This post was rejected for the following reason(s):

  • Unclear focus. I had a hard time figuring out what your primary point was, and evaluating it for cohesion and reasonableness. For new users, we request content that sticks to one particular point/focus-area. "Theory of everything" or broad reaching worldview posts tend to be hard distinguish from "somewhat manic / crack-pot-y" posts. We suggest new users focus on making one succinct point for their first post.

Hi LessWrong, I came across a song that got me thinking, and I'm curios whether my train of thought is interesting to, and fits with, the LessWrong audience, and to improve my specificity if any parts don't fit.

The song is "Evelyn Evelyn": 

And I read this blog post on the story behind it:
Containing this excerpt:

they were christened "eva" and "lynn" at one point in their lives - but they strangely like being referred to by the same name, in a sort of weird solidarity, i guess. so they both go by the name "evelyn" - and they answer for each other all the time.

I was thinking how it's not about deciding which is the "real one", but about recognizing how they're 2 "and" 1 simultaneously.

And how it's not just about synthesizing the differences between the 2 (as "parts", as thesis and antithesis), but also about synthesizing the differences between separation and unity itself.

As if in a dialectic form of "superposition".

Then, inspired by this thought, I had an idea related to phenomenology and paraconsistency (related to Gödel's incompleteness theorems):

My experience is not all there could be.
But my experience is all there is.

Complete and incomplete, at the same time.
And so, how "that" may be what is inconsistent.
I.e. the "paraconsistent" (within a paraconsistent logical system).

Which I thought could also be seen as a kind of "superposition".

Which also reminded me of a quote from Schopenhauer:

Every man takes the limits of his own field of vision for the limits of the world.

And that's it.

I'm not sure if this is too "poetic" as it's not falsifiable, and it lacks a clear pragmatic point, but I found it interesting.

I'm curious if it fits here, and what others might be able to make of it.

New to LessWrong?

New Comment