I tend to believe in Kernels, that is, concentrated forms / algorithms / emergent (simpler to complex to boundary/interface to a newer simple) but that the kernels don’t hold all of the information. So then kernels are lossy (lossy compression). BUT if it is possible to recreate using lossy kernel (example: redundancy removed from language then restored), then: the information was NOT LOST BUT DISTRIBUTED! Ask: from where did the ability to restore lossy information come from? Answer: It was distributed not lost.

I tend to believe in Kernels, that is, concentrated forms / algorithms / emergent (simpler to complex to boundary/interface to a newer simple) but that the kernels don’t hold all of the information.
 
So then kernels are lossy (lossy compression). BUT if it is possible to recreate using lossy kernel (example: redundancy removed from language then restored), then:
 
the information was NOT LOST BUT DISTRIBUTED!
 
Ask: from where did the ability to restore lossy information come from? Answer: It was distributed not lost.
Wow – I was in a more mundane zone more akin to knowledge discovery / forensics / filling in the unknowns with your own knowledge / etc – but I guess it _does_ carry through!
—-
Now… if the information is distributed across TIME… well.. then we may be in a situation where the distribution took place LONG AGO or in the far future, such that only somebody in a particular vantage point in spacetime could conceivably be positioned such that they have full access to the information but perhaps only.
 
In which case, the information will remain locked in its fullness from future or past eyes, only conceivably retrievable from a vantage point that’s outside of spacetime which, may also well be impossible.
 
I think this is to do with closure. I think in quantum physics it’s called
====
Well, it’s like there’s a scavenger hunt going on. Bits and pieces here and there. Clues. There’s no guarantee that the puzzle will be solved by me or anybody or if it can or will be — and if the question contains counterfactuals – even one — it simply can’t be solved in this universe in a way that is accurate.
Yet, it is possible to answer any question if one is willing to allow for counterfactuals.
Going further, “what if” it’s all counterfactuals in some sense? this would make the search for knowledge a neverending quest because we’ll always be at least a little be incorrect.
====
 I go from breakthrough to breakthrough. What is a breakthrough?
—]

Leave a comment

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


4 + five =

Leave a Reply