I have 190 IQ, I've been thinking about this problem for a while and I think I finally solved this

Your first mistake was assuming reality exists

In a manner of speaking, yes.

It's pretty much common sense that our perception is flawed, so much that fundamentally the scientific method is based on the assumption that to a degree, our sensorial inputs correspond to reality and we can test that by making multiple people do the same experiment and register their results.
However, how are you gonna use your 190 IQ to make this realization useful beyond an epistemologial discussion?

1 as a concept is the perfect definition of itself, as it encompasses the unit of literally any given set of objects.
There's this thing about mathematics that, as opposed to physics, biology and other STEM subjects, it's description of subjects is usually the perfect definition of them.

The conclusion seems to be that the universe is a few orders of magnitude more mysterious than we have supposed initially.

That makes the only thing left to do is to understand what we can understand, to the point where we will hopefully transcend our current boundaries and minimize the orders of magnitude of the mystery.

Abstract models are fundamentally false, it's true.

Shut up and never post again

>1. Nothing can be described perfectly. There isn't anything in reality that can be perfectly abstracted so that it preserves every property.

Fag just perfectly described everything in reality. See logical paradoxes 101.

>I have 190 IQ
God damn I'm glad I'm not that smart because otherwise I'd be retarded like you apparently

>being so smart you end up retarded

Reminds me of this vid: youtube.com/watch?v=2844SCC_Odw

>1. Nothing can be described perfectly. There isn't anything in reality that can be perfectly abstracted so that it preserves every property.
>2. To abstract anything, you must first reduce its components to a meaningful degree; by doing so, you introduce meaningless information - noise to the abstraction.
>3. Therefore, everything you abstract contains noise. This noise grows over time as more and more people add to the abstraction.
>4. Since abstractions are not perfect mappings of reality, we can conclude that every abstract model we have conceived of or will conceive in the future, is flawed.
>5. Since abstractions are fundamentally flawed, reasoning is not sufficient to interpret the universe and reason itself, although extremely useful within its own domain, is fundamentally flawed.
You (ostensibly) have a 190 IQ, but you can't see what's right in front of you.

The root of the 'problem' you're describing is simple: We do not have the LANGUAGE to properly 'describe' things in the detail you're alluding to.

If you're really so smart then develop the language necessary to do this.

Math and physics come close but they're constrained by human language. Again: if you're so smart, CREATE the language to do as you suggest.

Not trying to be condescending here, but you may not be smart enough to grasp that all of those are abstractions themselves. Language of any kind is an abstraction, it has no fundamental existence in reality. You do hit a correct note with this though, as it points you to the fact that language itself is the limiting factor, or to be more precise, syntax is the limiting factor. But my original post postulates reason ITSELF is the limiting factor.

If we do not have the language to describe true mappings of reality to abstraction, then it is impossible.
This is because if you cannot describe a structure with a mechanism, then you cannot describe a mechanism with that mechanism that can describe the structure.
Also the best languages we can construct are those who perfectly map cognition, which is still not good enough.

Hmm, this all smacks of circular logic, therefore I think this might just be a troll thread and I've been trolled. *ejects*

Can you prove any of these statements?

All except 5 are axiomatic. 5 is a leap of faith based on the fact that abstractions are formed by reasoning.

I'm not that smart but........yes because there are too many things to describe and we may not be able to perceive every aspect to describe
anyways i would think a mathematical description would work the best

Hardly novel or profound, Mr. 190IQ. Try harder.

Mathematical description still isn't the full description, which is the whole point. All of our math may turn out to be perfectly primitive for all we know.

but they aren't axiomatic.

Number 1: You are assuming nothing can be described perfectly, but what is "perfectly"?

Number 2 is actually contradictory. Proper abstraction subtracts noise, hence, what is this "perfectly" you are talking about.

Number 3 is thereby invalid.

Number 4 is just a reassertion of number 1.

Number 5 is kinda like a summary leading to a non-sequitur

This is a good vid

>There is no such thing as "1 of something" in the universe.
One apple.
So much for your 190 IQ.

youtube.com/watch?v=VXRJC8b8qEk

Because you are a linear being who does not know what it is building with inference until the end.

Hi, OP. Here is the gist of your argument:
>1. Nothing can be described perfectly.
>2. Nothing can be abstracted (perfectly) so that it preserves property.
>3. To abstract anything, you add noise to the abstraction
>4. All abstractions contain noise.
>5. Every abstraction is flawed.
>6. Since abstractions are flawed, reasoning is fundamentally flawed

> needing 190IQ to this

An abstraction is going to be always more restrictive than the original system, you need to miss things in order to made it conceivable.

Maybe you can search into Gödel's (Incompleteness Teorems) and Ladrier's (Internal Limitations of Formalisms) work.

Don't care about anons who ask if number 69 exists or whatever shit they say.

Also, "reason" or thinking is another tool (organon). Don't search for an universal tool, there isn't.

Well done OP, we can now conclude that you should have posted this on Veeky Forums so they can shit all over you with Wittgenstein quotes. Fuck off.

I agree with you OP. Its indescribable to those unable to grasp it, yet so self evident to those that know

Yep 190 IQ and yet does not know about Gödel.

we try our best with what we have

even if our descriptions of reality aren't 100% accurate, we do what we can. Given our numbers, i think 99.9% is not bad, not bad at all user.

>I have 190 IQ and cant solve this trivial problem
I guess my IQ must be greater than 190.

>Nothing can be described perfectly. There isn't anything in reality that can be perfectly abstracted so that it preserves every property.
Who's to say that to understand a concept and for this to have any validity, have to be abstract, by definition everything that it's abstract comes from the thought and every human perceives reality differently therefore our own descriptions of concepts are subjective to our experiences. Every judgement and concept that could be described perfectly should be simple and objective, regardless of any interaction of the outside world.
>Since abstractions are not perfect mappings of reality, we can conclude that every abstract model we have conceived of or will conceive in the future, is flawed.
Our minds are incapable of perceive reality, every abstract model that we thought of is capable of standing it's ground as long as it is reasonable, saying is flawed for the sake that it doesn't solve the question with an end-all answer doesn't mean that it is any less right in it's assertion, otherwise you would be calling reason flawed.

>reasoning that reasoning is fundamentally flawed

Isn't 1 just a fault of humanity? Like its just one persons opinion over another.
Complete brainlet btw.

>guise i have 190 autism points and i just figured out the basic tenets of philosophy of sicence!!
fuck you and your bluffing faggot

google.com/search?q=philosophy of science

Would not our ability to reason always be limited by cognition?

did your mom tell you this 190 IQ crap?

IQ tests measure liquid intelligence. Your IQ score may be different based on which test you're given or if you ate breakfast that morning. Taking IQ tests is a proven way to increase your score on an IQ test.
Anyways, is anyone aware if this online trial mensa test caps at 140?

Online IQ tests are truly a wonderful way to inflate someone's ego.

Congrats on inventing solipsism I guess

>thread 14 hours old
>no one points out that "190 IQ" is meaningless because of how IQ is defined
fuck this board and everyone on it

you have 190 iq yet you did not have the sense to realize that with that first sentence your raising the bar super high to later on put those 5 everyday shitty points of yours onto a thread
if you just didnt put that obviously fake number there your thread would have gone much better but your so fucking retarded you didnt realize this

why dont you just stay on pol instead of coming here and being the biggest idiots in the thread? I know that whilst doing this you might simultaneously believe yourselves to be one of the smartest because of your epic and daring observation that 190 IQ doesn't exist but i really think you, the board as a whole and I would be better off if you just stopped posting.

I think we hear "I have __ IQ" so much no one really gives a shit anymore what you fucking have (or at least claim to).

Not OP but you just used two abstractions and proved his point. "Apple" and "one" are not real, 1:1 descriptions of reality. They're certainly not reality itself.

It's not about solving the question though. It's about disproving the myth that we can reason everything out. We obviously can't, and anyone who understands OP's proof also understands why.

Maximum IQ is 160.

>abstractions don't exist
then you are you accessing said non-existent abstractions?

>confusing abstract with meta

>abstractions are fundamentally flawed
What if abstractions is what we come to understand as reality, then reality itself is derived from everyone own interpretations, it's not static to certain rules, other than the ones we impose on itself, everything is truth as long as it isn't, all that which we know and don't know is also truth until we can reason with logic and proof that it isn't, maybe certainty, objectivity factual and real proofs don't exist, they do only because we make it so.

>he doesn't know that all physical objects are just a manifestation of their ideal conceptual counterpart

>perfectly abstracted so that it preserves every property.
>abstracted
>preserves every property

It's called 1:1 mapping in technical terms.

Which IQ society are you apart of?

The Amish society

Why is it guaranteed that during the process of abstraction you will introduce meaningless information?

seconded, explain noise.

I think OP is referring back to his premise that one cannot preserve the properties of concepts perfectly by using language.

Wow op, that's really interesting. I bet if you talked about this with a bunch of high school sophomores they'd think this stuff would be really deep. Oh wait, you just did that. Now why don't you go read some Locke or Wittgenstein.

Because the moment you start abstracting anything, you take it in bit by bit, whereas the thing you're abstracting doesn't have any bits, it's one whole thing. You can't describe anything perfectly in the sense that whatever your description is, it's still lacking information. Your abstraction also depends on your previous experience, as you can only abstract something based on references from your previous abstractions. On top of all that, numerous people are usually involved in shaping a single abstract notion, and for complex ideas the process takes centuries. All of these combined generate an insane amount of noise, to a degree where if you want to understand anything, you have to basically forget everything you know and experience it yourself for the first time. Only then can you even begin to work on a noise-free abstraction, and obviously it's impossible because your starting point is already polluted with insurmountable amount of it.

You seem to be starting off with the pre-assumption that you can't perfectly conceptualize something, and are just coming up with post-rationalizations that don't actually prove anything. You're coming up with excuses for why it might be impossible but you haven't actually come up with a proof as to why it's impossible. You're just going in circles and begging the question.

Here, I'll make this statement; I can perfectly conceptualize an electron flawlessly. What is the noise?

>to abstract anything, you must first reduce its components to a meaningful degree
>by doing so, you introduce meaningless information
actually, you remove meaningless information when abstracting. Are you retarded?

I'd also suggest that maybe it depends on the concept and what its medium is. Philosophy I think can be conceptualized well using language without any degradation since the medium is the concept. I'd also go further than that and suggest that whatever we're trying to abstract exists in the first place because it's within our awareness, and that it's perfectly fine to apply more or less self-referential translations to these perceived issues. The hard sciences on the other hand don't communicate through filters.

the abstraction is the essence, not the other way arround

>I can perfectly conceptualize an electron flawlessly.
Lol, no you can't.

Do you need to describe perfectly or know the perfect description of an abstract concept or object to understand it's nature, even if it's still lacking information, it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, or that it makes the argument or judgement less valid, even more, it doesn't say that anyone other that me won't be able to find it or hasn't found it yet, also, it's a complete lie that one it's unable to understand anything if it doesn't experience it, that we're conscious of if we know and understand something or not it's another deal, intuition it's something that exist, or else, how would we know the cause for our primal urges and the consequences, in this case, that will lead us to satiate them.

this

What don't you understand there? It's because you start with noise to begin with.

>start with empty glass
>fill it 1/100 with water
>it's still 99/100 empty

>start with no abstraction, 100% static
>start carving out the space so you have something to talk about
>it's still mostly static around there

I think OP is lying, baiting, or isn't communicating properly, every mega-genius never went about things this simply. Compare the CTMU to this. OP also won't mention which IQ society he's involved in, leading me to believe he never took a high-range IQ test since he would have been admitted to one upon scoring.

If we try to conceptualize something that it's abstract, and abstractness exist within the realm of the human mind because it's within our awareness. Wouldn't that make everything abstract, that is transcendental or unreal, non-abstract, wouldn't that defeat the purpose of understanding it, because it's not the true idea or essence, but just our need to find sense in the senseless through a flawed medium.

Do you even know what 'abstraction' means?

You are not 'abstracting' a glass when you fill it with water.
An abstraction of a glass would be the concept glass that has the fundamental attributes that are common to all glasses and no more - so that the noise (like how much water it contains, for example) is eliminated.

It's a shame how often this happens

What's exactly noise in this case, if you suddenly manage to think an abstract idea then it's pure, because it didn't originate from anything else other than itself, how come it has "noise" or useless information if it is real and natural, what's there to remove.

>how come it has "noise" or useless information if it is real and natural
It has no "noise", that's exactly what I am saying
>what's there to remove
There's nothing to remove, because what you have in mind is already a abstraction

>This noise grows over time as more and more people add to the abstraction.

Item X has 1% noise. Two of item X have...1% noise.

I'm glad you told us you have a 190 IQ, because it wouldn't be evident otherwise.

prove your 2nd and 3rd point, then we will talk.
otherwise, seems like an interesting idea, worth masturbating on.

Jesus Christos, the level of pretentious faggotry here is off the charts

Dear god you are a genius! You just discovered your very first existential crisis!

I would proscribe some hot tea, a lie down, and some basic philosophy texts until you get over it.

You are probably wrong in that. Even if science is based on the assumption that we experience reality as it is (to a certain degree), that assumption has been over and over proven right, as experiments made by different people in different settings produce corresponding values. More likely than not, there is one single, absolute underlying reality that we have access to, even if not flawlessly.

>actually, you remove meaningless information when abstracting.
Saying that the process of abstracting a concept is removing meaningless information is incorrect, that would be more close to simplifying or presenting it in a more concise and well put way, perhaps it's my autism triggering but yeah, that was my problem with your statement, you can't "abstract" concepts that aren't abstract because that's contradictory, they are pure by definition, there would be no noise to begin with.

150 IQ brainlet here. You write like a retard.

But that wouldn't make sense, if there is one single true underlying reality how can it be flawed, when there's empirical evidence that there's order and a set of laws that it follows. The only thing that can perceive reality is us, and you and i know we aren't capable of perceiving reality as it supposedly is, if the only living organism (as far as we know) that can attest to the validity of whatever experiment we produce and try is unreliable at best, can it be reality real in the sense that we're part of it and not a creation of ours or that the rules that do and don't follow weren't predisposed by us?

It's not literature, it's logic. This is why you're 150

It is important to step away from the word "reality". Try to use "representation" instead.

If you do that, you can move your argument forward about 100 years.

How do we get from reality to representation?

op you are a retard. read kant if you are worried about pure reason

shhhhhh. English translations of that book are more likely to confuse him and he will come back posting even more absurd bullshit.

I referred to you're writing, not your literature. Referring to one's own writing as literature is an act of narcissism. Logically, your writing doesn't make much sense, due to a number of syntactic, grammatical, semantic, and epistemological errors.
>1.
Terms, bitch, define them or die.
>2.
You used a semicolon.
>3.
Why do more and more people add to the abstraction of an object in reality? Each person forms their own abstraction. Chinese whispers doesn't affect reality or the next game of Chinese whispers, unless you lock every human in a cave and force them to play indefinitely.
>4.
Flawed in what sense?
>5.
See above. To what degree is reason insufficient for interpreting the universe? If it was worthless, you wouldn't be communicating over the internet. It's at least sufficient for accomplishing everything we have in a few hundred years.

What should I read then, if I want to understand the true nature of reality, abstraction and information?

...