The Library of Babel & Piles & Piles of Words

About: the library of babel - wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Borges' Library of Babel contained every true book that could ever be written, but it was useless because it also contained every false book, and both true and false were lost within an ocean of nonsense. [First Things]

The PDF of the “book”
A gem mentioned in the On the Science is Broken artlcle .  Apparently peer review is bullshit. The scientific method fails if experiments can’t be duplicated but serve as published anyway due to politics, money, prestige etc.
The Book reminds me of Bob Newhart’s routine on & infinite number of monkeys.  Could update this to the Web & Network instead of books. 


  1. science
  2. scientific method
  3. junk science
  4. network
  5. world wide web


Seth says
i think the Library of Babel and Newhart’s infinite number of monkeys go right along with Nathan’s, if you can think it, then it exists multiverses.  These seem attempts to disbelieve and discredit an objective world in favor of a subjective one.

But there is an objective world,  nowistanding those attempts.  We access it by that which we share with others.  The old scientific method can be used here … can others duplicate a result?   if they cannot, then the result was in the infinite number of impossible solutions … it was merely subjective.   I think we do have a spectrum (or a fight) between the subjective and the objective.   Some side with the one,  me, i side with the other grin, … that which i can share,  … i glorify the transaction between humans of sharing ← that is the only way i know how to access the objective world and transcend my mere subjective existence … that is what makes life real to me. 

Incidentally all combinations of interpertations of words in a sentence are not equal.   It’s more like a differential equation where every new term brings with it restraints on the interpretations of the other terms … so what a sentence could mean gets narrowed, not expanded, with each new word that is added to the sentence. 

Mark de LA says
Some hold Science the same as a Religion – faith & beliefs, rituals, scripture (Einstein et al), claims without evidence etc.  See my writings about s skeptics.

Mark de LA says
Mr. Wallaby 2016-04-19 08:33:46 [item 20816#51304]
Good thing you never took differential equations in class – might have failed.  The basic theme is one of mocking statistics, both Newhard & the other. You must be commenting also on another post not this one.
Seth 2016-04-19 08:51:54 [item 20816#51305]
not throwing science (and the objective world) out the window with the babie’s bath water … just because sometimes subjective agendas fight its objectivity  is no laughing matter.   this tower of Babel and the discredit of science is a recurring theme with you.   You do carry on and on with it … almost as if you had an agenda of your own.   Here i used your spoof to spoof Nathan.   The sad thing is that he probably won’t even get it. 

and incidentally i aced differential equations  – the math department at UCLA even wanted me to join an advanced class after i got A+ in my first two undergraduate calculus classes.  that was when i was really really into math.  
Mr. Wallaby 2016-04-19 08:57:43 [item 20816#51306]
I aced a class in differential equations – different from integral & differential calculus – an upper division course. Nothing wrong with science when the real scientific method is followed. The article showed that it is being cast aside for other reasons however. Maybe read it instead of rwg. 
Seth 2016-04-19 09:08:42 [item 20816#51308]
but i did read the article mark.   Your usual presumption of rwg is just your own subjective association here … nothing to do with what we are sharing … er, in fact it is fighting it laugh.

real science is hard and useful and has nothing to with its abuse which is a different matter entirely … i’m glad you seem to agree on that.  

when real science is used on human psychology, we get right up against the subjective/objective duality of our very perdicament.  it is not surprising therefore that we might come to loggerheads on it. 
Mr. Wallaby 2016-04-19 09:13:40 [item 20816#51309]
Yep reading the article & missing the point belongs to psychology or art or whatever. laughing AC even coined the motto “The Method of Science – The Aim of Religion ” thumbs up 
Seth 2016-04-19 09:28:03 [item 20816#51310]
Well AC was a King of the subjective – it is not surprising that he must needs discredit an objective world. 

Just FYI,  what you call “missing the point”,  i call recognizing the usual path of your mind,  and then me doing my own variations on that … yes, almost artistically … my life is my art, especially when i write.
Mr. Wallaby 2016-04-19 09:31:30 [item 20816#51312]
Well AC was a King of the subjective – it is not surprising that he must needs discredit an objective world. <== Bozo prevarication – AC did NOT discredit the objective world. Nobody I know does, not even you who goes for the meta world. 
Seth 2016-04-19 09:41:58 [item 20816#51314]
sure AC discredits the objective world – incidentally so does RS – and Nathan even claims it does not  exist, though he will certainly have a rationalization there.   So on that we must disagree.   i say to you, “wake up and smell the actual roses” … see the thing for what it is.  but that need not be a RWG transaction between us.   We are seeing this situation from totally different perspectives … that is a good thing … means we can use “How to see an elephant with multi-person binocular vision.” as long as we don’t end up just fighting each other instead. 
Nope Seth – the prevarications continue from you. thumbs down Mostly Others (GW, RS, AC ...) say there are more than the 5 senses that point to stuff to behold & enjoy.  Nate goes on his own – all is him. 

Mark de LA says
Mr. Wallaby 2016-04-19 09:57:09 [item 20816#51317]
Your last illustrates the title of this item – nice round trip! laughingthumbs up
Seth 2016-04-19 10:03:44 [item 20816#51319]
that just means you didn’t understand what i said. 
Nope – I just reject it. I don’t think you mastered what they were saying (RS, ….etc.)  I could probably find a direct quote from GW but that would be a waste of my time. 

Mark de LA says
Seth 2016-04-19 10:02:39 [item 20816#51318]
i think if you examines the salient qualities of  the “other senses” you will find that they are subjective.  their objects cannot be shared.  and this is not just bozo talking here … read exactly what RS and AC and GW and every other Shaman have said about them.  this is no secret.   argue with the gurus, not with me … i am just taking them at their actual words … and incidentally my experience matches those words.  
Mr. Wallaby 2016-04-19 10:06:38 [item 20816#51321]
NOPE! With Egos the sense is individual.
Seth 2016-04-19 10:10:24 [item 20816#51322]
ok, and just exactly (more explicitly) does “the sense is individual” mean.   Put some more meat on them thair bones.  Add some more terms to the differential equation so that i might know what you are thinking … apart from any rwg game that might be going on.
Mr. Wallaby 2016-04-19 10:19:40 [item 20816#51323]
Well, other than the jibberish about differential equations, when I take a bite of an apple nobody else gets that moment of taste, smell, feel, sight & sound effects except me (an Ego thingy). All the selfies in the world broadcast all around it will not give anyone that moment nor that experience. 
Seth 2016-04-19 10:40:55 [item 20816#51324]
which matched my definition of what is “subjective” … that which can not be shared.  thumbs up

so perhaps are are in agreement after all.   but if not, they why not.   curious minds want to know. 
Mr. Wallaby 2016-04-19 10:48:08 [item 20816#51325]
Subjective-objective are poles of an experience, an effect (the observer/ the observed) . Sharing is just a spurious idea introduced by those who like to haggle about things.
Seth 2016-04-19 11:07:24 [item 20816#51326]
You might ask what specifically distinguishes something that is “objective” vs something that is “subjective”?   Drill down into what labeling something with those words actually means. 
Mr. Wallaby 2016-04-19 11:09:00 [item 20816#51327]
Right now I am not into haggling .  Maybe when I get a tuit .  I’m not confused either. I am complete with whatever IS!
Seth 2016-04-19 11:20:13 [item 20816#51328]
this is the kind of place where you always have that response.   i am aware of that pattern.  i mean it is so persistent.   i wonder:   are you aware of the pattern yourself?  What do you get by going there? … what do you give me? … what does the transaction between us become ? … what do we share?

but no surprise …. no problem … an no complaint.

rose …. i need to move into my business day too. 

Mark de LA says
Seth 2016-04-19 09:50:25 [item 20816#51316]
incidentally the proposition that “i go for the meta world” is just a lie about what i actually do.   i think what you call “being” is the objective world.  It is what i do “go for”.    the meta symbols in your mind, my mind, are just all scrambled between us.  and sharing rwg transactions between us, won’t help us unscrambel them.
Seth 2016-04-20 04:33:16 [item 20816#51334]
… or to be more accurate, “I go with what happens”.   it just so happens, that is what can be shared.  The meta world of thought and subjectivity is about what happens … or what could happen, or what didn’t happen, or what will happen.  Me, i am “into” getting my meta world to accurately match what actually does happen.   ← that is just kind of my thingey.   Of course there are all manner of levels of that … we get into the whole dilemma, which came first, the chicken or the egg.   So we get all the  magic, drama, passion, and art of the subjective metaworld  creating what happens.  It doth not just flow one way. 
Other than going with the flow thumbs up & my 19344 what have you said?  I like Michael Strong’s FLOW as economic inspiration. 
 happen is vague – active will & doing doesn’t seem to be a part of it! cool

Seth says
nothing vague about what happens.   i can point out millions of such events,  and most of them you will agree with me that they happened.   This is a case where if you can give examples of what you are talking about it is not vague … and where others agree on those examples, then you have shared them. 

i discovered this word’s used in this tangible way about 6 months ago.  It cuts through a lot of philosophical confusion … at least for me.  Of course if your belief structure presumes there be no such precise examples of experiences from your subjective mind to an objective universe,  … or shuns such … you will not see the use of the word.  

Seth says
Seth 2016-04-20 08:20:46 [item 20816#51337]
incidentally you are misinterperting what i am saying, if you think it has anything to do with “going with the flow” … that is quite a different thing.   I used the term, “i go with what happens”,  because you said, “i go with the metaworld” ← which is not true.
Mr. Wallaby 2016-04-20 08:23:36 [item 20816#51338]
I go with …….( whatever) laughing – maybe learn the meaning of the word happen.  I gave you clues in the thesaurus, but of course you will make up your own definition.  Events is still a nebulous word – could be anything. 
Seth 2016-04-20 08:32:45 [item 20816#51340]
i am using the English word with no special meaning beyond how we learned to use the word when we were learning to speak English.  Did Trump win the Republican primary in NY yesterday?  Did that happen?  Did you just pen a,  “…...( whatever) laughing -” comment to mine of #51337 ?  Did that happen? 

Who is quibbling now?
Mr. Wallaby 2016-04-20 08:47:28 [item 20816#51342]
Nope! just about anything will fit into happen – everything – nothing – something – & rabbit turds happen! As I asked “what did you say?” – things happen & unhappen. Context without content is nothing or anything –or as a corollary of what my old zenmaster says “there is nothing outside the way you hold it” – “if you are not holding anything there is nothing” ., laughing
Seth 2016-04-20 09:02:57 [item 20816#51344]
well one thing i said,  … er right there between my words  “i go with what happens”  … is that your subjective prevarications above are just yours, they are subjective … they hold noting with me.   if you want my attention, make something happen.  

incidentally, “there is nothing outside of the way you hold it” is nothing short of a denial of an objective world … a denial of otherness … and a glory in your subjective world.   “go with that” instead of “what happens”.   There is nothing that i can share there,  not really my business. 
Mr. Wallaby 2016-04-20 09:11:10 [item 20816#51345]
“there is nothing outside of the way you hold it” – i.e. what Bozo said Context is King. Wow! Maybe Bozo just happened & unhappened. laughing
belief in othernesss is belief that there is something outside  of the way you hold it, even knowing that that Kontext is King.  it is the realization that the Kontext you see, is not all there is.  it is a leap of faith.  some people fail to take that leap.  not me, “I go with what happens”.

Mark de LA says
Other than kotex, you missed the part about the observer & the observed – try to focus. laughing

See Also

  1. Thought train of thought (wallaby) in progress ... with 261 viewings related by tag "network".
  2. Thought small motor - via G+ with 28 viewings related by tag "Science".
  3. Thought Connections with 22 viewings related by tag "network".
  4. Thought Reference Material for Research with 20 viewings related by tag "science".
  5. Thought Gangs - Mobs & Mob Mentality - Tantrums with 6 viewings related by tag "science".
  6. Thought Munging with 4 viewings related by tag "network".
  7. Thought Illative Force - A Lament with 3 viewings related by tag "scientific method".
  8. Thought Science & Karma with 2 viewings related by tag "science".
  9. Thought about: Brainwashing 1A - Gore et. al. - comment 15617 with 2 viewings related by tag "science".
  10. Thought Positive words not in our language with 1 viewings related by tag "network".
  11. Thought about: google open source blog: cayley: graphs in go with 1 viewings related by tag "network".
  12. Thought [title (20741)] with 0 viewings related by tag "science".
  13. Thought For those with children! with 0 viewings related by tag "scientific method".
  14. Thought about: I do not create 100% of my experience - comment 55951 with 0 viewings related by tag "science".
  15. Thought Science vs Mysticism with 0 viewings related by tag "science".
  16. Thought [title (16167)] with 0 viewings related by tag "science".
  17. Thought Getting from I to We with 0 viewings related by tag "science".
  18. Thought Truth & Science with 0 viewings related by tag "science".
  19. Thought Social Media Space Agnostic Comments Demo with 0 viewings related by tag "network".
  20. Thought New Report Sponsored by NSF, NOAA, and USGS: with 0 viewings related by tag "science".
  21. Thought AH! Science with 0 viewings related by tag "science".
  22. Thought Network with 0 viewings related by tag "network".
  23. Thought regarding the value of decay with 0 viewings related by tag "science".
  24. Thought Not in your network with 0 viewings related by tag "network".
  25. Thought Embryonic Stem Cell Debate with 0 viewings related by tag "science".
  26. Thought God versus Science Questions & Other Musings with 0 viewings related by tag "science".
  27. Thought The Scientific Method a la PHD Comics with 0 viewings related by tag "scientific method".
  28. Thought Another Global Warming Countdown Clock with 0 viewings related by tag "junkscience".
  29. Thought Everything is Metaphysics with 0 viewings related by tag "science".
  30. Thought Politics is subverting Science with 0 viewings related by tag "science".
  31. Thought Neither Gods Nor Beasts with 0 viewings related by tag "science".
  32. Thought about: Heat makes Pat Robertson a global warming convert with 0 viewings related by tag "junkscience".
  33. Thought I am a Skeptic of both Science & Religion & Skepticism with 0 viewings related by tag "science".
  34. Thought Atheism vs Theism vs Science with 0 viewings related by tag "science".
  35. Thought Battlefield Cell with 0 viewings related by tag "science".
  36. Thought Bad Science with 0 viewings related by tag "science".