A little something different

This is a test run to see how people respond. I was thinking of doing some stories from Pastebin when there isn't much news. Read more for the first story.



All credit is given to the original author. I am simply putting the stories here to help spread them around.

compressibility
by A GUEST
http://pastebin.com/9hF1CjuZ
8/16/2016

1. There can be no two things that are in principle
2. indistinguishable.
3.   Show me any two things that are in principle
4.   indistinguishable and I will show you one thing that
5.   you have no basis on which to postulate that it is two
6.   exactly similar things.
7. The universe, as information, is not compressible.
8.   Inasmuch as a parcel of information is truly redundant, it must, in
9.   principle, be indistinguishable from its equal.  Otherwise information
10.   would be lost in expressing/storing the information as X * 2.
11.   And if it is truly equal then it is misfounded to postulate that the
12.   information actually exists any more than once.
13. Order is apparent compressibility.
14.   When you see order, you see similarity or consistency, that is, two or more
15.   objects having apparently the same attributes; the same parcel of
16.   information, attributed to them, repeated.  But that would constitute
17.   objective compressibility.  In a hypothetical alternate system of storing
18.   universe-information, you could simply store the parcel of information once
19.   and create a reference in the second instance pointing to the first.  But
20.   since we've already showed that the universe's information is not truly
21.   (viz., lossleslly) compressible, that means that the universe-information
22.   must ALREADY exist in the most compact possible way.  Since order is the
23.   appearence of consistency in time or space, i.e., redundancy in form across
24.   multiple objects or instances, that means that order is actually an
25.   illusion of sorts caused by our seeing the same information multiple times!
26.   This would be a result of our particular mode of perceiving & interacting
27.   with All That Is object-ifying/distinguishing/separating
28.   universe-information in such a way that truly distinct and apparently
29.   discrete parts of it (EVERYTHING is connected and one, in actuality) are
30.   associated with the SAME parcels of information, multiplied in our
31.   perception.  For example, inasmuch as two angles could be about 90 degrees,
32.   the about-90-degree-ness of one angle is the SAME about-90-degree-ness in
33.   the other angle.  More specific DIFFERENCE in angle is true information
34.   but because they are both about 90 degrees, there exists no true
35.   possibility of one being not about 90 degrees, because inasmuch as the
36.   consistency is due to order and not chance, the principle that makes one
37.   about 90 degrees is the SAME principle that makes the other about 90
38.   degrees, therefore the potentiality of one or the other is intrinsicly
39.   limited and restricted from being not about 90 degrees.  We see consistency
40.   because our mode of perceiving allows us to create a false hypothetical
41.   scenario of one angle being not about 90 degrees and to contrast that with
42.   the fact that they both 'happen to', for some reason (maybe 'order'), be
43.   about 90 degrees.
44.  
45.  
46.  
47.  
48.  
49.  
50. --
51.  
52.  
53.  
54. Inasmuch as
55.   the spatially differentiated 'objects' are similar,
56.   they are one and the same.  Or inasmuch as a spatially
57.   extended is self-consistent, the consistent attribute is a single point of
58.   information.  We create more information than is
59.   necessary by assuming that the exactly similar aspects
60.   of objects must be repeated just because the objects
61.   associated with the aspects are repeated in space or
62.   time.  We also assume that repetition in space or time
63.   is necessarily ontological.  But inasmuch as the objects
64.   are truly similar they must be considered one and the
65.   same.  The only real differences are the aspects/
66.   attributes that are truly dissimilar.  It is questionable
67.   whether difference in time or space in itself necessarily
68.   represents a true dissimilarity.  It could be us seeing
69.   the same thing twice.  It could be argued that inasmuch
70.   as it is actually valid to consider two things separate,
71.   it is not valid to consider them to be ordered, because
72.   order assumes redundancy and redundancy assumes actual
73.   exact similarities which are at the same time different
74.   (i.e,, in principle distinguishable which makes them not
75.   actually redundant)
76. Order, then, is nothing more than an illusion created by
77.   witnessing the same thing or aspect multiple times
78.   (in space or in time).
79.  
80.  
81. --
82.  
83. It should also be noted that one implication here is that the complexity
84. that we add to the universe in creating redundancies where none exist, must,
85. to be perceived, exist within ourselves.