If you put a percentage on that of the universe that probably exists that’s outside your conceptual grasp, what would that figure be.

If you put a pecentage on that of the entire universe that exists presently as imaginable, what would that figure be.

Would it add up to ~100%

transition said:

If you put a percentage on that of the universe that probably exists that’s outside your conceptual grasp, what would that figure be.

If you put a pecentage on that of the entire universe that exists presently as imaginable, what would that figure be.

Would it add up to ~100%

In reverse order,

Yes,

0

100

(if I understood the question)

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

If you put a percentage on that of the universe that probably exists that’s outside your conceptual grasp, what would that figure be.

If you put a pecentage on that of the entire universe that exists presently as imaginable, what would that figure be.

Would it add up to ~100%

In reverse order,

Yes,

0

100

(if I understood the question)

now i’ll rejig the questions

If you put a percentage on that of yourself (of you, understanding self) that probably exists that’s outside your conceptual grasp, what would that figure be.

If you put a percentage on that of your entire self that exists presently as imaginable, what would that figure be.

Would it add up to ~100%

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

If you put a percentage on that of the universe that probably exists that’s outside your conceptual grasp, what would that figure be.

If you put a pecentage on that of the entire universe that exists presently as imaginable, what would that figure be.

Would it add up to ~100%

In reverse order,

Yes,

0

100

(if I understood the question)

now i’ll rejig the questions

If you put a percentage on that of yourself (of you, understanding self) that probably exists that’s outside your conceptual grasp, what would that figure be.

If you put a percentage on that of your entire self that exists presently as imaginable, what would that figure be.

Would it add up to ~100%

Don’t know

100 – Don’t know

Yes

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

In reverse order,

Yes,

0

100

(if I understood the question)

now i’ll rejig the questions

If you put a percentage on that of yourself (of you, understanding self) that probably exists that’s outside your conceptual grasp, what would that figure be.

If you put a percentage on that of your entire self that exists presently as imaginable, what would that figure be.

Would it add up to ~100%

Don’t know

100 – Don’t know

Yes

which of the following statements is likely to be (more) correct

a) you are mostly what you don’t know
b) you are mostly what you do know

Depends on what you mean by “you” and “know”.

Bubblecar said:

Depends on what you mean by “you” and “know”.

you is all that contributes to and generates whatever example (conscious) organism, unknowns and knowns of I.

know is of all past and present that contributed and contribute presently that are understood by I, of I, with a high level of certainty.

transition said:

which of the following statements is likely to be (more) correct

a) you are mostly what you don’t know
b) you are mostly what you do know

I’d say either could be more correct, depending on the context, time of day, direction of wind, etc.

the not conceptually graspable + that imaginable (of the likely realities of self and universe) +/- that made up (to make whatever work (or partly work).

transition said:

If you put a percentage on that of the universe that probably exists that’s outside your conceptual grasp, what would that figure be.

If you put a percentage on that of the entire universe that exists presently as imaginable, what would that figure be.

Would it add up to ~100%

transition said:

now i’ll rejig the questions

If you put a percentage on that of yourself (of you, understanding self) that probably exists that’s outside your conceptual grasp, what would that figure be.

If you put a percentage on that of your entire self that exists presently as imaginable, what would that figure be.

Would it add up to ~100%

transition said:

which of the following statements is likely to be (more) correct

a) you are mostly what you don’t know
b) you are mostly what you do know

Are “conceptual grasp” and “imaginable” synonyms? Exact synonyms? Let’s suppose that they are. Further, let’s suppose that this line of questioning was prompted by a quote (variously attributed to Heisenberg, Eddington and Haldane) “Not only is the universe stranger than we think, it is stranger than we can think”.

The questions can only be answered in the light of Occam’s razor. If the simplest possible explanation consistent with observations is not correct, then my knowledge of both myself and the universe approaches zero.

I’m going to skip ahead now to psychology before returning to physics. The Johari window https://www.mindtools.com/media/Diagrams/Johari-Window-Diagram-New.jpg limits my self-knowledge. In the Johari window, the sum of the known and unknowable adds up to 100%.

The next hurdle in answering the questions has to do with analogy. When I try to imagine something, I use an analogy, a simplified model of reality. This analogy is most often a visual model but can be a mathematical model or other or a mixture of models of different types. For example, in understanding a black hole I have almost a dozen different analogies I can draw from to aid understanding. If everything that is imaginable has a model or analogy, and everything that is unimaginable does not, then the sum of the two adds up to 100%.

Then this brings us forward to infinite numbers. Douglas Adams said “in an infinitely large Universe such as, for instance, the one in which we live, most things one could possibly imagine, and a lot of things one would rather not, grow somewhere.” We did an analysis of this statement on the forum some years back (not just me) and found that it is not true, for reasons I don’t want to go into in detail here. (To be continued).

mollwollfumble said:

We did an analysis of this statement on the forum some years back (not just me) and found that it is not true, for reasons I don’t want to go into in detail here. (To be continued).

I have often seen it claimed and accepted that this statement is untrue, but I have never seen anything coming close to a valid argument to reject it.

Continued.

Two further points occur to me. One is a description of where science fits in the natural world from HGWells. He likened science to a coral reef, and scientists to coral polyps. Science grows until the knowledge it contains is vast. But it isn’t everything and never can be. Beyond science is the unknown and knowable, and also the unknown and unknowable. It’s an agnostic view of the world, but it falls foul of Occams razor.

The other point is that probabilities that don’t add up to 100% are a continual bugbear in quantum mechanics. It may yet be shown that probabilities really don’t add up to 100%. But again that falls foul of Occams razor.

>Are “conceptual grasp” and “imaginable” synonyms? Exact synonyms?

start with that’d be alright, didn’t want to be repetitive you know

i’d expect (spins eyeballs around and looks at brain) that reducing the significance of unknowns (about self also) is probably part of the core business of consciousness.

>“in an infinitely large Universe such as, for instance, the one in which we live, most things one could possibly imagine, and a lot of things one would rather not, grow somewhere.”

bit of philosophical can opener maybe, probably hints at some paradoxical requirements of conceiving reality (imagining what makes it, and that effort possible).

indulge me one of my dumb pet thinks for a moment. It’s of walking a straight line, which requires crookedness and corrections. Don’t the possible errors and corrections exist before any example of it happening. The possibilities are there in the forces of the physical world.

transition said:

>“in an infinitely large Universe such as, for instance, the one in which we live, most things one could possibly imagine, and a lot of things one would rather not, grow somewhere.”

bit of philosophical can opener maybe, probably hints at some paradoxical requirements of conceiving reality (imagining what makes it, and that effort possible).

indulge me one of my dumb pet thinks for a moment. It’s of walking a straight line, which requires crookedness and corrections. Don’t the possible errors and corrections exist before any example of it happening. The possibilities are there in the forces of the physical world.

“Don’t the possible errors and corrections exist before any example of it happening?” Yes, both in a deterministic and random framework. The difficulty is in gaining enough knowledge in advance to see what the crookedness and corrections will be.

mollwollfumble said:

transition said:

>“in an infinitely large Universe such as, for instance, the one in which we live, most things one could possibly imagine, and a lot of things one would rather not, grow somewhere.”

bit of philosophical can opener maybe, probably hints at some paradoxical requirements of conceiving reality (imagining what makes it, and that effort possible).

indulge me one of my dumb pet thinks for a moment. It’s of walking a straight line, which requires crookedness and corrections. Don’t the possible errors and corrections exist before any example of it happening. The possibilities are there in the forces of the physical world.

“Don’t the possible errors and corrections exist before any example of it happening?” Yes, both in a deterministic and random framework. The difficulty is in gaining enough knowledge in advance to see what the crookedness and corrections will be.

Or the universe could be incredibly empty and virtually nothing of what is imagined or not yet imagined actually exists even if the physical world would allow it.

>“Don’t the possible errors and corrections exist before any example of it happening?” Yes, both in a deterministic and random framework. The difficulty is in gaining enough knowledge in advance to see what the crookedness and corrections will be.

A starting point is that there will be errors and corrections, which isn’t really made obvious in walking a straight line, that a straight line is straightening from crookedness, though perfectly straight probably exists as an abstract thing in the human mind tool set(from the terrestrial experience of light, likely – evolution selected for and because of benefits related).

An axis courtesy gravity too (has the straight line thing, too that things with momentum tend to go in straight lines, minus a force otherwise) – various forces overlapping generates a space of possibilities, which probably incrementally over time happen upon structure, (some replicate), those structures, of/from those forces operate within the forces/greater space of possibilities.

There’d be the genesis of some basic computation possibilities in that space, interaction and overlap of within physical space.

Cymek said:

mollwollfumble said:

transition said:

>“in an infinitely large Universe such as, for instance, the one in which we live, most things one could possibly imagine, and a lot of things one would rather not, grow somewhere.”

bit of philosophical can opener maybe, probably hints at some paradoxical requirements of conceiving reality (imagining what makes it, and that effort possible).

indulge me one of my dumb pet thinks for a moment. It’s of walking a straight line, which requires crookedness and corrections. Don’t the possible errors and corrections exist before any example of it happening. The possibilities are there in the forces of the physical world.

“Don’t the possible errors and corrections exist before any example of it happening?” Yes, both in a deterministic and random framework. The difficulty is in gaining enough knowledge in advance to see what the crookedness and corrections will be.

Or the universe could be incredibly empty and virtually nothing of what is imagined or not yet imagined actually exists even if the physical world would allow it.

Not if it is infinite.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Cymek said:

mollwollfumble said:

“Don’t the possible errors and corrections exist before any example of it happening?” Yes, both in a deterministic and random framework. The difficulty is in gaining enough knowledge in advance to see what the crookedness and corrections will be.

Or the universe could be incredibly empty and virtually nothing of what is imagined or not yet imagined actually exists even if the physical world would allow it.

Not if it is infinite.

What if it’s near infinite?

poikilotherm said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Cymek said:

Or the universe could be incredibly empty and virtually nothing of what is imagined or not yet imagined actually exists even if the physical world would allow it.

Not if it is infinite.

What if it’s near infinite?

Ask BC

poikilotherm said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Cymek said:

Or the universe could be incredibly empty and virtually nothing of what is imagined or not yet imagined actually exists even if the physical world would allow it.

Not if it is infinite.

What if it’s near infinite?

it’s like deja vu.. all over again…