Grt vid Fred, briefly what occurs to me right now is that perhaps there is some possibility in coupling the idea of "reflection" with the granular involution of knowledge you talk about, where self-reflexion is not a vehicle of transcendence but rather of understanding,
on second mindless thought, stretching the Koch metaphor, I would say that at an actual stage of granularity we could identify a sawtooth with its host triangle in a kind of metonymic way where we utilize shortcuts in cognition
and of course we could also imagine a metaphoric process taking place when there's a combination of saw-teeth from neighbouring triangles and that's where understanding is mobilized,
me toying with images, don't ask how I link this to self-reflection, it's just a blind leap, committing my thought to your silent eyes to devour :)
I got this thought: To know something is to assume it is predictable. Modern knowledge says that things on the quantum level are unpredictable. And if it is true on a quantum level, is it not safe to assume that everything is unpredictable and therefor unknowable? What does that do to our expanding circle of knowledge, it suddenly feels a bit wobbly.
Quantum mechanics is an even more infantile field than psychology, even.
It would be senseless to comprehend macroscopic entities as microscopic entities are theorized to exist: higher organizations, invariably lead to higher predictabilities. This is why existence is absolutely considered axiomatic.
And try not to get too boggled by observation determining existence, because it's a psychosis. Remember, there's "interference" that causes something to be at two locations at once...
after this interference. This interference is simply associated with its observation, as it has no other contributions that give explanation.
A guess, (perhaps a better one than mentioning that things don't technically exist, if they are not observed... as this is a psycho-warfare against any defense mechanisms to this), would be that this interference, is what makes flux have any capacity to exist at all. That it is, actualized present, not conscious present.
Which is quite slow, and actually consciousness considers things in a pseudo present, not immediate one. "What just happened?," more than "It's happening," because "happening" usually means a longer duration, to consider long enough periods of "Just happened," that can be measured with a macroscopic awareness.
@U5312N4M34Y0UTU133 All this "weirdness" on the quantum level indicates to me that there is something fundamental that we still don't get. And what bothers me is people may percieve this as a tiny gap in our knowledge, too me it is something fundamental we still don't know of.
I think it is a common mistake to think of our human knowledge as more and more complete, and as the circle of knowledge expand, there are just finer and finer details that needs to be worked out. I think that is why the god of the gaps argument bothers me, as it betrays that kind of thinking. We have not historically just been filling gaps in our knowledge, we have completely revolutionalized our understanding and thrown out incomplete conceptual models of the world.
The Mystery of theology has a metaphorical face where keeping this feeling of the Mystery alive in the realm of everyday living and believing in stuff is a goal, keeping the unknown unknown, as in the Middle Ages or Dark Ages. Then there is the relevant mystery in exploring the natural world & in solving complex problems, where metaphor is in greater service to gaining knowledge versus saving the face of God. Then we arrive more at "this world" mystery, the mystery or our own "story."
i think it's important for us not to confuse "the unknown" with "things we don't know" like the unknown will always be known as the unknown type of thing...which means there will always be more "known" than "unknown" as what we know is the only quantifiable element in the equation. great video
i want to hear what you are saying !
lasercat10cc 1 year ago
Grt vid Fred, briefly what occurs to me right now is that perhaps there is some possibility in coupling the idea of "reflection" with the granular involution of knowledge you talk about, where self-reflexion is not a vehicle of transcendence but rather of understanding,
on second mindless thought, stretching the Koch metaphor, I would say that at an actual stage of granularity we could identify a sawtooth with its host triangle in a kind of metonymic way where we utilize shortcuts in cognition
almafarag 1 year ago
@almafarag
and of course we could also imagine a metaphoric process taking place when there's a combination of saw-teeth from neighbouring triangles and that's where understanding is mobilized,
me toying with images, don't ask how I link this to self-reflection, it's just a blind leap, committing my thought to your silent eyes to devour :)
almafarag 1 year ago
"Pregnant Weirdness"! LOL! There's a phrase just begging to be coined. : )
TheOuroborosWyrm 1 year ago
I got this thought: To know something is to assume it is predictable. Modern knowledge says that things on the quantum level are unpredictable. And if it is true on a quantum level, is it not safe to assume that everything is unpredictable and therefor unknowable? What does that do to our expanding circle of knowledge, it suddenly feels a bit wobbly.
pkingo1 1 year ago
@pkingo1
Quantum mechanics is an even more infantile field than psychology, even.
It would be senseless to comprehend macroscopic entities as microscopic entities are theorized to exist: higher organizations, invariably lead to higher predictabilities. This is why existence is absolutely considered axiomatic.
And try not to get too boggled by observation determining existence, because it's a psychosis. Remember, there's "interference" that causes something to be at two locations at once...
U5312N4M34Y0UTU133 1 year ago
after this interference. This interference is simply associated with its observation, as it has no other contributions that give explanation.
A guess, (perhaps a better one than mentioning that things don't technically exist, if they are not observed... as this is a psycho-warfare against any defense mechanisms to this), would be that this interference, is what makes flux have any capacity to exist at all. That it is, actualized present, not conscious present.
U5312N4M34Y0UTU133 1 year ago
Which is quite slow, and actually consciousness considers things in a pseudo present, not immediate one. "What just happened?," more than "It's happening," because "happening" usually means a longer duration, to consider long enough periods of "Just happened," that can be measured with a macroscopic awareness.
U5312N4M34Y0UTU133 1 year ago
@U5312N4M34Y0UTU133 All this "weirdness" on the quantum level indicates to me that there is something fundamental that we still don't get. And what bothers me is people may percieve this as a tiny gap in our knowledge, too me it is something fundamental we still don't know of.
pkingo1 1 year ago
I think it is a common mistake to think of our human knowledge as more and more complete, and as the circle of knowledge expand, there are just finer and finer details that needs to be worked out. I think that is why the god of the gaps argument bothers me, as it betrays that kind of thinking. We have not historically just been filling gaps in our knowledge, we have completely revolutionalized our understanding and thrown out incomplete conceptual models of the world.
pkingo1 1 year ago
yes totally, the more we zoom in/out to look at something the more we find to look at.
gratex 1 year ago
indeedy.
We INVENT questions. There is no 'everything' to know.
TWITfromURANUS 1 year ago
@TWITfromURANUS
I guess, if we hypothetically came to know everything, we'd still be left with the question why that would be all there is to know.
wimsweden 1 year ago
@wimsweden
yes. What is knowing anyway? Do we even really know 'everything' about anything?
TWITfromURANUS 1 year ago
The Mystery of theology has a metaphorical face where keeping this feeling of the Mystery alive in the realm of everyday living and believing in stuff is a goal, keeping the unknown unknown, as in the Middle Ages or Dark Ages. Then there is the relevant mystery in exploring the natural world & in solving complex problems, where metaphor is in greater service to gaining knowledge versus saving the face of God. Then we arrive more at "this world" mystery, the mystery or our own "story."
gedgetips 1 year ago
i think it's important for us not to confuse "the unknown" with "things we don't know" like the unknown will always be known as the unknown type of thing...which means there will always be more "known" than "unknown" as what we know is the only quantifiable element in the equation. great video
:D
mindDefyButtin 1 year ago 2
@mindDefyButtin The surface area of the pattern will always greatly exceed its perimeter.
GodofCider 1 year ago
@GodofCider what about black holes? :S
whimppy 1 year ago
@whimppy lol ^_^ Except, perhaps in the case of black holes; good one.
GodofCider 1 year ago
@GodofCider eternity runs in both directions
mindDefyButtin 1 year ago
@mindDefyButtin ...um...okay.
GodofCider 1 year ago