--

--

Thanks for the response Patrick — you are right, it's a contradiction. How can the SMSTEA be objectively true if there is no objective truth?

My attempt at an explanation:

1. The SMSTEA defines a small core of objective rules that hold for everything that happens (the rules of causality; Every event must have a cause);

2. Everything else must be consistent with the causality rule and our shared observations, as long as we don't contradict any of the two, those claims should also be true from our shared perspective.

According to the SMSTEA, only subjective realities (plural) exist. The article describes how these realities are constructed. It's a meta-perspective, a "stepping outside the Matrix" so we can describe the objective structure of what's happening.

I hope that’s satisfactory explanation 😅

--

--

I can see how this is troubling. I guess in this case it depends whether you can accept/believe the basic assumption.

What specifically do you mean by "evade the evidence for intention"? Do you require existence to be for something? Here I'd argue again the the intention of existence is…

--

--

Bernhard Mueller

Bernhard Mueller

1.8K Followers

Hackers (1995) fan • “Best Research” Pwnie Awardee • Former degen trader • P(G(F)) = ∀y q(y, G(F))