Axioms are necessary to have discussions on the basis of logic.

The choice of those axioms and the interpretations about what those axioms might imply is a fascinating and at times outright beautiful conversation. It’s an opportunity for people to connect in a way that’s difficult to describe.

But it’s because for the most part, when dealing with others, we can understand if we agree on the axioms (whether that’s ZFC or whatever) and therefore logic is going to inevitably unite us.

Or if our axioms contradict, in which case the best outcome is peaceful disagreement.

Questions of God are all answered by God Himself in the Bhagavad-gita 1972 Srila Prabhupada.

“I did psychedelics and now I think I know what god is” is an exhausting premise for me.

Yes God is a strange loop. According to Bhagavad Gita. This creation is God's energy and it's part.

So equation is more like this: God = God + Creation Or

God + Creation = God.

So everything is part of God but not God at same time.

> I disagree with Hofstadter that consciousness and free will are illusions. But I wholeheartedly agree with his most original, profound claim: at the bottom of everything, something is doing something to itself.

This is a ridiculous claim, on the order of quantum woo. He disagrees with a cascade of data from neuroscience because it doesn't fit his preconceived notions about "god" and "consciousness" and chooses to believe in mystical unfalsifiable bullshit. Amazing what passes for "science writing" these days.