can GOD break logic?

dear friends,

Is the perception of ultimate beauty and truth a brain process?

I recently started reading the Myth of Sisyphus by Albert Camus. I've been reading like a madman, picking up and rotating different books, mashing concepts and ideas into the mush of my mind attempting to scrap at the truth. It's absurd.

Gödel, Escher, Bach + The Red Book + Infinite Jest + Psychology of Money + No Longer Human + How to Connect + The Courage To Be Disliked + Buckminster Fuller + Bible + Odyssey + Myth of Sisyphus + Internet + AI = Jest Real Nonsense

I don't know if I should use + or x as the values of what I synthesize does not formulate as cleanly as addition. Rather, it becomes a mental gymnastic of meta-calculus. Am I wrong to try to mechanize inspiration into arithmetical values, a mechanistic interpretability?

Are we but 0s and 1s?

I would be a proponent against this, of course. There are moments within the human experience that cannot be "rationalized" or understood with the mathematical sense. In a world where 0 = 1 and 2 + 2 = 5.

Objectively, 0 = 1 is nonsensical and outright wrong. There is non-euclidean logic that is absurd in its reasoning and cannot, from a traditionally sensible perspective, be fully understood.

The irrational is wrong and I have only provided obscene falsities. But what of the greatest riddler of them all? The Liar's Paradox: "this sentence is false."

Slipping in, it feels as if logic is broken [or transcended]. What is this monstrosity?

Have compassion for the fool, take hold on his eyes if you can bare it.

"To will is to stir up paradoxes."

your friend(ly),

jakester

P.S. I started taking a Micro-Philosophy course by my X/SubStack friend and mentor Paul Musso. I recommend checking it out if you have an inkling of philosophy as it is becoming more and more relevant each day with the pace of artificial intelligence.

The conflict between falsities and truities is a timeless struggle since the day humanity became conscious. This is a prime example of a truism that philosophers and thinkers alike have pondered and wrestled with.

Fakisms are ideas, propaganda, pieces of media, and concepts that are obviously fake. While truisms are abstracts and concepts that are obviously true, so true that it almost feels empty.

Rhetoric and clicheś weave these two into the zeitgeist of the collective and the age of information, digitification to the Internet/social media, and artificial intelligence has only fueled the obscurity between fakisms and truisms.

The slop is getting too real (human and AI). The algorithm takes its grip.

I won't drone on too long on this tension, but I bring it up because I am curious and skeptical of our own human perception. How can we detect truity and falsity of the good, the beautiful, and of the divine?

As humans, we possess a mechanistic interpretability, of neurons firing and signaling from our physical brain perceiving stimuli, allowing us to decipher truth values. Yet, we also possess this seemingly inaccessible blackbox we deem as the "soul" which allows us to detect, determine, and taste the good, the beauty, and the truth — this "ultimate substrate" or simply the ultimate truth itself.

What I have come across experimenting with the latest LLMs and of my own writing journey is this snagged nuance between mechanistic creativity and unbounded creativity, a sharp tension of the artificial robot and of the free artist. This plays a significant role to truth seeking and signal, of our human intuition and of artificial intuition.

The possibilities, for better or worse, have been staining the imaginents of my mind as I stare out into the darkness at 3am, 4am, 5am, until the sun rises. Metaphorically [and metaphysically], I am pushing against various dimensions within my magical human brain while using AI to augment and propel me further into deeper dialogues, on the edge of sanity and psychosis.

We crash into the curse of dimensionality, the phenomenon that occurs when trying to wrap or analyze large amounts of datapoints in high-dimensional spaces. Mechanistic interpretability, in the context of neural networks, attempts to answer this curse by making the following shift and distinction:

I am well aware to take what the ChatBox says with a fair grain of salt and to not ingest it as Bible, but the paths I have wandered spike into a field of clarity which I will exemplify later on within a GOD proof inspired by Spinoza and other synthesized works.

Again, take what I say with a generous amount of kind skepticism as this is foundational in forming one's own worldview and underlying philosophy.

The sun was rising beyond the trees. Jake and Spike sat in silence, letting the psithurism of the forest take form. The leaves spoke of distant truths and longing lies, teaching the birds how to chirp.

J: is the perception of beauty a brain process?

S: yes, of course. How else would we perceive beauty?

J: the brain is important. Only a fool would disagree as its easy to see how brain activity correlates with the perception of beauty. Still, Spike, I am struggling with this one question — Is beauty real?

S: beauty is a mental construct, as with most abstracts, the projection of our emotions. It's not real in the physical sense. Our neurons must fire in ways that illicit these emotions.

J: do you think beauty is a signal of truth?

S: you place in a zugzwang.

J: what's a zugzwang?

S: you compulse me to move. Any move I make worsens my position. If I say yes, I admit there's more to the world beyond measure. If I say no, I would betray the sunrise that stares at us through the fray.

[To romanticize or to sterilize?]

J: beautiful word, zugzwang. Maybe the songbirds and the whispering sounds of the wind will provide us with some insight.

In silence, they stood in the eternal present, as if no time passed. Yet, the world around continued on, life unfolding, perpetually in motion. Some say this motion is indifference. Some claim it as a thread of beauty.

J: why do the birds chirp?

S: it's in their evolution to attract a mate, to communicate, to instinctually survive.

J: do you think these songbirds enjoy the music of their own chirpings?

S: I suppose it must be pleasurable for them.

J: beauty comes, beauty goes.

S: your words are poetic, almost as if you sigh. Could you explain a bit more as to what you mean?

J: I wonder if these birds find the same joy in each chirp. For us, we know what it feels when we experience an immense beauty from an object or scene in one moment then feels dull and obscure in another. Beauty, here, is hard to pin down.

S: do you think we hallucinate the beauty in things?

J: do you think we hallucinate the truth in things?

S: I see the bridge you are inviting me to and I am weary to cross it. I know a total modeling of truth is near impossible, at least given the tools at our current disposal. Words could never fully reveal the truth itself! Do not play me the fool Jake!

J: please, entertain me, I mean no malice my friend. The truth undoubtedly lies, it lies somewhere between the object or scene itself and the eyes that receive it. Partly a trigger, partly a carrier. Localized and spread around, the truth is. Do you believe the truth itself to exist?

S: there is a truth that exists. There must exist an ultimate substrate for which all the laws of the Universe must follow, following cause and effect.

J: is God this ultimate substrate of the natural universe?

[Is God beauty and truth?]

Can GOD break logic?

ie. GOD exists and GOD non-exists.

GOD transcends human logic. I do not believe in GOD, I know GOD must exist out of a metaphysical necessity. GOD is nature. There must exist a thing, a substrate, that has caused itself [causa sui] for the Universe to exist.

…

Before moving onwards, I would like to point out an Ariadne's thread for one to pull when they find themselves in this absurd labyrinth of meaning.

Good philosophers, rather humans, know when to abandon logic or perhaps even their own philosophical system. The heart intuits. Man must give back to his heart as much as he gives to his mind.

There's a place we go where mechanisms cannot follow. When you try to explain this place, words seem to break.

I gripe on beauty because it provides us a thread of meaning, of joy, and of peace.

To understand God is to understand beauty and it frees you from cold determinism and empty clicheś.

My purpose in providing this proof is to reconcile and marry two worldviews, that of faith and science through the medium of human logic to reveal meaning.

As humans, I can only hope the absurd and the void does not lead you to complete despair. We must be honest with our hearts and our souls, we cannot ignore or forget the desert of despair. There is a hint of beauty in despair as despair is pain. We must find ways to subvert pain into beauty. Through logic or without.

Here, I worked with artificial intelligence to sharpen this proof to improve clarity, precision, and cover its weaknesses. Mechanistic interpretability can propel you faster into the frontier where the sticky ambiguous work can be done.

Augment, do not replace, critical thinking.

Therefore, by reason alone, we can know that there must be a necessary, eternal ground of being — uncaused and self-existent — to explain the existence of contingent reality.

This being, though beyond full human comprehension and not bound by human logic, is not contradictory. Rather, it transcends the limits of conceptual thought in the same way infinity transcends counting.

Unity of Faith and Science.

Love of God, Love of Universe.