From:
and
Translations
We
are always translating the unfamiliar into the familiar, we are always
trying to explain, when the explanation is just the attempt to construct
something familiar, something we can relate to, something that we can
decode and understand in our language and mind and according to the
repetitive patterns that we are used to but especially according to the
repetitive patterns our neural circuits in our mind have created over
the years, the library of repetitive patterns that then become what is
reasonable, what is logical and correct but only because we already know
them, we already understand them, really we already understand
ourselves, our own paintings and pictures of reality, our own
constructions that should always match reality. But that is the mistake:
we take it for granted that our constructions are really the outside
reality, are really the truth, we take ourselves as some kind of
absolute observer that is the measure of all things, that has the
language and logic and decodings available to explain everything and
anything: but a funny thing happens, this is exactly true and is exactly
what we do since whatever we see, whatever the phenomena, whatever the
experimental results we get, we will always be able to interpret them in
our reference systems, we will always be able to decode them no matter
what, we will always create a model no matter what, since even if we
only had 2 bits available to decode the world and anything, we would
just map whatever we see into the only two bits we always have anyways
and by doing this we will always explain it anyways, we actually explain
things even before they are explained, we create the understanding and
explanation even before we choose what sequence of symbols and what
combination of words, elements, formulas we will use to explain
something from the outset, from the beginning, even before the research
is performed since everything will have to end up being positioned in
our grids anyways, we can always force anything to be in any position in
our grids and then exclaim that it has been explained. We think of
ourselves as some kind of master independence unit from reality, as some
kind of abstract absolute reference mind looking into the universe from
the outside of it, as we are looking at it from outside of it, from
some abstract absolute reference point just like god when in all truth
we are simply always looking at ourselves, at our own mind, at are own
decodings and languages and neural circuits and how they are always
interacting with the flow of signals and symbols coming from the outside
independent world, independent from us and our control, as everything
really is based on this independence of one thing compared to another,
as something not under the control of something else, etc.
Case
in point, in quantum physics we cannot exactly pinpoint down how
electrons behave, so we just assign them a combination of properties and
a combination of words and concepts to make them appear familiar, to
make them seem reasonable and logical, and this can be done in an
infinite number of ways, but we choose a simple model by saying that the
electron is both a wave and a particle and can be in two points at the
same time, end of story. We explained it, we now know it, we have
conquered it but what we really did is just translate a series of events
and experiments and functions into something that sounds reasonable and
sounds right and is comforting and is similar to all of the many other
repetitive patterns in the library of repetitive patterns already
present in our mind. Maybe we could have said that the electron is not
moving and is not still but is in some other state, but still the
explanation is always an attempt at relating it to something we can
somehow grasp, but maybe there really are no explanations, there really
is no sequence of ideas and symbols and concepts that explain what
happens at the elementary particle level, but since we think of
ourselves as an absolute reference system observer who thinks he must
know and will know everything, some explanation will always be found.
But what should always be said is that the explanation found and the
science created and the knowledge obtained is always relative, since it
is always based on an arbitrarily designed observer, since it is always
based on a quirky observer that is the exact contradiction of anything
general or absolute, nay, the observer is only ever a complex ensemble
of completely random quirky units and elements and items without any
absolute value and with just some repetitive patterns inside of itself
amongst a sea of non repetitive random and chaotic events and signals.
So
then, even if we had only two concepts on our mind, a hammer and a
nail, we can translate and explain everything according to these two
concepts anyways, the electron is the nail the forces is the hammer,
everything is a hammer for a nail, everything is a nail for a hammer,
everything we explain will always be familiar, or even unfamiliar, it
doesn't matter, we will always find a combination of symbols, and words
and concepts that we will always find to describe and explain and
predict what will happen.
But we are simply inventing the
explanations always, we are simply translating a series of inputs into
something we can recognize and understand and then manipulate in our
mind and find the correspondence between the manipulations in our mind
and the events we are observing, we can always find a one to one
correlation between a sequence of symbols and a sequence of events
(translating the events, the signals, the observations into a
description, a language, a mathematical formula and anything else in
which we are comfortable working with in the comfort of our mind that
has abstracted away reality and matter and created a simpler information
set and information relationships between elements and seeing how much
reality obeys our decodings) and most important of all, exactly if and
when we cannot find a correlation we will simply invent one, we will
design a new correlation which is the easiest thing you can do and
affirm that as the new truth, as a new truth amongst an infinite number
of truths since there are an infinite number of combinations of
sequences you can associate with anything else, any reality, any
observations and experiments and such.
So the conclusion of all
of this is that we are really always simply talking to ourselves no
matter what, we simply decode any signals and external realities into
our concepts and categories, so reality is simply how the Observer is
designed and what concepts and deocdings and mechanisms the Observer has
in his mind, and scientific research is always just the process of
creating as close of a one to one correspondence between what we
observer and experiments and our concepts and decoding.
But as
you can see, there is no real absolute reference system in all of this,
just an observer modeling the world according to how he is designed and
how the signals of the world interact with him, any other design of an
observer will create completely different modelings of a world,
completely different universes, a completely different reality.
The
observer and his design is the universe essentially, there really is no
outside universe, it is the observer that is really the measure of all
things, but the observer fools himself into thinking that his
measurement is some kind of absolute measurement of reality, is in a
vacuum, is outside of reality, when in all truth, the observer is the
reality itself, the observer is creating his own reality always, but is
always subject to the play of independent outside forces (and there are
also independent inside forces) that force him to further decode and
further measure that which cannot be measured at all since all events in
the end are random and casual and are without any decodings until some
observer decides to decode them and fix them in a library of concepts.
One
area where we clearly see that our grids and decodings and explanations
will never map onto reality is in the social and economic sciences: no
matter how hard we try to manipulate and predict and model the economy
or social phenomena we never achieve any possible progress at all since
things will always go their own way, randomly, chaotically no matter
what, we will always have the same "problems" over and over again no
matter what: and this is because the independence and conflicts of the
actors between themselves in these systems cannot be decoded into a
linear logic, into a simple coherent cause and effect mechanism since
there is no cause and effects, just so many independent actors fighting
each other over and over again for any reason at all, especially for no
reasons at all, always changing the configuration of the social and
economic systems always creating winners and losers and problems for the
losers and solutions for the winners and losers want to find solutions
that are not and will never be there because the only solution is to
fight back and become a winner and defeat the previous winner end of
story. And yet politicans, sociologists economists philosophers keep on
fooling themselves and everyone that they have the correct decodings,
the correct interpretations, the correct linear logic and discourse and
explanations about something which is totally outside of any of this
since it is not even a system, a coherent system, it is not even an
entity, just millions of wild and random play of forces interacting and
going nowhere at all.
And yet all of the grand explanations seem
always so scientific, everyone accepts them as a possible truth, Marx
theory, or the Adam Smith theory of economies or Freud theories of
psychology and on and on when these are all just simply inventions, one
to one correspondences with imaginary abstract mental models that think
the thing they are modeling is a coherent entity.
And notice how
the emphasis is more and more on social conflicts, lawyers, software,
apps and the applications of technologies that are simply talking to
themselves, computers are units that are a language system of an
external mind talking to itself always, a closed system, science is
going in the direction of creating ever more artificial language and
social based entities and further away from interacting directly with
matter in a sense: we used to play with transistors and oscilloscopes
confronting ourselves with the independence of matter from us, now we
play with apps which are totally social constructions, we prefer to talk
to ourselves (or others, which is the same thing) instead of talking to
matter directly and measuring and interacting with analog circuits and
transistors and oscilloscopes and such, everything is software now,
everything is even being put more and more into language systems and
decodings and even before you can interact with it. Hence just skipping
it all and creating new brain designs and minds and wild wicked new
neural circuits is the only way to go forward anymore, all else is
expired, done with, we must now crack open skulls and throw wild signals
and chemicals inside of them, like crazy, like free jazz and free
physics.
So then manipulating and creating new Mind designs, new
brain designs is scientific and correct, is real progress, we need to
produce planet sized brains full of particle accelerators criss
crossing, and exploding them and throwing atom bombs in this planet
sized brain and trillions of computer and events and signals happening
in this planet sized (or maybe even an atom sized brain ? a microbrain
?) brain and live through all of the experiences, the wild and wicked
experiences such a brain could undergo and express....
12-21-2012 12:1212121212 .... pm THE END IS NEAR
and
http://instantsingularity1.blogspot.it/