It’s likely if we were faced with the uniqueness of everything without the ability to form patterns and compress knowledge into a form that our brains can utilize, we’d go insane.

*whew* well you’re more well versed on philosophical things than I, and I’m learning. Thank you for that.

Yes, a singular worldview would undoubtedly result in “something significant missing” and we won’t even be able to see it, because it will be “irrelevant”. But if one is attempting to make a true model of the Universe we can fit in our pockets (say, on a set of webpages we can access with our smartphones)… it *must* incorporate irrelevance successfully. It has to incorporate the dangers of certainty-as-human-emotion… that “1,000 scientists agree” doesn’t make something Truth – that rather there’s just 1000 people agreeing with each other, whom we can choose to listen to or not.

If uncomfortable parts can be “cut out” because they don’t fit the model… then the model itself is incomplete.

Does everything resolve to physics? At present, that’s the same as asking “does everything resolve to mathematics?” – and the answer is no, because mathematics rests on axioms and proofs… and where is the footing of axioms?

A one dimensional system (with a law-of-non-contradiction at the 0) can’t fully incorporate 2 or 3 dimensions or more. It can *try* up to a point.. but think about this:

Why does Pi have so many numbers?

They’re trying to describe a slightly over 2 dimensional theoretical object in a single dimension (the number line).

I say theoretical because even with that – even with String Theory… it still ultimately resolves to the number line, or rather, it has to.

The problem is this: The Universe has at LEAST length, width, height and Time. We can _model_ such things in a mathematical form, but as mathematics *itself* is limited to a single dimension (no matter _how many_ dimensions it _tries_ to fit within its confines) – no matter how ‘fuzzy’ it tries to be.. it will always be limited in some form.

Think about the uniqueness of things:

Are there two apples?

No. They each had a unique birth, they’ll likely rot independently – they’re two different things. They don’t even occupy the same spacetime and are of different ages.. different parts of their journey.

It’s for HUMAN convenience that we say there are “two apples”.

But that’s ’cause we like patterns and predictability. It’s likely if we were faced with the uniqueness of everything without the ability to form patterns and compress knowledge into a form that our brains can utilize, we’d go insane.

Our models of the Universe conform to our abilities.

Leave a comment

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


8 + nine =

Leave a Reply