LEVELS

file levels 12:51 pm Oct 24, 1994 10:07 pm May 1, 1992/8:44 am Feb 6, 1992

There seems to be levels within levels of understanding. Meaning for a term is gained from within and from without. A term is never completely defined unless it exists within a world of itself. For instance, the term apple is not completely defined unless it is in the reality that is only the apple. One term or one object subjected to epistemological questions becomes a infinite field of discourse. For any object there are an infinite amount of epistemological questions that can be asked of it. In the case of the apple for instance, we can ask about how it relates to itself and we can ask how it relates to things outside of itself. A list of questions about itself that can be asked is: Are there parts? How do the parts relate to each other? What is the nature of the parts of the apple? What is the nature of the parts of the parts of the apple? How do some parts of the apple effect other parts of the apple? Do the parts of the apple have names? Why do the parts of the apple have names? There are an infinite amount of questions that can be asked. There can also be an infinite amount of answers to each question that are correct. An example of this would be the question is it raining? We have a tendency to add information to the question that the question does not add like, "Is it raining here?". The answer to "Is it raining?" would have to be yes. As is the answer to every question. This is because it is raining some place at any time so it is raining, but it is not raining everywhere so there would be a tendency to say that it is both raining and not raining. But, we can not say that it is not raining because it is. We can modify it with "It is not raining here." But if we are restricted to yes or no we have to say yes. If we then ask the question "Is it not raining?" we again have to say yes, if limited in our response to a yes or no answer. Can we ever restrict our response that is other than yes? If we are more specific in our question so that we do not have this problem? Is it raining here? is this question specific enough so there is not both a yes and no answer? What does here mean? Does it mean this spot and at this time what is rain, mist or dew? Does rain have to have large drops? It must be either raining here or not. It can't be doing both right? If here means a dot or point, a dot or point is to small to be effected by rain so it may not be raining at this point but will be at another. Which point does here refer to? How large of an area is here again we have he problem of being more specific because we need to specify conditions if the external meaning does not. Man is not infinite and he manages to communicate but he does it with mistakes. We can not communicate meaning without a probability of mistakes being made. What about numbers? We can communicate them without mistake. We can in fact communicate numbers without mistakes but the meaning or use of the numbers we are not so lucky with what it is with out meaning is only a name without meaning. If meaning is transmitted then we have already transmitted information overt or implied. If two identical functioning processors received the same information then the same meaning would be implied. If we have an object or term that has limited properties it has only a name for instance a zasx is a name for anything that has no properties no matter what question is asked about no answer can be given this is not because nothing is know but that it does not exist in relation to the term by definition. If not by definition then there are properties that can be given to this term for instance it applies to nothing. It has a name its name has four letters. All of a sudden we have knowledge about an unknowable but by definition we can not have information about it. This is because it is a zasx. In labeling this thing we all of a sudden have produced a paradox.

We have discussed yes or no answers to questions? The answer to any question of the form is x y. Is John big? Is it raining? The answer is always yes because of the implied nature of the meaning of the terms involved. What if we know that under no circumstance in any world or conditions the answer to the question is x y then no? We do not know every circumstance so we can in fact never know. But if we restrict the world of reference to a limited finite set of statements, we almost have to make it by definition or by axiom is x y it is by definition or by axiom other wise if the system is sufficient complex we may never know which refers us to Godels theorems. Is this always the case? Is this a property of how we think? Or is a property of the world that we live in? Knowledge has the properties of uncertainty that matter and energy has. If knowledge is uncertain like the uncertainth is for matter and energy then anything is possible or is x,y? Yes, somewhere sometime but there is more to it than that is x y everywhere every time? Yes! Then why do we not know it? Because if "Is x y?" everywhere, every time, yes then, the answer to the question is there in existence life forms that have no awareness of these epistemological concepts here now (that is part of the everywhere every time) the answer is yes. So it is not inconsistent to this logic that we can exist in a world that has no limits and not be aware of it. When we say no limits we mean no limits to every thing including logical laws. Is it possible that x is y? This is a weaker statement so it should also be true. If every thing is every thing how do we get from here to where we want to be? The reality that we think we exist in does not have to relate to the real reality that produces it. We have to achieve it though the reality that we can create. Pushing a button in the middle of the air may change things. It might not also. Is it possible that we can push this button and reality changes but we are not aware that it does. We can be certain of nothing so we can not be certain that this is not the case. Some might say that god would not play tricks like this on us but on the other hand who are we to say what a god would or would not do. He can do what ever he wishes or wants to. We make the assumption that the universe does not have the ability to do everything even if they appear contradictory. We base this on the fact that we can only see part of this reality. But through scientific research we realize that the universe is much more complex than we suppose. Maybe the only reason that the world appears not to be everything to everybody is so that it can be some things to some people. Maybe to a god it appears to be every thing to him where everything is not only a possibility but a current actuality so the way that we look at things is as much proof for the existence of everything as if we could see more because one of the parts will always be the reality that there can be limited views and limited access with these views. Why is this argument important? Because we are changing. We have found that there is much more to the universe than we had ever thought possible. It is much more complex than we though possible. The more that we learn, the more we can do. We will someday have the ability to change our genes that could lead to a person that has a different view of reality. We already have people that are crazy they are in fact in a different reality, that is if they have a reality, this is because brain functioning problems do not guarantee consciousness. The real purpose of mathematical epistemology is to make science more productive to give awareness more control of its destiny. There are many traps out there that have and will give us problems. We need not only to be able to deal with the limited ideas that we presently have but to deal with the complex reality that could and probability does face us. How do we solve problems there have been many books written on the subject but they suggest solutions that can only solve some of the problems with limited success. We really need a broad perspective that mathematical epistemology can give. Mathematical epistemology gives us way to deal with complex concepts and to modify then what ever they might be. Mathematical epistemology has it problems but it keeps trying to solve them, by new and creative ideas that mathematical epistemology tries to manufacture. The brain does the same thing but the brain is not always such a good provider of possibilities and ways to manipulate the concepts these ideas can be What mathematical epistemology tries to do is to study knowledge, the brain, and how we get solutions to problems. We can be solutions to problems in many ways we can apply and reapply these ideas in many ways so that we get more and better ideas that help us again get better ideas. We look for the ideas and processes and processors that work better but we must not forget the old ideas because they may come in handy solving a problem in the future that we are not aware of. It is like the old saying about history, history is doomed to repeat itself if we are not aware of it. In the same way problems that we have solved will come back around to be resolved again we must develop way of keeping this knowledge in a form that can be used when necessary we in a way do save past knowledge in libraries but not what I consider mathematical epistemological ideas because they are in fact knowledge about knowledge. It is possible that schizophrenia is an adaptation to strange changes that occur in the history of man. Understand what circumstances would schizophrenia be a evolutionary advantage what type of situation. Maybe it is the adverse side effect of the ability to see problems in a different lite so that they can be solved. People that solve certain problems have evolutionary advantages over others that can not solve those problems. What kind of problems might these be? Getting the proper food in a harsh environment having a warm enough place to live. Living through mini ice ages when problems for food and shelter would be more severe. Why would people move to these places from better environments. Lets say that groups move for food. They follow the animals that they hunt if an area gets hunted out then they move to an area that has more food that is close by if fact the animals might migrate and the people migrate with them to more northerly climates. After they find themselves there what do they do? They have to adapt to the changes that they face the adaptability is

Who is to say that a brain is not functioning correctly? Maybe it is not functioning fully. It has capabilities that are not or can not be used, due to some environmental factors. How about lack of light stimulus for critical periods of time. For some this might be why the Irish have this problem more than other groups of people in sunnier environments because they have a rainier environment. When does a brain processes itself into a different reality or a slightly different reality? Is this what creativity is; a venture by a person into a different reality? Or is it a different reality than most people exist in? It could be a partial reality In fact, it must be different because they are doing some thing that no one has done before. but , It does not need to be a totally different but only in certain ways.