deguessifying conjecture

great minds think alike, and shit happens

Why do great minds think alike? If we assume that the thoughts of great minds tend towards truth. And that there are more ways to be wrong than right. Then there are simply less ways for thoughts to be true. Thus there are less ways for great minds to think, provided they think true thoughts. How constrained are the thoughts of great minds! (actually not, i'll go into that later)

Why does shit happen? "Shit happens" because of the space of possible scenarios, those which we would prefer are an infinitesimal proportion.

So if shit is no less necessary than non-shit. Is truth anymore necessary than falsity? No, but true thoughts are no more necessary than false ones. The larger our imaginations the greater the possibility of mistake. But like falsities,truths are also limited to our imagination. There may exist certain truths our faculties simply don't equip us to grasp. Logic is simply the failure of imagination. It is necessary not because it cannot be otherwise, but because I cannot possibly imagine how it could be otherwise.

the profound and the arbitrary

The more profound something is, the more arbitrary it will be. This is because what is more profound has more depending on it but depends less itself on anything else. Like the fundamental axioms of mathematics. Profound as they are, are themselves quite arbitrary.

Perhaps this is why people tend to stay away from philosophical musings? Meaning requires scaffolding. In the rarefied air of philosophy it gets hard to breathe. Perhaps those with a mutated genotype leading to philosophical inclinations simply went insane or did not bother to reproduce....

I realize this is contrary to the received intuition that what is more profound is closer to the Truth. But arbitrariness has actually little to do with truth. Furthermore the capitalized Truth has more to do with subjective significance that with verisimilitude.

logic and personality

the more logical people are the less there will be systematic differences of personality between different positions on an argument. i.e. the more uncorrelated personality and position will be.