Philosophical Questions: Reality
Jan. 13th, 2024 12:25 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ysabetwordsmithPeople have expressed interest in deep topics, so this list focuses on philosophical questions.
As more and more is being discovered about quantum physics, we become less and less able to comprehend the nature of reality. Is this something temporary and our minds will adapt and begin to understand this new reality or is it possible that the human mind will soon reach its limits of comprehension? If it’s only temporary, is there is a limit to what the human mind can comprehend? If we are reaching our limits, how do we continue to study our reality?
*laugh* This is not new. People freak out about this at least once a century or so.
We are still able to comprehend the nature of reality, or rather, the one most people inhabit most of the time. As some people climb into other layers, it is much like opening up a new level in a game: it takes a while to learn how it works. Once you have learned it, you start looking for a new level. This is normal.
The human brain has limitations. It is a finite object with a given (if large) amount of storage and processing capacity. The human mind is less limited, but still has to deal with the brain's limits. The human soul is not limited, but well, it's also a great deal bigger than will fit in the brain. So it's kind of like the soul is a mainframe and the brain is a terminal; you're only dealing with a small subset of the total potential of your soul actually in your brain. (Most people download what they expect to need in a current life at the beginning, and cannot maintain a two-way link the whole time. Those of us with farmemory can learn to maintain that and can send a request at any time, "Oh hey, I need to knap flint, download the Knapping module," for skills we haven't permed. Very handy. That said, where you choose to aim your brain is up to you. Study quantum physics if you want to, it's fun.
You continue to study reality (or whatever else you like) by asking the next questions. There are always more questions. You are never going to run out, because each answer usually spawns several new questions. Curiosity is fractal like that.
As more and more is being discovered about quantum physics, we become less and less able to comprehend the nature of reality. Is this something temporary and our minds will adapt and begin to understand this new reality or is it possible that the human mind will soon reach its limits of comprehension? If it’s only temporary, is there is a limit to what the human mind can comprehend? If we are reaching our limits, how do we continue to study our reality?
*laugh* This is not new. People freak out about this at least once a century or so.
We are still able to comprehend the nature of reality, or rather, the one most people inhabit most of the time. As some people climb into other layers, it is much like opening up a new level in a game: it takes a while to learn how it works. Once you have learned it, you start looking for a new level. This is normal.
The human brain has limitations. It is a finite object with a given (if large) amount of storage and processing capacity. The human mind is less limited, but still has to deal with the brain's limits. The human soul is not limited, but well, it's also a great deal bigger than will fit in the brain. So it's kind of like the soul is a mainframe and the brain is a terminal; you're only dealing with a small subset of the total potential of your soul actually in your brain. (Most people download what they expect to need in a current life at the beginning, and cannot maintain a two-way link the whole time. Those of us with farmemory can learn to maintain that and can send a request at any time, "Oh hey, I need to knap flint, download the Knapping module," for skills we haven't permed. Very handy. That said, where you choose to aim your brain is up to you. Study quantum physics if you want to, it's fun.
You continue to study reality (or whatever else you like) by asking the next questions. There are always more questions. You are never going to run out, because each answer usually spawns several new questions. Curiosity is fractal like that.
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2024-01-19 11:17 pm (UTC)Re: Thoughts
Date: 2024-01-19 11:31 pm (UTC)If I have a physical model (a doll, dollhouse, artists model whatever) you have the physical shape, which might have movement to 'accesorize.'
If using [American] sign languague, the main, hmm, component is the movement. So 'horse running' will show the movement of the ears and the movement of the legs. 'Washing machine' shows the clothes being spin and tossed about.
So if I take the skills /from/ sign languague to model, say, an atom, I might drum my fingers on the table in a tight cluster for the nucleus-particles, and then tap a few places further out with one finger, before using that finger to mark out an orbit.
So you have a model of an atom, so to speak, but it incorporates visual, audial, tactile, and a bit of kinesthetic feedback. It also emphasizes the movement aspect of 'bits of stuff whizzing about in space' far better than a static model.
And it wouldn't require a physical item, beyond working hands and a bit of space.
Or look up the ASL sign for 'spider' - it makes a pretty good model of a big, ugly spider.
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2024-01-19 11:44 pm (UTC)Re: Thoughts
Date: 2024-01-20 01:51 am (UTC)That concrete-ness seems to be a more common feature in signed languagues (visual or tactile) than spoken-audial languagues. The spoken ones tend to be more abstract/symbols/whatever (& I am not entirely sure /why/, so that is an interesting question).
I guess you could call it onomatopoeia-with-hands, or mimicking the look of things.
It only really occured to me as a thing because I have incorporated it into my communication strategy in the past. For example, it is easier to convey "I am leaving but will come back," by having your hand walk away and then back as opposed to going "I esse ius retro," and recieving a blank look because the other person finds Latin totally incomprehensible. (I do not speak Latin, translation by Google Translate.)
Anyway, my point is that my atom-model would still be a model, but it emphasizes the movement and energy rather than the shape, as with pock 'em up toy models.
Someone could probably do the same thing with sound, like whistling out a graph, though most variations of that trick (like mimicking birdcalls) would register to me as mimicry rather than a model. (Sound is more static in space, and often more 2d than signs.)