So, knowing

 Thinking about knowing is kinda' hard on account of what you are doing is thinking about thinking which clearly can be a confusing situation. But without mentioning , " what did he know, and when did he know it  ",   only need some good examples.

For most of my life, I  did not " know " where my cars keys where.  Now, of course, I had a list which included getting a spare key, which some how I never got to.  But guess what ??? I always did know where my keys where when I went for a drive, except for occasionally I would lock them in the car.  So, what does that mean ?  Most of the time I did not know where my keys where, which if anything I had, was one of those " most " important items, for me to know about.

So, obviously a pretty difficult subject which we can easily dismiss by saying, >> we just don't know <<.

Now, this is where the classification theorem can come in handy.  You see , I like to think that I know that the classification theorem proves what all the finite simple groups are, which is immediately a head scratcher, unless you know a good deal about finite simple group theory.  But if you do, you might agree with me.  At the end of the day we have a book or two, and of course we have the classification theorem itself in one form or another.  But, if I where to say, for example,  I have a proof of the classification theorem that was 10 pages long, there might be people out there, who could " prove ", that I was nuts.

Now, this is really not that much different from the " issues " related to the >>> " unified " field theory, which of course has produced a great deal of " head " scratching for some time now.  Obviously, it was of some   concern for Dr. Einstein and in fact, at some level for relativity or perhaps Relativity , can't be sure about that.

So where could this end?  Well, now, currently,  it has become of some concern for a verity of  reasons, , that we actually know something about knowing.  Hence, we now have a theory, Theory of Reality. which I suppose you could call tor, but that would make you think of Thor, and next, Thursday. 

The sad part is this has been proposed by someone who is both a physicist and a mathematician, and I suppose , just to keep things interesting, he probably will not really come out clearly for us to know if this theory is a math theory or a physics theory, which can be extremely difficult to sort out, which is quite important because he connects back a lot to Goidel's Proof, fyi, always a head scratcher.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Synchronicity

 So, this strange, word, which suggests something like, two things happening at the same time, which are seemingly disconnected.  So, that may appear first mostly in the works of Carl Jung, and the formulations of many of his concepts related to applications of phycology.   Now, to the best of my understanding, Irwin Schrodinger, in the late 40's and early 50's kind of latched onto this " concept ", in relation to describing the " kind of " physics, connected to biologicals processes.  So maybe this is funny or not, but during this same time Schrodinger was supposed to be working with Einstein on the >>> Unified Field Theorem <<< , I guess, the " Theorem " gives it all away.  At some point , Schrodinger may have given a >>> press conference <<<  in which he announced that " they ", had been successful.  Well, he had not previously consulted Einstein, and apparently Einstein response was, okay we are don...
Read more

Perplexity, absurdity, and power

 So, when you consider or imagine " absolute " power, you must also consider the issue of " infinite " work.  In other words, without the results or effects of power, you really don't know anything about it. Nevertheless, throughout most of human history, we have labored under this concept of " absolute " power, which in and of itself produces very difficult logical or mental conundrums.  Of course, Dr. Einstein was fairly successful in dispelling some of these odd conundrums in particularly as regards some of our notions related to the physical world and our " environment " so to speak, however, that required a life time of work, and the help of many colleagues over the years. But simply, even if you do consider the >>>> universe <<<<< to be an infinite amount of work and therefore requiring an infinite/absolute amount of power, well, if you're going to try and rustle up numbers that actually make sense, you ar...
Read more

Something, something, reality

 Now, when we reflect back on " reality ", most people will agree, >>> it's hard to do without it <<< Now, we might be able to figure out how Godel's Proof , ties back to all this stuff, but it seems to me that if you want to describe some kind of reality, then you pretty much have to talk about diversity, and so probably, possibly what you are really talking about is the " ability " to sort out, elements of diversity as being a substantive process which it kind of seems like is persistently .occurring.   This might occur through action like --->  back actions <--- of some different processes or  even ---> front action <----, which might be easier to comprehend. So , if you are an automobile, and you can travel to pretty much anyplace in the world within 1 hour, then, things might look a bit different, particularly if you are into variation and transformation.  So, for example, Ralphy will rarely go to Africa, unless, it's l...
Read more