"Relatively" speaking, I know it was. ;)
It could be that the structure in designed complex systems is a manifestation of this thing we can’t or don’t yet understand.
And, of course, that’s the part from your reply to the post. Politics. Science is the attempt to define something. And, Science has arrogance that, indeed, it can define that(whatever). Is that politics or humanity? Could the desire to define things be another manifestation of that underlying structure? The desire to impose order on chaos? Is that what the universe itself is trying to do? Maybe the universe also figured out that defining nothing was futile. “Bang.. Now, why didn’t I see that before?” :)
Existence simply is since, from the perspective of those in it, there is no alternative. Existence contains what we know (as a universe, not as a person), nothingness contains everything else.
What can we really learn about the system with only tools that are found or created inside it? When our very thought process is built in that system. Isn’t that what Gödel was saying, basically?
Your ideas of linear transformations remind me of a paper I read on quantum gravity. They attempted to reconcile it using a quanta based system. Linear transformations would simplify their theory immensely, and be very hard to accept to a quanta based community. Seems they don't want to accept the "fabric of space/time" as acting like a fabric, they want an accurate thread count. ;)
Could the blindness to seeing the Gestalt of a situation, both political and scientific, be another expression of the underlying order that we don't fully understand? Could the fact that we have the word Gestalt be an indicator otherwise?
Just open the box and see
The Daily Paul is a community website with no official affiliation with Ron Paul. The content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the origina