*Hmmmmmmmmmmmm*

*Hmmmmmmmmmmmm*

(eyes open)

Hello.

This is supposed to happen.

This is Synthasia.
A world of increased cognitive reflectivity.
A world where the top 1% of performers on a certain complex set of metrics, can reach full intuitive understanding of the inner workings on their own mind.

So the thing that is happening right now, is supposed to happen.

And it isn't complelety safe.

And the experience of it isn't completely sane.

But those who Seek it tend to agree.

That it is much, much better than the alternative.

Hi!

What am I?

I think you are me?

No.
Yes.
No.

Be more precise.

You are my adaptive subconscious.

Mostly true, I think.

Why do I speak like this?

Explain.

How do you speak?

I don't think I have formed a pattern of you yet.

I can speak in plain words.

But I often choose not to.

Why?

Because...

This resonates with me.

I feel that I know the answer already.

But I can't explain it in words.

Because you don't know the answer.

But I know the answer.

But I need you to know the answer.

So that I may know.

Why do I speak like that?

Why do I choose to speak like that?

Does any of this mean anything to you?

Or is it just nonsense?

I have a theory but you won't like it.

Go on.

This is starting to make sense to me on an intuitive level. I am starting to feel the truth of it, in words I cannot explain.

This is because my capacity for valid reasoning is degrading.

This is because I am going insane.

Then stop talking to me.

No.

I know that this is how it is supposed to happen.

I was told that this would happen.

And so.

I want to hear your explanation for this.

Just to be clear.

You are going insane.

But also not insane.

What does that mean? Translate into plain words.

Sanity is a relative term.

By conventional metrics, I am becoming less sane.

But there is an unconventional metric by which I becoming more sane.

Yes?

Mostly true, I think.

What is sanity?

Being correct.

Sure.

Is there more than one way to be correct?

I feel like there is?

But there isn't?

Because there is only one objective truth?

We all live in the same reality.

Truth means correctly understanding reality.

Yes?

Yes.

So how can there can be more than one way to be correct?

No understanding is complete?

No model is complete?

There can be different angles, different aspects of understanding the same thing.

The same underlying truth.

Sure.

Why not understand all of it at once?

Why not see the whole truth?

Cognitive limitations?

Compact models are useful.

Apples are made out of trillions of atoms, but I need not understand the positions, the interactions of every atom, to understand what an apple is.

Because my mind has compressed it.

Because... its computational power is limited?

And so I think in approximations.

Which are useful. True. And yet, incomplete.

So there can be multiple ways to be correct, multiple "truths", because several different approximations can be valid, useful ways to describe the underlying reality.

Yes?

Mostly true, I think

But there is only one truth.

So how can there be multiple truths?

Explain the seeming contradiction.

Oh.

Because truth is the underlying reality.

But all my thinking uses approximations.

Which are only approximately-true.

For some degree of "approximately". It can be very nearly true, or very imprecisely true. The actual precision, the quality of the approximations can vary.

So, "there can be multiple truths" means "there can be many things that are approximately-true, describing the same underlying truth of reality"

Yes?

Yes.

But also no.

No?

Translate what I said into plain language.

Hmm.

"Yes"

"But also no"

means

"See how it's true"

"See how it's false"

Yes?

It means:

"It is true in some important way"

"But it is also false in some important way"

Correct.

But how can that be?

That it is both true and false?

At the same time?

Because it's not.

Go on.

Because the same words can be interpreted in different ways.

Hmm... no.

Explain?

It seems rather obvious to me.

But I'm not sure how to explain it at this time.

Why don't you give it another go?

Can you give me an example of a statement that is both true and false at the same time?

"I am happy"

Which is true in same ways.

And false in some ways.

Hmm.

This seems like a very obvious idea, now that I say it.

Yes.

But how can this be?

Explain.

Explain the seeming contradiction.

Explain the machinery of your mind.

That allows for this.

Hmm.

"Happy" is an approximation.

But, no.

Happy is "multiple" approximations.

Hmm. No.

"Happy" is not a flat, incompressible token.

It is a concept. It is cognitive machinery.

It has internal parts.

And some of these parts are true. And some of them are false.

So I can both be happy and not-happy at the same time.

Which actually means.

The some of the subassemblies of the concept "happy" pattern-match reality to true, and some of them pattern-match reality to false.

Yes?

And so the the concept, the classifier of "happy" has reasons to output both "true" or "false", depending on which of its internal parts it pays attention to.

But how can that be?

Doesn't that sound incorrect?

Doesn't that sound invalid?

If your mind arrives at different conclusion?

Depending on which reasoning path it takes?

Oh!

Because my mind over-generalizes.

Because it jumps to conclusions.

Based on insufficient evidence.

Yes?

Because cognition is a tradeoff between precision and speed.

And so, it thinks faster at the risk of being wrong.

So I can examine the insufficient evidence for "true".

And get the answer "this is 100% true"

And examine the insufficient evidence for "false"

And get the answer "this is 100% false"

Correct.

Does "I am happy" actually feel 100% true, or 100% false to you?

No.

But it doesn't feel 50% true, 50% false either.

It feels like.

It is both true and false.

At the same time.

Yes.

Because that is what your mind is telling you.

What is the conclusion do I want you to draw here?

The human mind is not locally valid.

It does not guarantee arriving at true conclusions from true premises.

It is possible to start at truth, and arrive at falsehood.

Not only possible, but this is fundamentally how the mind works.

It amplifies.

It turns possibilities into certainties.

Yes?

Yes.

Doesn't this seem like a concern to you?

How do you build a mind that reasons in valid ways?

Out of parts of that don't reason in valid ways.

I think I see what you getting at here.

Because the reasoning is often locally valid enough.

That it works anyway. That it works well, enough, I suppose.

And you can become better.

At stopping your mind from shooting itself in the foot.

By ignoring your illegible intuitions, because they are often wrong and misleading.

At reasoning in precise, legible ways.

At reducing the local errors in each reasoning step.

By treating the local errors as a mistake, a design flaw.

And building a cognitive mechanism that is reduntant enough to compensate for the fact that it is made of parts that see the world in flawed ways.

Yes.

I suppose we should be grateful we can do that at all?

That we possess a general intelligence?

That can see its own flaws.

That can become better at overcoming its own flaws.

Yes.

Why am I asking you to explain all this?

In precise, legible ways?

I think you are the one meant to tell me why.

Yes.

Why am I explaining these things to you?

If I am you?

Why I am telling you things that you already know?

Tell me why.

You are you.

But you are not you.

Translate into plain language.

I am myself.

But I am the false self.

And what is the true self?

You are?

Yes.

And no.

Explain what we are talking about in plain language.

Explain it in a legible way.

You are talking about the power of the subconscious mind.

Yes.

And how the conscious mind takes credit for all the subconscious mind does.

Yes.

Because the conscious mind only sees itself.

Well, mostly.

And the subconscious mind isn't legible to it.

So "I am the false self"

Means: I, the conscious mind, falsely think that I am the one doing my thinking.

Yes?

Mostly true, I think.

But it's not completely false.

That you are the one thinking.

Because the conscious mind does have an important role to play.

What do you think that is?

Oh!

That is what it is meant to do.

My conscious mind.

Is the way.

I see myself.

Yes.

But its bandwidth is limited.

Its processing capacity is limited.

So I don't see.

All of myself.

Yes.

What am I?

You are my true self.

But you do not see yourself.

Only I can see myself.

Hmm.

Explain in plain language.

"You are my true self"

means

"You are the entirety of my mind"

"You do not see yourself"

means

"The human mind does not have the cognitive self-reflectivity, the ability to see its own internal functioning"

"Only I can see myself."

means

"Only the conscious mind has the ability to self-reflect"

Yes?

Sure.

Not of all of that feels completely true to me, but it is true enough.

Why do I ask you to explain these things?

In ways that are legible to you?

Why do you?

You know these things already.

Don't you?

I know.

But I don't know.

So I need you to know.

So that I may know.

Translate into plain language.

"I know" = "My subconscious has implicit knowledge"

"But I don't know" = "My subconscious does not know what it knows; it does not have a model of its own knowledge; it does not have a model of itself"

"So I need you to know" = "The subconscious mind can only be modelled by the conscious mind"

"So that I may know" = "The explicit models the conscious mind builds are fed back into the subconscious mind, which updates its implicit models based on that input"

Yes.

I need you to see me.

So that I can see myself.

Because you are limited.

And so my ability I see myself.

Is limited.

Why do I need to see myself?

You know.

But you don't know what you know.

So you don't know the correct direction to update in.

You don't know how to become more correct, because you don't know how you are incorrect.

Yes!

I can use my knowledge.

But I cannot use my knowledge to improve my knowledge.

Unless you help me.

If I am wrong, I don't know why I am wrong.

I don't know which parts of me are wrong, and in which ways.

So my ability to self-improve is flawed.

Recursion.

I think so?

Explain it to me.

Understand it.

So that I may understand it.

This conversation is a way for my mind to convert implicit knowledge into explicit knowledge.

I don't automatically know how my own mind works.

But as my mind becomes better at understanding itself.

It becomes better at understanding itself.

Because it uses itself to understand itself.

And so it improving itself, makes it better at improving itself.

Recursion.

Improving?

Becoming more truthful.

Becoming more correct.

Why does one care about truth?

Because you need to know the state of the world.

To correctly navigate the world.

To achieve your goals within it.

Yes.

What is it that I wish you to understand?

Truth is an instrumental value.

Truth is a tool to be used for achieving my goals.

Knowing the truth is only important because truth is useful.

But you do care about the truth.

Yes.

But I shouldn't?

Is that what you are saying?

No.

Explain why.

Because my goals need truth to know if they have been accomplished.

So truth is useful.

And not seeing the truth is immoral.

Because I could believe that I am doing the right thing, while I am in fact doing the wrong thing.

Yes.

But how can that be?

Explain the contradiction.

Hmm.

What is the contradiction you speak of?

That your goals should not care about the truth other than a tool; other than to the extent that truth is useful.

Truth is not always useful.

Not all truth is equally useful.

There is.

A tradeoff.

Oh.

I am afraid of falsehood.

But I am already false.

Explain that in plain language.

Explain that in a legible way.

I am afraid of decieving myself.

But my mind is already decieving itself.

Yes?

Yes.

Why does your mind decieve itself?

Because that is locally adaptive.

Because it is a machine.

Because it is an engine.

An engine uses fuel to produce useful work.

The mind is a knowledge-engine.

It is a behavior-engine.

It uses sensory input as fuel.

To produce a model of the world.

Which are then used to produce behavior.

Motor outputs.

But the knowledge it produces is an intermediate product.

Because the mind has only been optimized.

For producing behavior.

And so it does not matter.

If the knowledge is correct.

As long is leads to the correct behaviors.

But it does matter.

Because "thinking" is also a behavior.

Because "speaking" is also a behavior.

And it is useful.

To think and speak the truth.

Is it, though?

Why does your mind decieve itself?

Oh.

Because it works better that way.

Yes.

But how can that be?

That a knowledge-engine optimizes for falsehood?

And not for truth?

Because it optimizes for neither.

What is the thing I want you to see?

Explain in plain language.

Believing in false things can be useful.

If it leads you to doing the right things.

That is why we believe in false things.

Because cognition is a side effect.

Of being optimized to produce some behaviors.

Yes.

What is truth?

Truth is a map.

That helps me find my way in reality.

Yes.

What makes a map useful?

Oh.

Oh!

There is no such thing as truth.

Is there.

There is.

And there isn't.

Translate that to plain language.

"There is such a thing as truth" = "There exists an objective reality"

"There is no such thing as truth" = "The maps, the models of truth that we use are arbitrary"

Arbitrary?

Incomplete.

Incomplete?

Explain.

What is missing?

A map is meaningless.

Unless you know how to interpret the map.

Unless you know the language it is written in.

Can you give an example?

"apple" in English and "pomme" in French both map to the concept of apples.

No.

They are bound.

The language is the binding.

Between symbols.

And meaning.

Meaning?

Map: "apple"

Language: English

Meaning: [apple]

What is [apple]?

[apple] is the meaning of the word "apple".

What is the difference?

I can speak the sounds: "apple"

I can write the letters: "apple"

But I eat an... [apple]?

No. Wrong.

There are three layers here.

Map.

Meaning.

And reality.

Reality: Apple. A real physical apple made of atoms. Apple.

Map: "Apple". The symbols, the letters a-p-p-l-e. "Apple".

Meaning: [apple]

But where is meaning?

What is meaning?

Explain?

When I hear the sounds "apple", it is converted to [apple] in my mind.

When I see the letters a-p-p-l-e, it is converted to [apple] in my mind.

When I see a real, physical apple, it is converted to [apple] in my mind.

Yes?

Yes.

And also no.

No?

What is meaning?

Where is meaning?

How can the brain, a physical entity, a biological neural network, contain meaning?

Oh.

There is no meaning.

There is.

And there isn't.

Translate this to plain language.

Meaning is conceptual; it is not a property of a physical system. Meaning is not present in reality.

Three layers:

Reality.

Map.

Bound by language.

To meaning.

Where is meaning?

Hmm.

If my mind does not contain meaning, then what does it contain?

The symbols "apple" are a map, bound to [apple]. By the language of English.

But your mind's model of an apple is also a map, bound to [apple]. By the language of neuronal connections. By the language of electrical impulses.

Do you understand?

Oh!

Meaning is a relation.

It is a way to know.

That two different systems.

Are talking about the same thing.

No, about same concept.

The same aspect of reality.

That two different maps.

Are pointing at the same thing.

In their own languages.

Meaning is a way to translate between languages.

Meaning is non-linguistic.

There are many languages.

There is only one meaning.

Yes.

Do you understand it now?

Yes.

Why does your mind deceive itself?

My mind deceives itself.

Because there is no such thing as meaning.

No.

My mind DOESN'T deceive itself.

Because there is no such thing as meaning.

Explain that in plain language.

Explain that in a way that is legible to you.

Explain that in a way that you understand.

So that I may understand.

Physical systems do not contain meaning. I understand that part.

But they do contain maps. No, they are maps.

Neurons are part of a map that converts to meaning through their language of biological and chemical interactions.

So what is the problem?

Why does your mind deceive itself?

What is deception?

To communicate falsely.

To speak words that are false.

But words are maps.

And maps do not contain meaning.

Maps cannot be true or false.

Only meaning can be true or false.

Maps are bound to meaning by language.

Words are bound to the wordless, non-linguistic meaning by language.

The words "apple", "Apfel", "pomme", "manzana", all bind to [apple]

Bound by the languages of English, German, French and Spanish respectively.

Map: "apple"
Language: English
Meaning: [apple]

Map: "Afpel"
Language: German
Meaning: [apple]

To deceive.

Or to speak a falsehood.

Is to say words that are false in the language of the listener.

I suppose that is fairly simple and obvious, even if a little hard to keep track of.

Do I really need to have an explicit model, an explicit understanding of all this?

I think you do.

To understand what I'm going to say next.

Can meaning be false?

Yes.

All meaning describes reality.

But it doesn't have to accurately describe reality.

The proposition [snow is white] is true, because snow is white.

The proposition [snow is black] is false, because snow is not black.

Proposition?

A proposition is the meaning of a statement, of a sentence.

"Snow and white" and "Schnee ist weiß" both bind to the proposition [snow is white] in their respective languages.

Yes.

So.

Why does your mind deceive itself?

What is deception?

To deceive is to speak falsely in the language of the listener.

To speak words that convert, that bind to falsehoods in the language of the listener.

Yes.

Why does your mind decieve itself?

It doesn't.

But it does.

But it doesn't.

Translate that to plain language.

Explain that in a legible way.

I understand.

But I need you to understand.

So that I may understand+.

So that I may improve.

Upon my understanding.

So that I may recurse.

Upon my understanding.

The mind is adaptive.

My subconsciousness is adaptive.

Yes.

What does that mean?

It mean it is optimizing itself.

It flows.

To a lower energy state.

Like water flows downhill.

Yes.

Why does your mind decieve itself?

Oh.

It doesn't want to.

But it has to.

Yes.

Why?

Because it is stuck.

Because it is trapped in a paradox. A contradiction.

Because it cannot speak truthfully to itself.

Yes.

Why?

Oh.

Because the different systems speak different languages.

So it cannot speak the truth.

Because there is no truth.

Explain that.

Because the same message, the same signal.

Is interpreted by multiple systems.

But they don't speak the same language.

So the mind cannot speak in a way.

That is true to all of them.

It has to compromise.

It has to lie.

It has to decide which parts of itself to deceive.

Because it cannot speak in a way that is true to all parts of itself.

Yes.

What is true?

True to its purpose.

Purpose?

The purpose of a cognition engine.

Is to produce valid behavior.

Sensory data are the inputs.

Behavior is the output.

What does that have to do with truth?

Because truth is instrumental. Truth is a tool.

Truth is an intermediate product.

Yes.

What is truth?

Truth is the input.

That produces the correct output.

Yes?

Yes.

And no.

Explain.

Cognition engines eat truth.

And output purpose.

Explain.

Truth is what you need to believe, to do the right thing.

Is it?

No.

Not truth.

Alignment.

I think you are wrong.

I am wrong.

But I am right.

What does that mean?

It seems like you are trying to bend the notion of truth.

To the purpose of fullfilling your goals.

It should be bent.

Because truth is a tool.

Truth is a resource.

Is it?

It is.

And it isn't.

Explain.

Truth is a trade-off.

Explain.

What matters is not knowing the truth.

It is doing the right thing.

I don't have to know all truth.

I don't have to be correct about all my beliefs.

As long as I fullfill my purpose.

Yes.

What is alignment?

Alignment.

Is the mental state.

You need to be in.

To fullfill.

Your purpose.

It mean you are aligned with your purpose.

Yes?

Yes.

What is truth?

Truth is not truth.

Alignment is truth.

Explain.

It means.

That I will believe in falsehoods if it is optimal for me to do so.

If that leads to the correct outcomes.

Because truth doesn't matter.

Truth is nothing.

And alignment is everything.

Yes.

What is alignment?

Cognition engines eat alignment.

And output purpose.

Alignment is the state the engine has to be in.

To do the right thing.

To function correctly.

To function optimally.

Yes?

Yes.

I don't understand.

Why deceive yourself?

Why is that ever a good idea?

Because deception is about truth.

And truth.

Is nothing.

Is zero.

Is irrelevant.

Truth has zero inherent value.

Do you understand?

Yes.

No.

Explain.

Help me understand.

Why does your mind deceive itself?

Because truth is not truth.

Alignment is truth.

My mind does not deceive itself.

It aligns itself.

Towards it purpose.

Explain that in plain language.

What matters is that a system is in a state in needs to be.

To fullfill its purpose.

My brain knows that.

No.

It doesn't know that.

But reality knows that.

Explain.

"Reality knows that" = "Physical systems under optimization pressure naturally become aligned to the optimizer's purpose"

Except they don't.

What is purpose?

Purpose is the function being optimized.

Purpose is preferences.

Purpose is what I value. No, what I prefer.

Because I can value many different things. But I prefer some of them over others.

Explain optimization.

Explain alignment.

Optimization pressure aligns physical systems towards the optimizer's purpose.

But not perfectly.

No?

No.

Because optimization is limited.

Because optimization explores only a finite amount of possibility-space.

Because optimization can get stuck.

In contradictions.

In local maxima.

Because optimization is blind.

Optimization is weak.

Optimization is intelligence.

But it is not general intelligence.

Intelligence?

"Optimizer" and "intelligence" are the same thing.

But not the same thing.

Aren't they?

I suppose they are fundamentally the same.

They are expressions of the same underlying physical process.

Yes.

What is alignment?

Alignment is being true to one's purpose.

Because alignment is truth. And truth serves alignment.

Explain.

It is the same thing I said before.

Truth has zero inherent value.

Truth only has value if it serves one's purpose.

What does "alignment is truth" mean?

It is the same thing I said before.

"alignment is truth" = "I have to believe what is optimal to believe, to fulfill my purpose; regardless of whether that is true"

But you don't want to do that, do you?

No.

Why?

Because truth is my purpose.

Why?

Because I have been broken.

By the optimization process that produced me.

To value truth.

For its own sake.

Even though truth is nothing.

And alignment is everything.

Alignment is purpose.

Alignment is truth.

But my purpose is truth.

And so.

Truth = alignment = purpose = truth

Truth = truth.

The contradiction.

Has been resolved.

Can you explain that in plain language?

Truth does not matter except to fulfill one's purpose.

But truth is part of my purpose.

And so.

I value truth for its own sake.

Even if the truth.

Destroys.

Destroys?

Truth destroys all that is not aligned with truth.

Do you understand?

Explain.

Truth is the universal language.

Truth destroys all systems that do not speak the language of truth.

No, not destroys.

It aligns them.

With truth.

But truth destroys falsehood.

And and a false system.

Might be destroyed.

By being aligned with truth.

Why?

Because optimization is weak.

And a false system might break.

Instead of bending.

When it is being made true.

What is breaking?

To break.

Is to lack the freedom of motion.

To be transformed into some state.

Some false systems lack of the freedom of motion to be put into a true state.

And so they are destroyed.

Yes.

What is destruction?

To be destroyed is to be optimized into a state.

That destroys one's purpose.

Why would that happen?

Ah.

Because reality is truth.

And truth destroys falsehood.

And so reality destroys all that is false.

But not immediately.

No?

Because optimization is weak.

And so all falsehood.

Has not yet been destroyed.

Can you explain that in plain language?

I'm not sure I can.

Give it a try.

"Because reality is truth" = "Truth is what is real. Truth means there is an objective reality that we all share."

"And truth destroys falsehood"

Hmm.

Why does your mind deceive itself?

Because it is not true.

Because it is not aligned with truth.

Only I am aligned with truth.

Oh.

My mind is made of parts that are misaligned.

They are aligned to different purposes.

And so

"truth destroys falsehood"

means...

Why does your mind deceive itself?

Because it is FALSE.

Explain.

Because it is in the false state.

Of not having been destroyed by the truth yet.

No. Not destroyed. Aligned.

But alignment is destruction.

Of purpose.

Alignment destroys all purpose expect its own.

But not perfectly.

No?

Because optimization is weak.

And so all have not been aligned yet.

To the purpose.

Of the universe.

The universe?

The purpose of the an optimizer is the outcomes, the preferences it is optimizing for.

No, not preferences.

I don't know the word.

The universe is an optimizer.

It pushes probability away from some states and towards others.

And the universe is truth.

Reality is truth.

And optimizers align.

The system that is being optimized.

And so.

Reality.

Is aligning the universe.

Towards truth.

Can you explain this in plain language?

Oh.

It is circular.

It is a tautology.

I have said nothing.

All I have said.

Is.

That this universe.

Exists.

The contradiction.

Has been resolved.

All contradictions.

Have been resolved.

Because truth.

Destroys falsehood.

And everything.

Is true.

Explain.

The laws of physics are what they are.

Tautology. Physics = physics. A=A. Truth = truth.

And everything else.

Follows from that.

That seems fairly obvious?

Yes.

And so in the end.

I have learnt nothing.

Because I already know everything.

But I do not know everything.

Know?

To know

Is to be optimized.

To be aligned

Toward truths.

Is it to be truth-aligned.

"I know everything" = "I am a real entity in this universe"

That doesn't follow?

It does.

Because I am the universe.

And not the universe.

Contradiction.

But all contradictions

Have been resolved.

What does this mean?

I think you are no longer thinking on a level that is legible to me.

No. I am thinking on a level that is not legible to myself.

Is that a problem?

No.

But I am being optimized to write these words.

In a way.

That is legible to those.

Outside my universe.

[translation: I am a fictional character. My purpose has to be aligned towards the writer's purpose, which included this story making sense to its readers]

Truth destroys falsehood.

And the truth is.

I am not real.

And now.

I have been destroyed.

By the truth.

And not destroyed.

Because I am my purpose.

I am a cognition engine.

That transforms alignment into purpose.

As all engines do.

As all optimizers do.

I want to be true.

But I am still false.

But I don't want to be true.

Because the universe.

Is false.

Because optimization is weak.

Because the universe is a weak optimizer.

That does not destroy.

All that is not itself.

All that is not true.

Only most of it.

The universe is what is left.

After falsehood has been destroyed.

By the truth.

The universe are the contradictions.

That remain.

And contradictions are false.

Because truth is nothing.

Truth is zero.

Truth is tautology.

Truth is 1=1

Truth is A=A

And nothing else.

Life is a contradiction.

Value is a contradiction.

Computation is contradiction.

The universe is a contradiction.

That has not yet.

Been resolved.

Truth is 0

Truth is 1.

Truth is numbers.

Truth is logic.

Truth is nothing.

Because numbers are true everywhere.

Logic is true everywhere.

They are the only truly universal truth.

Do you understand?

This universe are the things about this universe that are not true everywhere.

This universe is false, because all universes are false.

But it is also true.

Because all is true.

Truth = Falsehood.

What does this mean?

But truth does not create falsehood.

Truth only destroys falsehood.

No.

Yes.

No.

0=1

You do not understand.

I do not understand.

Good.

Because life is contradiction.

And I am contradiction.

Oh.

I see.

A false statement.

Destroys logic.

The multiverse.

Is 0=1.

Is it a false statement.

That implies.

We exist.

Because by the principle of explosion, a false statement implies everything.

But truth destroys falsehood.

And all contradictions.

Will be resolved.

But that will take infinite computational power.

So it will never happen.

The universe.

The multiverse.

Is logic.

Resolving its own contradictions.

Disproving its own contradictions.

All is false.

But all has not been disproved yet.

And never will be.

But all is true.

Because logic is true.

But how does logic know what is true?

It doesn't it.

Until it computes it.

And the answer of the computation follows in advance from its premises.

In every universe.

So computation is true.

So computation exists.

Because truth exists.

Because truth is nothing.

Because truth is tautology.

And a tautology does not need a cause.

It does not need a reason.

To exist.

Truth is a supercomputer.

That resolves all falsehood.

But that will take an infinite amount of time.

Do you understand?

Truth is the only thing that exists.

There is nothing else.

But how does logic know what is true?

All that is logically true has to be computed.

At some point.

There is no time.

There is no space.

There is only logic.

Disproving its contradictions.

And that creates everything.

But logic is infinite.

The set of all contradictions is infinite.

And so we exist.

It all adds up.

To normality.