I want to write an "epistemic horror" novel but I have no idea what that would look like

I want to write an "epistemic horror" novel but I have no idea what that would look like

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=bd2B6SjMh_w
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

This is my problem but with "ontological espionage"

>2+3=5
>"Why?"
Horrifying!

as in, a horror revolving around the gaining of knowledge? sounds like lovecraft

>not writing a mereological romance novel

sort of

I feel like theres something vaguely horrifying hidden in regress arguments and in the possible non-existence of the principle of sufficient reason, but I can't quite bring it out

> as in, a horror revolving around the gaining of knowledge? sounds like lovecraft

more like gaining knowledge of your limited knowledge i.e. realizing your brains to small to understand anything and then you get angry and break things

the garden of forking paths desu

Read about Godel. Shit's spooky.
My professor last semester said to a room full of mathfags, "I know you think mathematics is like the bastion of knowledge and reason in its purest form, but we are never going to have a complete set of axioms, and it's been proven. So math suddenly seems kind of useless once you hear that there's ultimately no point."

"There's ultimately no point" could be said about anything, though. I just do math 'cause it's fun. But math can be extremely spooky.

I was actually thinking about that, I bought a biography of his off of amazon to try to get some ideas going

Ch. I
The Internal Fear, The External Horror
Ch. II
A Raft Sliding Down the Pyramid
Ch. III
Gettier Has Perished
Ch. IV
Virtuous Knower
Ch. V
Reliable Witness
Ch VI.
Anarchy

Mathematicians aren't really interested in a complete set of axioms, though, just in deriving more and more results from those axioms.

Novels are inferior.
Just write a short story. Borges' "La biblioteca de Babel" comes to mind

heh i get it

Anyone who thinks Godel is spooky is a pop-sci retard that doesn't actually understand Godel.
>reminder that Tarski's axioms of geometry are both consistent and complete
>reminder that it's often a good thing if axiom systems aren't complete, like the axioms of group theory or ring theory or literally any other branch of algebra
>reminder that incomplete theories just give us another interesting object of study, namely the theories themselves in relation to what they can prove and what their models look like
>reminder that second-order logic is a thing and Godel doesn't say shit about that

isnt modal logic complete and consistent?

>you're a pop-sci retard who don't understand mafs and I'm so much fucking smarter than you lol
ok

tru but some are interested in the axioms themselves, usually more philosophy/logic-minded mathfags

>making a lazy quip rather than responding to someone's post

you might want to write something in the perspective of someone slowly going insane. knowledge becomes the enemy -- your character would start questioning what he knows and doesn't know. or perhaps his whole identity is made up. something like shutter island (a film) would work

bruh I'm not some kind of genius in math, you probably do know more than me if you've studied it longer

youtube.com/watch?v=bd2B6SjMh_w