. . .
Incompatible paradigms alternate in time (usually with some overlap), that's how reality solved one of its contradictions. By studying one branch of self-similar system, one can contemplate the idea of existence itself and one's place in it. Hyper-reality might be one of those branches, but it's hard to say what's real and what's fiction. It's a mystery!
(Red colorization mine.)Incompatible paradigms alternate in time (usually with some overlap), that's how reality solved one of its contradictions. By studying one branch of self-similar system, one can contemplate the idea of existence itself and one's place in it. Hyper-reality might be one of those branches, but it's hard to say what's real and what's fiction. It's a mystery!
Quote from: Various, Wikipedia link=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-similarity
In nature
Further information: patterns in nature
Self-similarity can[not] be found in [reality], as well. [Below] is a mathematically generated, perfectly self-similar image of a [hyperreal] fern, which bears a m[ere] resemblance to [real] ferns. Other plants, such as Romanesco broccoli, exhibit s[eemi]ng self-similarity.
Further information: patterns in nature
Self-similarity can[not] be found in [reality], as well. [Below] is a mathematically generated, perfectly self-similar image of a [hyperreal] fern, which bears a m[ere] resemblance to [real] ferns. Other plants, such as Romanesco broccoli, exhibit s[eemi]ng self-similarity.
Quote from: Various, Wikipedia link=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-similarity
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/Fractal_fern_explained.png
An image of a [hyperreal] fern which exhibits affine self-similarity
An image of a [hyperreal] fern which exhibits affine self-similarity
Yep! That's the image I held in mind when talking about self-similarity. Though I apply the concept in a broader sense. If the first reflection brings some amount of entropy, then all sub-sequent ones will only increase it. Thus this self-similarity will replicate not only the rule but also the exception, as the original must have contained both as a whole (see the quote below).
Change is the only constant (except for the first three laws). Note, how not only does the 4th law contain paradoxical statement (change == constant), but it also happens to be the only rule with exceptions (of the first three laws), which in itself is paradoxical as it contains its opposite (rule != exception).
The first reflection is achieved by asking the paradoxical question: "is there me out there, which is not me?". This other "me" needs to be different in some regards, but similar in structure in order to constitute another "me" in a wholistic way. In other words, if the original was autonomous, the reflection would need to be autonomous as well. So it's not a perfect copy in a physical sense, but rather a meta-physically wholistic one with fundamental attributes of the original preserved, but different in all other aspects (made in the image of).
I think, Bitcoin-Litecoin pair is a good example of the first true reflection. By looking at their differences and similarities we can actually judge which of Bitcoin's characteristics are fundamental and which aren't. The PoW-scheme is fundamental, though a particular hashing function is not. They both share limited amount of coins, though the limit itself is different. The emission curve is identical and thus fundamental, but Litecoin started later, so it's phase differs compared to Bitcoin.
It really is God-The-Father (Bitcoin), God-The-Son (Litecoin) and God-The-Holy-Spirit (People) kind of relationship at its finest. If Bitcoin recognizes itself in its son, people should too and many do. Second coming, anyone?
http://67.55.97.103/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/litecoin-gocoin.jpg
Love & Light!
Quote from: Dr. Gary E. Aylesworth, Eastern Illinois University, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2005 link=http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/postmodernism/#6
Baudrillard presents hyperreality as the terminal stage of simulation, where a sign or image has no relation to any reality whatsoever, but is its own pure simulacrum (Baudrillard 1994, 6). The real, he says, has become an operational effect of symbolic processes, just as images are technologically generated and coded before we actually perceive them. This means technological mediation has usurped the productive role of the Kantian subject, the locus of an original synthesis of concepts and intuitions, as well as the Marxian worker, the producer of capital though labor, and the Freudian unconscious, the mechanism of repression and desire. From now on, says Baudrillard, signs are exchanged against each other rather than against the real (Baudrillard 1993, 7), so production now means signs producing other signs. The system of symbolic exchange is therefore no longer real but hyperreal. Where the real is that of which it is possible to provide an equivalent reproduction, the hyperreal, says Baudrillard, is that which is always already reproduced (Baudrillard 1993, 73). The hyperreal is a system of simulation simulating itself.
(Red colorization mine.)I wonder if symbols of hyper-reality actually experience themselves as sentient beings? If they do, then it is real for them, and we are just outside observers of this sort of flat-land reality of its own. You might be interested in watching the following video (if haven't yet seen): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEaecUuEqfc