​

The ridiculous nature of a proof.

Suppose someone sees structure, another person might not see that structure, so that person who cannot see it will ask for a step by step proof to prove the continuity of a structure. But continuity cannot be proven by discrete steps because we have shown that infinite discreteness cannot proxy for true continuity.

Diagonalization proves that a continuity has more real information than the discreetness. Every step-by-step proof is actually an illusion to satisfy the strange feelings. But every discreet example of a proof fails to show the actual continuity of the structure that one is claiming to exist..

--------------

You might look at this and think to yourself " you're not showing enough discrete steps to prove the continuity of your results or structured"

If you think to yourself and say "nah this guy is a dumb ass" is it because you think im not reasonable or making sense? Is it possible that I'm not making sense because I'm failing to correctly unify ideas in a way that proves what I'm showing?

You can easily say I'm wrong because what I'm saying makes no sense. The sense of wrong comes from not detecting any relationship in the words that I'm saying to the truth of what I'm saying. Even if you think it might be possible that what I'm saying is true, you think that in its current form, it doesn't reveal enough structure that is corresponding to what I'm actually trying to say. You might say I need more evidence, more evidence is more discrete truth.

But the premise is that no matter how much discrete evidence I provide, I cannot actually prove the continuity of the structure I'm claiming to exist. The best I can do is add more discrete steps that get a little bit closer to proving the continuity. The only way you can accept that proof is if you think the discrete steps in my proof are actually sufficient to prove the continuity of the structure. So in reality there is no way that I can prove something like this, not how many discrete steps I take

The only way to accept this truth is just to accept the premise and not ask for why. That is called an axiom.

------------

I think Gödel's ICT is the fact that any formal system capable of producing peano arithmetic will have truths that cannot be proven within the system. I posit that the universe is a formal system. I posit the formal system of the universe is capable of producing peano arithmetic, thus some truths cannot be proven within the universe. I posit that the continuity of the universe is one of those things that cannot be proven within the universal formal system. I posit that the only way to accept the truth of the continuity of the universe is to just accept it. There is no formal proof I can make to prove the continuity of the universe. But that is the promise that I am proposing, [that the universe is of a continuous nature]. You might be thinking to yourself, you don't have enough evidence for that. I will never have enough evidence for it.

The Jones books are not "just another explanation of reality."

The trilogy is a claim about the conditions that make any human reality intelligible, rather than one more account competing to describe a pre-given reality.

Jones argues that nothing can be perceived, lived, or experienced without a narrative analogue: a structured reference that supplies what something is, how it relates to other things, why it matters, and how one may act in relation to it. Thus, consciousness, selfhood, social roles, and lived reality are not simply objects or ideations that stories describe; they are experienced through stories.

The key distinction

If it were “just another explanation”	Jones’s intended claim
A theory describes an independently understood reality	Narrative is what makes reality understandable and experienceable to human beings
Stories influence beliefs and behavior	Stories organize the self, social world, meaning, and possible action
A person owns a private story	Individuals participate in shared stories that establish roles, norms, identities, and institutions
Changing a story changes one’s attitude	Revising a story can change the perceived field of agency—what one believes is possible, required, or worth doing

In short, the thesis is not simply “reality is explained through stories.” It is closer to: for conscious social beings, no reality is available without some story-like structure that renders it knowable and meaningful. Jones says that the mind constructs and retains these narrative structures as maps, contexts, and venues through which people navigate daily life; without them, individual and social action—and ultimately survival—would not be possible.

What it does not require

The argument need not mean that physical events depend on somebody deciding to narrate them. A storm, body, or atom may have causal properties regardless of what people say.

The stronger and more defensible interpretation is that a storm becomes a danger, an omen, a weather event, evidence of climate change, a reason to evacuate, or a shared memory only through narrative framing. The physical event is not erased; the human reality of the event—its identity, significance, consequences, and appropriate response—is narratively constituted.

Why the trilogy adds something

The three works appear to develop a sequence:

• On the Nature of Consciousness frames consciousness and the self as narrative constructs or analogues.
• Without Stories, There Is No Universe, Existence, Reality, or You makes the broader ontological claim that nothing exists for human perception and experience without a story about it.
• Story: The Mentality of Agency draws the practical conclusion: because lived reality is story-organized, people can recognize and revise destructive inherited scripts, expanding agency and changing how they live.

So it is certainly an explanation—a philosophical paradigm, not an established scientific finding. But its distinctive ambition is reflexive: it attempts to explain not only reality as people experience it, but also why explanations, identities, institutions, and realities become possible in the first place.

I looked up the books of Urrea Jones on Amazon and am not willing to commit to buying them so I will only engage with the limited info I have found. He seems like a very intelligent person, however, is his work ultimately just another explanation of reality?

The KKK was founded shortly after the conquest of the South by the North. While we might be able to imagine that had Abraham Lincoln lived the reintegration of the South into the Union could have proceeded with compassion and consideration, Andrew Johnson's government did something which many conquering powers have done to those they conquered at many times throughout history. Which is that he leveraged this position to alleviate the misery the North suffering succeeding in completing that conquest by dumping it on the South.

I can only imagine the terror felt by those victimized by the KKK, and undoubtedly some of what happened was a continuation of what had come before. But that particular animus they suffered was not just the result of pre-existing racial tensions - they were made to suffer the pain which had been dumped onto the South in the collective. The true fire in the eyes of the hooded devils was not hatred for people with a different skin color so much as it was hatred for being subjugated and oppressed by those who conquered them, manifesting as the intensification of pre-existing tensions.

The KKK did not exist before the Northern conquest because the animus which fueled it was a direct result of the Northern conquest, and the means by which they administered this conquered territory.

The story of the Nazis is much the same. The story of Hitler himself is much the same: the Treaty of Versailles was similarly vengeful, and his arrest resulted from opposing French incursions which sought to take advantage of their longtime rival's weakened position in order to gain territory.

In the context of philosophical worldviews, there is good cause for the notion of punitive justice. If we believe that things matter objectively, then we should also believe that punishing a wrongdoing can serve to ameliorate the harm in some fashion. Actually this was the main purpose of the sacrificial rites performed in the ancient Jewish Temple and also in many other locations worldwide. You give up something which is valuable in exchange for a favor; and oftentimes that favor is being forgiven for having done something wrong.

The Christian perspective which became popular across Europe treated Jesus as this sacrifice, and sought to satisfy the inner desire for justice by punishing not one's fellow living humans, but metaphorically this previously-living human. This perspective created a society in which vengeance was highly-contraindicated.

But this was not the original perspective on things. The perspective in the Temple was very much an eye for an eye, and the perspective of Rabbinic Judaism was very much to dream of a return to the notion of literal violence as a means of atoning for crimes. Whereas Christians were the Jews who decided to be done with vengeance and treat Jesus' death as enough penance for all sins past present and future, the Rabbis' primary purpose in contrast was to hold the torch on behalf of vengeance-enthusiasts and keep the dream alive of more violence and bloodshed as the most satisfying possible way to see a misdeed paid for, in the form of a Third Temple.

I think that this is the best explanation for why Hitler turned on these people. He like those living in the post-Reconstruction South did not much care for being on the receiving end of vengeful justice, and he identified within his midst those people representing most fervently the belief that this form of conflict resolution should never be abolished and exist in perpetuity.

I don't think his actions were any more defensible than those taken by the KKK. These were not clear-headed individuals actions with compassion. What they were however were people who had been driven mad by being subjected to the vengeful desires of others. The conclusion I have reached is that when one adopts a hardline stance in terms of punitive justice, the complex nature of human history means that the cycle of vengeance will continue forever. I want to live in a world where organizations like the KKK and the Nazi party are gone forever, never to be imagined again. And I believe that the only way to bring that about is to oppose the concept of vengeance itself. If we can forgive all who have let their desire for vengeance lead them to hurt others from the beginning of time until this very moment, maybe we can dream of a future which grievance-tallying is ended.