My documentaries, the documentaries that I recommend

The stupid **** about infinitesimal points that discards plank scale minimal quanta has nothing to do with the order of phenomena in an Eternalistic scenario. And the word "code" here reads as the substance of Reality that claims nothing about Materialism, claims nothing about Spiritualism but encompasses all phenomenology and its organization. So it is a sequence in one dimension not a superposed point of events. When you organize information you don't superpose **** period by definition! It is true the world has gone wildly stupid in the past 100 years! **** stupid like without limits!

I am trying to save your Platonic world in a logical manner and you miss the point because you want a fairy tale story instead of understanding the ******* thing you are living on? You have no time to spare with wishful thinking and cosiness!

You think I like this ****?
Or rather not have some magical free will?
Or some super duper father in the sky protecting my insignificant frail and dumb existence as a snail in the Cosmos?
You think I want to win a debate here?
I don't give a **** about wining debates or look good for the photo!
I care about getting to vaguely grasp something my freaking pre historic language is barely able to conceptualize while I have time left to live!

I take it you don’t want anyone messing with your analogies, especially when they examine them to see how they might fit both science and other analogies.

Thanks for the efforts to save my world, but I’m not there yet. It sure isn’t the one I’m standing on.

I understand this one to be an exquisitely balanced terrarium in which every lifeform from microbe to whale functions as a bio waste collection and recycling mechanism for the 'top of the food chain'. It’s really quite impressive in its own brutal way. It has served its purpose well enough for me, but I’m kind of over it.

So what is your understanding of this thing we stand on?

Why we should get rid of the continuous hypothesis:

At least this is a positive thread in the history of exploration. Just go ahead in your SELF, dear friend.

I love the lyrics of this song:

All that Daniel Dennett accomplishes in his dissertation against Neuroscience amounts to demonstrate that certain illusions are NECESSARY for human beings to operate adequately on social complex contexts...and he knows it.

The problem of poor languaging skills in Maths...worst poor Philosophy of Maths!
This only works because one thinks one can add or subtract or divide a concept that has no defined state rational.
Actually in Hilbert's Hotel if Infinity could be deemed "full" everything you could try to add to Infinity would be by definition already added. So infinity is not a timely process.
Rather a recursive function which is boundless but has no new information like what you can find in a circle or what you can do when you repeat forever all the combinations in a Rubik's cube. Again Infinity BY DEFINITION has no vacant anything as time is meaningless in Infinity!
In fact the best way to add or subtract with infinity is to ask from what N point in Infinity did I move this number to another N point in the scale.
My assumption on the definition of the concept goes exactly the other way around quantitative Infinity is always dependent on a qualitative Finity. Whatever you move was already in a point in the finite pattern. It just goes round and round all possible finite combinations.
Qualitative infinity, qualia Infinity would result in the impossibility for anything to communi9cate with anything else in the Universe as you would have infinitely many qualia between each N point you picked...for instance my photons would be infinitely much different then the photons you see or anyone would see...same for sound or any other mechanical form of informing from one system to another...
The infinity certified doctor here does indeed needs to have his licence revoked...

substitute "deep time or deep measure" for infinity.

Most sciences dont require indefinable terminology, philosophy of science, like Dennet, are often based upon strict halls of "belief", (Like Dennet's).
Although Dawkins ha proven his skills in biociences, Dennet has not. The fact that they both are strict "Adaptationists" in evolution, is where most scientists part company