Claire
Member
Member # 725
|
posted 30. October 2003 20:58
Classical information we cannot get away from especially of the syntax perception semantics within the human brain variety, and if we decide that that is what we are going to use, as a contributing theory, later we may no matter how we alter or make a hypothesis about what a new kind of reality is, by taking the consequences of the fact that quite a lot of what does come in a later theory is, like one of reality, the 2nd is inferred and has a large connective faculty directly from this 1st. Of course this makes science all the more subjective no matter what it says about the reality outside itself, or what it's own reality could be within it (if we can ever decide and agree that is, which is not very likely because semantics kicks in, and so do other types of knowledge informants that are left out but are just as important, like non logical methods of inference). Collapse of topological vectors or all vectors will happen because until we think of a new way about perception and syntax and related subject matter, it doesn't matter what it is we think about, whether it is a reality of cosmology or topology, if we understand it with the same perceptive model, we effect its outcome, we still collapse it. On the contrary we could to change our model of perception and mind etc. Energy like information, like expansion is a dynamic but with language we have not yet arrived at it with a dynamical twin understanding as dynamic structures are often thinking structures. Thought, unlike energy, or information could be the only pure dynamic so far, but we could try to completely change this, like light, and make thought a non dynamic by using logic and rationality and maths by using quanta packets, because that is what logic does a lot of, then we could change it back to a continuous dynamic like a wave and decide that it is us that changes a part of what it is we understand although it could very well be completely the same any way when we are not looking. We could break thought down into parts and points, like numbers do quite often. This way it might appear more important in that it can be included within the standard model of reality and thus, a bit like energy; a bit like information, it then appears more fundamental, even if it really is just as important as the other fundamentals. So thought, as a fundamental, at this stage, which makes up about 80 percent of the mind doing the inferring about what constitutes any particular fundamental reality, is about what ever it infers anyway, like conspansion theories, or semantic theories or qualia etc, Within a current model of perception that someone has made, thought cannot be the same as its dual partner, information, so it can only be joined with it, and in the most fundamental sense of course, otherwise we say it is information, but we know it isn't information because of a current model of classical information that says that thought is not information nor is it matter nor is it energy nor is complexity nor is qualia nor is order, nor is chaos, nor is it syntax and nor is Nora but it could be related to semantics. An effort should be made then, if we cannot change what it is a current model of reality that is being inferred by another incomplete model of reality, that models the 1st reality, to perhaps include thinking as a fundamental force of nature within its incomplete reality, like gravity because gravity is also included in reality, because thinking is also tied up with space, with time and ultimately with reality. We often realise thought, as in "real"-ise, making real, more than we realise gravity and we might even have some inkling of what thought could be. In fact thought itself has a special substance all of its own, which we haven't grasped in the same as say, with gravity, or information, because thought is the only fundamental that can lock itself away from perception and remember information and be in combination of a larger picture, with these and more, at the very same time, or when it pleases us, unlike gravity which in an indirect way has nothing to do with thought but has a lot in a direct way, because thought thought about via the external reality that includes information, can then be completely separate from that reality and be objectively outside, or in this case, inside the case of, a case, like the brain, if we choose to change the current models we do and see it like this. If we do change the current models though and include thought as a fundamental, the parameters then change the context of thought within the external reality, then all of all the other fundamentals, like syntax, form a new conspansive thought theory (depending on how you look at it), but because we have not yet included this, along with many other variables along the way that have been left aside, the context of one particular model of reality stays the same, so we cannot see thought in any other light. Hyper C is a thinking fundamental. Conspansion is not as expansive as Hyperpsansion because Hyperspansion includes thought as a fundamental so reality could become Hyperspansive because the rules change again. Hyperspansion could exist outside the universe, it doesn't just mean much bigger, or much smaller, it means a different configuration again, and if it can be included with conspan at the same time, Hyper C will change many parameters and we know what happens when the parameters change.
Claire
[ 30. October 2003, 21:55: Message edited by: Claire ]
IP: Logged
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic