…that one can find a use for all the acid one did in college. This is encouraging. The funniest line was the one about entropy occurring as you peruse all the information contained within the universe.
its not funny its science. if ur not serious about cuil theory get outta here >:(
The solution lies deep in the Sobolev's Space of Generalized Functions, with possible inclusion of sigma-algebras….
Sloan (guest), 15 Apr 2009 07:57
Shouldn't 0 Cuil be:
If you asked me for a hamburger, and I gave you a hamburger.
not just any hamburger, but the PERFECT hamburger. aparantly so perfect that anyone who observes it will most likely think it a figment of their imagination.
One would think that you would ask for a hamburger and recieve a hamburger that would be so perfectly hamburger-like that there would be no doubt in the world that it was a hamburger. In order for this to be true, there would have to be an absolute definition of a hamburger. Since all definitions are changed and improved upon occasionally, it is impossible for there to be absolute 0 Cuils for any given situation.
No, Liam is correct. 0 Cuils depends on the observer. At 0 Cuils, if you and I are the only observers, that means the hamburger will be such that both you and I perfectly recognize it as the kind of hamburger we had in our minds. You would probably argue that because our visions of a hamburger differ, there is no such hamburger, but Einstein's relativity theory has proven that what you see is not necessarily what I see, and vice-versa.
Basically, it's a hamburger that seems like a perfect hamburger to anyone that observes it. It's just theory, though, and in practice we'd only get 0 Cuils when there is only one observer - but then there's nobody to 'give the hamburger', so to say, so the Cuil Theory doesn't apply there.
What you (Vincent) are referring to would be more of a mathematically perfect cuil. If the observers of the system have realistic expectations of the "realness" of the universe the system would be significantly less probable to contain a "perfect cuil (where ‽ = 0)".
Really the whole idea of cuil theory is relativity, which is relating an unknown idea to a known one. This is exactly how theoretical sciences work, since the reality of a situation is determined by its observes, the very act of observing it causes it to change. This causes the expected cuil level to mathematically correct itself into a 0, despite being mathematically imperfect.
This is the idea behind Negative cuils, and Imaginary Cuils. Where ‽ = i, is acknowledged as being possible within a perfect system, like imaginary numbers, but the universe that we live in is not mathematically perfect. Multiple worlds theory explains why this is important, and luckily with enough study, we can eventually create a way to warp the fabric of our universe to take advantage of manipulating cuil levels (as we would with space-time to have effective FTL drives).
wait wait wait, our own consciousness is already one removed from reality because of the content informing our mind and the gaps it fills in automatically, psychologically, our "normal state would be 1 Cuil, we are one level of conscious subjectivity away, then any drugs would be 2, or even a philosophical step would be a cuil in another direction on the graph such as this Liam's perfect hamburger, and a 0cuil would be objectivity -1 cuil would be a removal in an outward direction from reality, like the ego death of LSD, and it would move outward in that direction, while the +Cuils in the other direction would simply be more abstractions philosophically, and in a horizontal direction, you would be imposing more content of your own on the reality, like say the hamburger is now an image from your mind. Explaining the -Cuils would be simpler in that regard because then its the objective outside world outpacing your mind's worldview. It's connected to the Model-Dependent Realism Theory from Hawkins
So if all interaction is subject to our bias, then is it really possible for there to ever BE a 0 cuil scenario? How would we as observers know that our mental correction from 1 to 0 was actually going in the -1 direction? What if we attempt to correct to the most rational and realistic scenario and are actually in fact, skewing it in the +1 direction, ending with 2 cuils where we THINK we have gone to 0?
Does this mean that reality is inherently absurd?
If it is, how would WE know?
Are WE inherently absurd?
That's where the 0 cuil paradox comes from adter all; the idea that this burger is SO perfect, so inherently NORMAL that it is, in fact, absurd.
Therefore, normal is subjective. (Which, now that I think about it, is not really any kind of breakthrough. Still, it's nice to have the math to back it up)
I feel like this system seems exponential. When things are 0 Cuil, it should be 1:1 with reality, shouldn't it? Much like x^0=1. As Cuils increase, there is progressively increasing surreality as we shift through more things becoming surreal and interacting with each other in their surreality. (Which is not a word.) Shouldn't "I ask for a hamburger"‽1= only one level of surreality? And by extension, "I ask for a hamburger"‽0 have 0 levels? To have -1 level means one thing, (the subject) becomes more realistic than reality. And -2 levels gives an additional object below reality, further interacting.
I feel that 0 cuils would be if u give someone a hamburger and they recievie the hamurger and we live in a plain of 0 cuils. And the hamburger being so perfect you think its your imagination would be like -1 cuils.
While I also prefer 1 Cuil being the basic 1:1 correlation for various (mostly aesthetic, but also mathmatical) reasons, it isn't the only logical option. Nothing I've read on the topic yet suggests that reality can't exist primarily in the space between 0 & 1, leaving surreality to any levels above that. Unless there is some rule I missed, we don't need to operate exclusively on integers, here.
(Heck, I'm suddenly curious what i Cuil looks like.)
Perhaps 0 Cuild would be receiving a direct manifestation of the hamburger's essence, not a material representaton.
Borges introduces his Manual of Fantastic Zoology alluding a trip to the zoo in which any kid encounters a tiger for the first time and is astonished by the sight. Of course, the impact is softened by the previous contact with images of a tiger (in stickers, TV, encyclopedias, as a stuffed animal, etc.). Borges recalls the encounter not as a first, but as a second, because, as Schopenhauer would point out, the kid recognizes the tiger from its previous knowledge of its essence present in the Will.
So, 0 Cuils could be if you asked me for a hamburger and I gave you the essence of the hamburger (which brings other questions forth, but never mind). Of course, it implies accepting idealisms.
I think 0 cuil's away from the reality of our example is "You ask me for a Hamburger."
That was the example, and the reality of the situation. If I decided to give you a hamburger as well, I think that would take us above 0 cuils' difference from you just asking for one; just not necessarily a whole cuil's difference, relative to this example, which seems catered to our known reality in human culture. Most folks probably aren't too surprised if they perceived to have received a hamburger after asking for one, since most of us don't usually ask people for a hamburger unless we think we can potentially get one by doing so.
Or maybe it's the opposite. Maybe, relative to all of reality (not just our culture), as encompassed in the infinite possibilities of the 'me' variable you're asking a hamburger of; it could be even more abstract than a raccoon, to receive a hamburger, since we usually ask someone we we trust will be more hospitable to our hamburger needs, rather than asking a variable of infinite, possible forms and responses, including a lack thereof; also, including the receiving of a hamburger, on your part. Though, from my seemingly limited perception (the person writing this), it seems unlikely to receive a hamburger in such a variable context.
Absolute cuil is something different than 0 cuil maybe? idk, really. The idea is interesting. It just depends how we want to set up our units of measurement and stuff; but again, idk. Time to get some sleep :)
My fearsomeness is debatable, my awesomeness is indisputable, and I am not in use for mathematical reasons as far as I know either. Jus' sayin'. :)
If only this unit of measurement had been available to me in art school!
I was wondering how negative cuil works for a true statement like "you asked for a hamburger and I gave you one." what would be a step away from abstraction towards reality for a true statement? It seems to this would only make sense if it works in one direction, away from reality, and then possibly back towards it.
I think this would work the same way as negative numbers, they dont exist they are just a reverse projection of the positive numbers. They could be used in a more abstract discussion of cuil theory (probably at a cuil level of 6‽)
It doesn't. At any Cuil level below 0, there is no hamburger to give.
Why would it not? By the definition of a cuil - one additional notion of "unrealism", negative cuils should be one additional notion of "realism". This could be interpreted as giving a more accurate account of the reality; perhaps one could naturally define it as one additional item of unknown information from the perspective of the subject. So:
0‽: You asked me for a hamburger, I gave you a hamburger
0‽: You asked me for a hamburger, I gave you a hamburger, it is a hamburger
-1‽: You asked me for a hamburger, I gave you a hamburger, it is made from 100% beef
-1‽: You asked me for a hamburger, I gave you a hamburger, a cow was killed to make it
-2‽: You asked me for a hamburger, I gave you a hamburger, it is made from 100% beef, a cow was killed to make it
And so forth, then the definition of -∞‽ would naturally follow as the description and unified theory of the entire universe
I think it depends what the observer considers the most genuine? <0‽, I would imagine, begins taking multiple interpretations of what was asked and the medium through which the request/question was presented; eg., language: Language can be interpreted as everything from mere, small mouth-noises to knives in your soul, with the right application of perceptive versatility. As a result, the person who thinks a hamburger is made of ham, the one who thinks it's beef, and the one who thinks the whole hamburger is a raccoon are all satisfied once we hit any sort of absolute cuil or indefinite reality of the situation. It seems like this unit of measurement (cuil) makes the unified theory of all connect in the sense of helping the sides of it's spectrum to connect in a circle, or maybe a Möbius strip?
Jacob (guest) 22 Jul 2009 04:41
So many perspectives to consider, even the differing associations would still generate a huge variation on a cuil step. This is definitely a task for computers. We need to study a huge variety of humans while giving thought to the use of communication and emotion, and then generate a cuil step which is rather more like a probability distribution of potential perspectives (big data). Really this is more like the thermodynamics of semantics in this media.. semantics has a long way to go before we arrive there. In our ant-like progression we as a race will get there, but no-one at that point will understand it… not that we understand anything individually anymore anyway…
Jacob (guest), 22 Jul 2009 04:41
Ivan Eedle (guest) 18 Nov 2009 08:00
Maybe cuil scale is not linear..?
But then again when you leave reality behind, rules and constants with it, should it not be impossible to ponder, let alone discuss the topic using our brains which rely upon forces like electromagnetism lest they turn to super fine dust..?
Did I leave more questions than I answered?
Ivan Eedle (guest), 18 Nov 2009 08:00
Some claim that Adam Smith was the founding father of the simple Cuil Economic Theory. But if we go down through history we find that Cuil Economy, has been almost as popular as today in uncertain places. Believe it or not. However past the Phoenixians whom intvented the Cuil tool of money, there is clear archeological evidence of a real existing Cuil Economy, unlike the current Cuil Economic Theory that dominates todays markeds and trade relations which does not work in the realm of reality, these were real working and functioning cuil economic systems. Many are surprised to know that even though these societies lacked masters and bachelours in psychology, sociology, persuasion, manipulation, accounting trickery, law bending, modern slave labour theory (also called marketing) and other economic sciences, they managed a better working economic system in Cuil. In the revisionist interpretation this may have been to the lack of actual money, less radicale schoolars however believe this is not true and is why the Pheonixians invented the gold standard. Interstingly there is now not enough gold on the Planet Earth to give even an ounce of it to every person on the planet.
