This is what I mean, I believe our limitations, biologically, chemically, or otherwise, are not sufficient to express reality as is to the full extent of the definition- in fact I think that all observation is negation or division, meaning, it is polar, our language is Hegelian in nature, by positing things against one another as a means to progress in understanding, it fundamentally defines by dividing or subtracting, because how could you posit two opposing things without excluding all other things that they do not represent?
Classical philosophy of science- we can say what is not a lot easier than we can say what is, and thereby narrow down the scope of what [likely] is. But due to the very nature of nature, we can never be certain, because we function under imperative of space-time, and time progresses forward, into a deep unknown, nobody knows the future, right? It is my contention that even fundamental laws of nature deteriorate, evolve, mutate, or change over time. At the end of the Universe, at the point of total entropy, not even laws of nature would exist. How could they? What would it mean for them to exist? What would the word “exist” even mean?
I am saying that a map can never 1:1 perfectly capture the nature of reality. So, every time we ask “why”, we take one step closer to approximating truth, and we can get infinitely close to it, but we can never reach or attain it, due to the limitations of how our own minds work.
It is my contention that even fundamental laws of nature deteriorate, evolve, mutate, or change over time. At the end of the Universe, at the point of total entropy, not even laws of nature would exist. How could they? What would it mean for them to exist? What would the word “exist” even mean?
Why do you think the laws of nature - what we know of them - change? We don’t have any reason to believe it. The “point of total entropy” sounds like the heat death of the universe, which certainly we do and can discuss and make predictions about.
I am saying that a map can never 1:1 perfectly capture the nature of reality. So, every time we ask “why”, we take one step closer to approximating truth, and we can get infinitely close to it, but we can never reach or attain it, due to the limitations of how our own minds work.
This is somewhat different to what I’m talking about.
“The map is not the terrain” - Alfred Korzybski
This is what I mean, I believe our limitations, biologically, chemically, or otherwise, are not sufficient to express reality as is to the full extent of the definition- in fact I think that all observation is negation or division, meaning, it is polar, our language is Hegelian in nature, by positing things against one another as a means to progress in understanding, it fundamentally defines by dividing or subtracting, because how could you posit two opposing things without excluding all other things that they do not represent?
Classical philosophy of science- we can say what is not a lot easier than we can say what is, and thereby narrow down the scope of what [likely] is. But due to the very nature of nature, we can never be certain, because we function under imperative of space-time, and time progresses forward, into a deep unknown, nobody knows the future, right? It is my contention that even fundamental laws of nature deteriorate, evolve, mutate, or change over time. At the end of the Universe, at the point of total entropy, not even laws of nature would exist. How could they? What would it mean for them to exist? What would the word “exist” even mean?
I am saying that a map can never 1:1 perfectly capture the nature of reality. So, every time we ask “why”, we take one step closer to approximating truth, and we can get infinitely close to it, but we can never reach or attain it, due to the limitations of how our own minds work.
Why do you think the laws of nature - what we know of them - change? We don’t have any reason to believe it. The “point of total entropy” sounds like the heat death of the universe, which certainly we do and can discuss and make predictions about.
This is somewhat different to what I’m talking about.