0x00945915…d03csent to0x00945915…d03c·#25,359,204·view on Etherscan
Ðis 2is one 2of my, Tristanis Lagauz, comments 2on 2up 2and 2atom’s video 2about bumpiŋ ðe base:
“Maþ is invented alright, but it isn’t created . To invent X is to independently will oneself to þiŋk of X . By doiŋ so, I don’t create X , but raðer make hold ðe state-of-affairs ðat I þiŋk of X . And makiŋ a st.o.a. hold is noþiŋ oðer ðan makiŋ a piece of Information. Ðe German equivalent of “invent” is “erfinden”, which corresponds to Eŋglish “afind”, “a-find”. Ðe prefix “er-“ (“a-“) hints at ðe fact ðat Inventiŋ involves Makiŋ, but ðe main part “finden” (“find”) hints at ðe fact ðat it’s also a kind of Findiŋ. Inventiŋ is a type of Makiŋ alright, but ðat which gets made (ðe info) is distiŋct from ðat which gets found (ðe entity X ). Ðis gets even more obvious when we realize ðat two people can independently invent ðe same entity X , but it’s obviously logically impossible for ðe same creature to have two independent creators. Here’s an example: Ðe Belt Generator got invented by R. J. Van de Graaff. However, ðere may be spacefariŋ aliens out ðere, and if so, ðey almost certainly also invented ðe Belt Generator, and loŋ b4 V.d.G. at ðat. But if V.d.G. had made ðe B.G., it could not have already existed. Moreover, ðe B.G. is described by a finite Eŋglish text, and ðere is a fixed 1-to-1 correspondence between ðe finite Eŋglish texts and ðe naturals. Ðerefore, makiŋ ðe B.G. would amount to makiŋ a natural number, which is absurd. Inventiŋ a natural # is not absurd, ðough, as inventiŋ n is not ðe same as creatiŋ n . IMHO, ðe whole “Is Maþ invented, or discovered?” debate results from a misunderstandiŋ of ðe nature of Inventiŋ.”