I cannot divorce my comprehension of “nature of reality” without always attempting to include our roles in it.

Here is another fundamental I appear to have:
I cannot divorce my comprehension of “nature of reality” without always attempting to include our roles in it.

I believe we anthropomorphize somewhat automatically, ascribing characteristics of our comprehension as being qualities that can affect/influence the entire cosmos. This includes logic and mathematics and the sciences and any human knowledge endeavor.

I don’t see this as a bad thing, except when it’s misleading, but rather it’s inevitable; we have never been anything *but* humans and our comprehension of things must, in my opinion, be patterned after ourselves.

example: You are a neutrino. You barely interact with matter. You solely interact via the weak subatomic force.

a) Your view of the Universe will be entirely different.
b) That we can conceptualize such a thing while being humans might seem surprising; what possible analogy could exist for the neutrino?

Easy.

Obscurity of person.

The neutrino is the quantum physics equivalent of the isolated individual, who barely interacts with other people, whose presence is never felt and who is nearly invisible.

Yet, we can conceive of it. We can measure it.

If there were things in the universe we could not conceive of, we would be unable to measure them. We are always a part of the equation.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


nine − 4 =

Leave a Reply