I’ve made good progress I think. I try to find things in productive use that are similar enough to how I think things work but are more state-of-the-art in their fields. Not always easy because I won’t “know it until I see it” – so it can take a while.

I’ve made good progress I think. I try to find things in productive use that are similar enough to how I think things work but are more state-of-the-art in their fields. Not always easy because I won’t “know it until I see it” – so it can take a while.
Exactly. This is why my take has been to use my disposition and cognitive style as the guide for the research explicitly. I won’t find universals but I may at least find justifications for my positions that are in productive use.
I don’t think there’s no possibility of answers. But I think there’s a possibility that you may never find answers that fulfill your criteria.

 It’s pragmatic that we treat 1+1=2 “as if” it has an independent reality because: life is short and it’s quicker to stick it in its own distinctive realm. Plus it’s part of Western civilization since Plato at least if not prior. But… ultimately I think it’s a biological process that’s emergent yet not really just bottom up but also top down – constraints bring out the information from out of the entropy.
===
My go to for what you’re talking about might fit into “types”. That is, there may be bridges between types but generally, types spend most of their existence as incompatible with one another.
   ==

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.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


five − = 3

Leave a Reply