Do you guys actually believe in the repeating number phenomenon...

Gets don't mean anything in any kind of supernatural sense, but they represent the mindshare of an idea. If something is getting a lot of digits it means that it has overcome the apathy of not posting.

chequed

>not knowing about the occult

Attached: 6666698460902740263-1482017536.gif (382x498, 490K)

Guys, this has absolutely NOTHING to do with this project here, created by Princeton:

global-mind.org/gcpdot/

The fact that we see a large amount of repeating numbers in LINK threads has nothing to do with anything either.

If I were you, I'd just forget about this thread.

Attached: 1533661451662.jpg (1200x1200, 763K)

This. Any more questions opie?

Attached: IMG_8740.png (1200x1200, 1.22M)

Yes because digits

Now check em

Attached: 1533507815386.png (640x478, 431K)

$2500 EOY is pure fud

Based and checked

Attached: 1493329185278.jpg (377x351, 20K)

A platonic realist would assert that say an isoclese triangle exists as both a physical object that can be drawn with a compass but also as an abstract idea that exists at the core or our universe. A nomalist takes the opposite perspective that an isoclese triangle is simple something that man has made to help explain geometry and only exists when created by man. Godel incompleteness therom is a proof that shows that you cannot break down math into symbolic logic and contain a set of coherent rules (univeral axioms) with natural numbers. This suggests that math is something we created to explain the world and does not exist beyond that. This argument goes back to the time of plato but the nomenclature for the different factions has ofcourse evolved. My understanding of this comes mostly from lit and not from working through proofs so my understanding is likely flawed

Is there any reason why both can't be true? Like a platonic ideal can surely exist but since I don't live in that realm and my time/knowledge is finite I have to deal with what is.

I can conceive of a perfect triangle, but that doesn't mean that I can draw one. Yet if I'm gonna draw one I have to try to make it as close to that ideal as I am capable of or else it wouldn't be a triangle.

Absolutely convinced of the double/triple numbers, because I go through phases where it absolutely will not stop. There are days where literally every time I look at the clock it's 1:11, 2:22, 3:33, etc. At other times, I'll just see the same one over and over. 12:22 is a big one.

Anyway, idk wtf it means and I don't really care, but I am aware that this reality is essentially a hologram, so I think it's just subconscious-me, or some sort of angel frens, reminding me of that.

Yes I do. 22 and 33 are my favorites but I see 11 a lot too and other combos

Stop caring about these numbers

memetics are real friend

Attached: yGjaPrL.png (1857x733, 70K)

p.s.

Attached: 1519011168846.png (1080x1081, 222K)

I looked into the incompleteness theorem you mentioned. The math is beyond me but it appears like it is a self detonating statement in linguistic terms. Forgive me for being a brainlet if there is a distinction that I am missing, but the way I have found to square the circle linguistically is by adding a time dimension. A≠A is = "this statement is false" is = "I am not me". Within that framework, A≠A when you observe A over time. I'm not the same person I was a year ago but I am still me which means I am both me and not me at the same time.

Godel's incompleteness theorem only applies to arithmetic. It states that there is no set of axioms that completely proves all of arithmetic and that any set of axioms can not prove its own consistency.

I don't think I follow completely. I'm not an expert but that sounds like platonic realism even though you can't physically create a perfect triangle you can still believe that it exist as a univeral hypothetical object. I'm a layman though so you should do your own research.

7 is THE most powerful numeral, the lord is on our side brothers. Which means all sinners will not /makeit/ as well. Truly based.

That's not the way it works. If A depends on time, then it is a function and A(T1) = A(T2) is only guaranteed to be true if T1 = T2. Godel's incompleteness theorem has nothing to do with that though. It has to do with the limits of axiomatic arthimetic.

Eh, kind of. As far as I understand it, that only applies when you don't know where something is and it is just as likely in either place. Like with what's his name's cat you don't know if it is dead or not so it's both until you observe which it is.

But what I mean is that I am not the same person I was a year ago on any level of analysis from cells replacing themselves to my political ideology, yet I'm still me so I'm both me and not me. Either that or there is some transcendental aspect that I am not accounting for like a soul.

Do you mind giving me a brief overview if it's not too much trouble? I don't think I'm gonna be able to sleep tonight if I can't sort this out.

Thank you for explaining this to me.

I'd consider myself Aristotelian, but I can't wholly discard platonism. If something is only real because of my mind then it's not really real, is it? It's always been possible to build a skyscraper, but it took man for it to manifest. I'm not sure what an ideal skyscraper would even look like, but if you can define ideal and for whom then surely it must be possible for it to exist.

There will never be another bullrun.

Don't listen to this goof. $2500 EOY is completely reasonable, even a conservative estimate.

I think you're mixing up your definitions of what a platonic ideal is. It's not the ideal skyscraper to live in but the definition of a skyscraper (ie it has X amount of floors, it has windows, it has doors and so on). There are many good books on these basic of plato and philosophy if you're interested in just getting right into the meat of it and novels that cover these ideas ( anathem by Neil stephenson is a 900 page novel about platonic realism but still is a page turner and not super dense) if you prefer a more causal introduction.

Basically, you can't construct a system of axioms that completely explains arithmetic and any system of axioms you construct cannot prove that it is consistent. I don't really understand the proofs really well, unfortunately.

I'll check out the book, I can always improve my understanding of the topic. But what you pointed out about the definition and not the usefulness is exactly where I break with the viewpoint. An ideal implies an agent that something is ideal for. So if men are creating skyscrapers it has to be ideal for men otherwise they wouldn't create it. Saying I can't conceive of something isn't an argument, but it seems to me like an error of terms to say that an ideal can exist without someone it is ideal for.

An ideal skyscraper could be a real thing, but if it isn't ideal for me I won't build it.

Yeah anathem is a pretty good read. If you're interested in how AI and phyics can be tied into this you could also check out the emperors new mind by Penrose.