In the 19th century, the concept of history becomes fundamental and we begin our understanding by comparing it to everything else that has happened before. Now that we have the concept of history, we have a limited perception of the world around us due to the fact that we now evaluate the present from the past.
How can you understand something through information? What do you think of when you hear the word “force”? Train of thoughts occur according to information learned or experienced. The only way to understand this information is to create an organization out of the data. Everything we know becomes categorized and connected due to neurological processes. In the modern world, computers are the manipulators of this information. Computers process and organize information faster than any human is able to
Information is based on events: the time and place of when something happened.
We interpret the world as past, present or future because of how time, space and history are defined. We need to understand information and how it relates to mankind, so time and space are references for doing so. It is possible to express personal variations within systems of information, but an individual is still limited to what they know. Expression of individuality depends on language BUT if you create your own language to become the “ultimate inventor,” no one will understand the information but the inventor. The goal is to create new systems or new languages that people can comprehend. By creating a new language, one is overcoming existence by creating the existing, but in the end it’s all just information anyways.
Human ability: we can only perceive the world with what we have learned or experienced (information). We can also DISCOVER new ways of organizing information. Nothing is boundless except for the “infinite” simply because it is defined as boundless, yet this definition limits the “infinite” from ever being “finite”.
1 comment:
And yet can the infinite have the kind of provable meaning humans seem to like?
Words like discover, information, organization, understand, for instance, depend on an accuracy of the framing system that reliable, trustworthy information is discoverable and is in use.
It is possible to imagine systems in which information deemed trustworthy are proven untrustworthy, in which neurological processes connect nothing trustworthy outside of demonstrations of how neurological processes can function, connecting the processes to nothing outside the processes;
can the knowing to which we are limited be the knowing that knowing is infinite?
Does apparent, relative to human scales of existence, infinity, functional infinity quality, within that relativity, as infinite since for humans, that apparent infinity would be immeasurable?
Is the infinite bounded by possibility? Can something impossible happen? Once there is occurrence, does the previously impossible enter possibility?
What we think we know may have a considerably limited range of applicability, but it may be possible to confirm or refute that with certainty since we cannot have all possible information, even if humans survive to an end of everything, at which final point, the proof may lack relevance, but all information, since it would have to include all information about the time before humans existed and could identify, collect, became active participants in information.
I like the goal you mention, but it may be the goal; there could be others, are probably others, and where do nonhuman goals fit in, especially since so much more than humans exists, and the systems into which humans entered, systems that support human existence were in progress at the time that humans arrived.
It is also admirable that the post suggests possibility of new languages or new systems that all people can understand though differences in people make it difficult to conceive of universal comprehension let alone universal response to universal comprehension assuming that could exist outside of imaginary locations in which these universals could really be achieved, the challenges coming with attempts to project such realities into three-dimensional realities that can take many forms and still be three-dimensional --not necessarily, it is possible to imagine the same three dimensions, but a restriction to any three dimensions.
Thanks for this opportunity to grapple with fundamental tenets of human configurations of perceptions of realities.
Post a Comment