Kant was fully retroactively refuted by Bakker.

[Anonymous No.19944866]

Daily reminder that Kant was fully retroactively refuted by Bakker.

For example, while Quine fatally weakened the synthetic/analytic distinction, it was Bakker who provided the proof that calcified dogma is not observably different from analytic fact using a combination of the philosophy of information and semiotics of abstraction, joining the logical systems of Floridi to the physics of messaging via Landauer's Principal and computational entropy. Incomputability, Krylov Complexity, Yao Entropy, have disasterous consequences for proving analytics that are not tautologies, and nowhere is this more apparent then in the Dunyain-Logos Paradigm, as viewed from the Absolute Judging Eye Vector, Whale Rape Gang Bang Hypothesis laid out in The Great Ordeal. Bakker brings philosophy from Kant to Quine full circle, unsublating both, so both can be resublated as an organic whole into the dynamics of whale-mother-cave-rape-as-logos, which provides proof of the incompleteness of Logos due to the incomputability problem. Turing would have been proud!

Note that Kant is also more seriously retroactively refuted vis-á-vis the transcendental aesthetic via the proof of Meat Fueled Murder Rape Orgy (where the inefficiency of the alien space nuke, and resultant high level of radiation released, reminiscent of primitive, WWII era nuclear weapons, results in the Scalded as a boipussy dynamical system, which, shows that even a simple system represented by a differential equation can, and will necissarily produce chaos if it reaches a phase of three in any cycle.) The result is that the faculties cannot be an anchor of anything, as strong variance driven by "initial" conditions invariably leads to chaos. Bakker symbolizes this using the stochastic forces of nuclear radiation, as from those quantum activity we still see the larger classical objects of emergence in the rape orgy.

This shows the teleology of rape, the Inchori Theory and defeats appeals to classical ethics as such.

Again, even more than retroactive refutation, which others have done, Bakker RETROACTIVELY SUBLATES Kant.

[Anonymous No.19944874]

[Anonymous No.19944928]

Who even is this faggot? He will never be a meme.

[Anonymous No.19944951]

>>19944866
Absolutely based.

[Anonymous No.19944963]

I mean, it is kinda true.

[Anonymous No.19945261]

The "irrefutable" statements Bakker makes are as follows:

1) All statements are equal a priori.

2) All logical statements are equally valid.

Bakker also shows that we are born and die with as much significance as is stated above, so the whole of life is reduced to a singular point of zero entropy.

This is the point where Bakker's logic becomes incoherent. He begins using math to disprove math, which is always a bad idea. In the end, it appears that Bakker may have reached conclusions about entropy and the eye vector he did not intend to derive. Even more bizarre, Bakker's conclusion is apparently that death is in some sense a kind of "zero entropy." Of course, as we have already seen from Kant, in a logically consistent universe, zero entropy is a contradiction in terms.

[Anonymous No.19945287]

>>19944928
a guy from /sffg/ who shills himself
basically a level 100 f gardner

[Anonymous No.19945302]

>>19944866
Checked digits
Take meds and fuck off Madness1

[Anonymous No.19945531]

>>19945287
>a guy from /sffg/ who shills himself
Holy shit that's so pathetic.

[Anonymous No.19946234]

>>19945261
Don't waste your time on this. The guy dropped out of philosophy or whatever and is just coping.

[Anonymous No.19946244]

Bakker must be shilling himself here. I have no other explanation for this midwit being shilled to this degree.

[Anonymous No.19946263]

>>19946244
>You're just a PLEB and a MIDWIT if you don't understand the philosophy in Bakker's novels, I bet you don't even know who Kant is you utter moron have you even read books?

[Anonymous No.19946305]

>>19946244
He wrote like 12 novels

[Anonymous No.19946310]

>>19946244
>I have no other explanation for this midwit being shilled to this degree.
Reddit likes him. Ergo, the newfags like him.

[Anonymous No.19946520]

>>19944866
>another Bakker spam thread
MOOOOOOODDDDDSSSSS

[Anonymous No.19946937]

>>19944866
kek, I am glad this received a second life

>>19945261
I'm by no means a "Bakker" expert. I liked the fantasy books, but I listened to them on Audio while I drove and did chores, and as such missed a bit. I read Neuropath on a plane, which I thought was neat as an idea of psychological horror, but not as good as the fantasy series, although definitely more straightforward.

I don't recall any particular claims. If anything it's a jumble of different ideas competing with each other. Obviously the world of magic, meaning effecting reality, and a verifiable afterlife outside time in Erwa is different from the Dennett style, "moist robot" eliminativism of Neuropath. Makes sense to me as a writer, I normally end up posing questions and representing different arguments rather than trying to force an argument into a story, because I don't have answers. And Akka seems like the self-insert, the skeptic who doesn't know what is going on versus the sort of idealized Jungian shadow self insert of Kellhus and the villain of Neuropath, who know what is going on but are monsters.

As to entropy, I'll assume you are referring to Boltzmann/Shannon Entropy. Information as it is in information science, meaning.

It's unclear if the information Wheeler found in fundemental particles is the same information that gives rise to "meaning," in subjective experience. Certainly many philosophers and scientists think so, even dualists. Because, given epistemological realism, and that external objects exist, our information about such objects has to come from somewhere. Mental representations of noumena can suffer from all sorts of compression and error, but some information must come from the outside for the realist. This especially holds for the physicalist, since information = entropy = energy, which cannot be created or destroyed, extremely small imbalances occuring for incredibly short durations through electro-weak force interactions not withstanding (hence how some quarks can have such higher masses than the particles they are constituents of).

The question is, does subjective reality add something totally new vis-á-vis meaning(type or substance dualism), or is the meaning of subjectivity merely something that must be described differently (predicate dualism, most people go at least this far), or is our way of talking about minds totally off base, and physics is a more apt description (elimination)?

Generally, to avoid solpsism, the entropy must come from outside. Conciousness in this view, whether a different type or not, occurs from fractal recursion of matter coding other matter for physicalists. Unfortunately, the reference to chaos theory and fractal geometry is often not explicit. You see it in the literature though: genomes hold information about the enviornment. Nervous systems do too, at a higher level of emergence. Language is yet another higher level.

[Anonymous No.19946987]

>>19945261
So, here is why your statement is misunderstanding entropy (regardless of whether it is in Bakker or not):

Entropy is necissarily something that obtains between systems. This is explicit in the holographic principal (which, fair enough, is not fully accepted to date).

Entropy is knowledge about the relative uncertainty about a given system's microstates relative to its observed macrostate. Entropy = possible macrostate, but we can further define it to the amount of surprise (as surprise is mathematically defined) for a given microstate. If you somehow have the full phase space of a given classical system, in theory, you have no surprise. This surprise is necissarily based on the observer, and what information they have about a system. It is also based on arbitrary boundaries; systems are abstractions. Information transfer occurs at the surface area of two systems, so it obtains as a relationship between them.

Put more simply, information is reduction is uncertainty. How can you reduce uncertainty relative to nothing? A thing cannot have meaning on to itself.

The equation for information of a surface area, used for black holes (whence comes the holographic principal), is going to be zero for the universe as a whole since it borders nothing. But this doesn't make the universe meaningless or lacking in information, it means you're using the concept wrong. You can't have a relationship of one. It's like claiming the universe has gravity.

A life or the world "having meaning" of itself is a misuse of the terms, meaningless. It's like talking about the pure velocity of something, the mistake that allows Achilles to never pass the tortoise. Velocity obtains as a relationship. My coffee cup is at rest to me, it's spinning on the Earth's axis at high speed, it is orbiting the sun, it is orbiting the center of the Milky Way, etc.

Meaning existing of something independent of relationships is essentially a call back to the mistakes of the Newtonian world, akin to absolute space, absolute time, etc.

Idealists already had this figured out a long time ago. In Boehme, God must posit creation in order to be, because definition is necissarily relational, and you see this again in Hegel and the other Absolute Idealists. Hell, arguably it's in Heraclitus and the concept of Yin and Yang.

To head of an objection, internal monologue and introspection can have meaning because a mind is made of multiple systems. The amount of information in concious awareness is much smaller than the amount going on in a person or even just the brain.


Second, if meaning isn't the information of physics, you have the substance dualist problem of how we come to know external objects.

[Anonymous No.19947399]

>>19946987
Additionally, the nature of observation occurs even if we leave behind the world of classical scale physics (obviously it applies at quantum scales too). Even in mathematics this appears. For example, Mandelbrot's realization that dimensionality changes with observation.

[Anonymous No.19947412]

Holy shit philosophy is waste of time.

[Anonymous No.19947453]

>>19944866
Damn Bakker, i knew you were insecure because of that teacher from 10 years ago. But calling yourself smarter than Kant? Ts ts, a new low for you