of sets. Entities can have arbitrary relations, sets can be arbitrarily combined. Combinations of both can be combined. Combinations of … I think you get the point.

Sets offer a contract about reality. I like that property. When we agree about the elements of a set, we agree upon k properties that entities must fulfill to belong to that set. What we also did — most of the time this happens implicitly, and people try to hidden-agenda around that — is to agree that we can not argue about the “common” properties that do not belong to the k properties we agreed before. For now, I perceive that as the ultimate root of misunderstanding.

I consider the following fundamental sets:

  • everything (I have no definition apart from the intuitive meaning — first uncertainty, I’m aware of it, but I consider this to be insignificant for every day live)
  • everything that actually exists (usually referred to as ‘has been, is or will be’)
  • everything that could potentially exist (same analogy)
  • everything that could have been considered but never can gain actuality

The model of “I”

Now enough boring theory stuff, let’s bring it to live. After all there is some entity that writes this stuff here. I call that ‘I’. ‘I’ is the holistic self reference to everything perceived defining my being. My essence, my existence, my constitution. Everything I genuinely distinguish for only myself. Which — because of the theory stuff about uncertain interpretation — no one EVER can have GENUINE CERTAINTY about. NO ONE EVER POSSIBLY WILL.

We should agree about this set of ‘I’ or I’ll consider stopping communication immediately. Time is valuable to me.

Understanding “the world”

Now, given all that. Imagine the expressiveness of my reasoning. It is tremendous. I have not even started to understand its magnitude. Because I suck at mathematics. But because I have a resilient perception and a solid metaphysics I can model the expressions I perceive in a way that let’s me react with behavior that seems to make sense to an impressing multitude of people of different backgrounds.

Ultimately, people come to the point where they ask, well, nice thought, but how can you be sure about it? And usually they feel very bright in that moment. Except for that they are not. I’m not meaning that in an arrogant way. I accept that this is a hard problem within their reality. I just expect them to accept, that I do not consider that an essential problem within mine. And if they don’t, they have to deal with it. My reality is my territory. We negotiate about that, you’ll never dictate me anything. Unless you decide to force me to. If you can.

That I cannot be sure is the very point for why I don’t care for more than what I BELIEVE to be actual. People can influence that. People often attempt that in very strange ways.