Unfortunately (or maybe luckily), un-inventing is impossible and wholly nonsensical. I could have written examples like atom bombs, rap music, or soap operas. However, there’s a subtle problem to solve.

Whatever you think is part of a reality where, sooner or later, it will be discovered. Hence, in-inventing implies transforming humanity into a group of partially numb people who cannot explore a particular knowledge area.

This philosophical issue arises because “inventing” is a non-invertible action. It’s just like the second law of thermodynamics, which states that the entropy of the Universe can only grow. The time arrow cannot turn back in any way.

When you know something, your condition is based on increased entropy during learning and discovering. This implies that the simple fact that you know something makes this “object” indestroyable.

Maybe you can forget about it. The entire population of the world can do the same. But, unless there won’t be other newborns, somebody else will be able to discover, learn, and invent just like you did.

I want a world without many things, but how can I formulate this concept? Taking all the knowledge I have and writing down a sentence where these things are negated. But if I say, “I don’t want rap music,” I first need to define “rap music.” If I don’t (I suppose not to be insane enough), how can I avoid that someone else, with tattoos inside his nostrils, doesn’t conceive this idea?

Is it enough? Of course, it isn’t. I want to un-invent this question. That is to say that I want to invent the possibility of un-inventing. Moreover, I want to use this possibility to limit the ontological power of inventing!

I see my dog spinning day and night, trying to eat its tail. Oh my God! Can I un-invent it? I want to sleep! My little puppy is breathing neg-entropy to run forever! I’m becoming mad. If it’s OK for you, may I un-invent the entire Universe?

Silence.

The post Escher knew the name of the game appeared first on Giuseppe Bonaccorso.