That we are limited in our ability to know the truth because both perception and logic have their limitations is most likely not a new and stunning insight to most nexians.
The most well-known expression of this in western philosophy is probably that of Emanual Kants 'ding and sich' and the stated impossibility of realy knowing it.

But is there a way to bridge this gap between perception and the perceived objects?

Once on ayahuasca i had an idea about it that goes like this: If we know all of an objects possibility's, we know the object itself. It is ofcourse quite impossible to know ALL of an objects possibility's, even if it where just because of the fact that the possibility's of every object are (almost) infinite. Yet, infinite possibility's may arise from a set of rules that is very limited itself. Wittgenstein speaks of a 'logical space' that exists out of all possible logic connections a given number of objects have, dictated by the 'logical shape' each object has. The objects possibility's are defined here by it's logical shape that dictates all of it's possible logical connections.

Now this is the idea: if an object has a certain 'logical shape', in an ideal 'logical language', wouldn't you expect it's shape to have logical consequences for how it can be described by an unambiguous language?

Computers can recognise the work of an author by simply counting individual words in any given text. It appears that each author has something of a vocabulary fingerprint.

Now, if you'd gather all descriptions of an object you know to be factual (as description of a perception, so factual in the sense of verifiable), it may be quite possible that there will be some descriptions that are inconsistent (because the same object may be seen from different angles or at different moments) but there won't be descriptions of the object that are incommensurable.

If you take all these descriptions, you could project a whole cloud of logical connections between these descriptions.
Could a logical fingerprint of the object reveal itself in this cloud of connections like the vocabulary fingerprint of an author?

If you have this cloud of logical connections, from this cloud i think you'd be able to distill the logical language in wich you'd be able to describe the object in a way that is commensurable with all the other descriptions.

In other words: If you have these descriptions, you could distill a language out of them by filtering out a vocabulary and ways in wich these words (can) relate, leading to certain specific limitations in how you can speak of the object in a way commensurable with what has been said before. For instance, whether an object is imaginary or real determines how you can speak of it and if such a limitation would be dropped, two persons would no longer be able to decide whether they're speaking of the same object.

New perceptions could enlarge the object's vocabulary, but not the way in wich words to describe the object relate, because then we would no longer be able to determine whether a description is still a description of the same object.

Could the logical shape of an object at least partially reveal itself as this logical/linguistic fingerprint here, so could we know the object at least partially? Do we know the nature of an object if we'd know the language in wich you can speak of it?
Could we see through our perceptions and reveal the objects themselves by looking at the way perceptions are structured?

I am not too sure that we can ever know all the possibilities of a given object..becasue from our perspective we cannot know another objects innate relationship to itself. In that sense we can only know "superficial" things about a given object. This is only from a point of logic though, and I personally dont see logic bridging that gap at all. I think logic is part of the problem.

It is a paradox somewhat, becasue logically I have concluded that logic is what got us here in the first place. it serves it's purpose of course..and has it's place. We have endlessly explored the logical or "waking" aspect of the universe..but what about the illogical "dreaming" state of the universe?

Think about it. If you believe in holographic theory..or that fractal mathematics can be applied to everything, than the universe MUST be analagous to the human mind in all aspects. We have a conscious mind, a sunbconscious mind and an unconscious mind. Why would the universe not be analagous at some level?

In my opinion everything we know as logic is an expression of our exploration of the conscious mind. Science tests it and logs it..and does not deal with the rest. Unless *maybe* you want to put something like quantum mechanics into a more subconscious area of exloration..

How can people really explain things like syncronicity? Is it really so different from archetypal dream phenomenon? 2 seemingly unrelated objects/occurances etc in the logical sense of relation somehow tied together on a deeper, more metaphorical level.. to the dreaming mind a bicycle with training wheels can be somehow a representation of your oppressed childhood..2 things logically unrelated somehow being bridged together. If you concider the idea of syncronicity(and this is only one example) as applying to the universal mind in the same way, it begs the question, does the universe dream? Are things like syncronicity tangible glimpses into the archetypes of the mind of the universal dreamer?

Of course, at that level, those who say syncronicity is a neurological occurance would be correct as well..it would be one and the same I should think if holographic theory is actaully applicable.

So no..I dont think logic can fully bridge that gap..I think it is the removal from logic into a deeper symbolic or metaphorical aspect of universal manifestation that we are missing, and that in itself is likely not the whole picture either. Can you expect to ever logically understand all the dreams of the dreamer?

“Can logic bridge the gap?” --- No.

Isn’t that what Kant deduced when describing the noumenon and phenomenon?

Having all possible information about a posited object is not the same as having the object. Perception is not the sensing of an object, but rather a sensing or awareness of interactions between posited objects.

A vocabulary fingerprint of an author is not the same as the author's works nor is it the same as the mind that produced the work. A vocabulary fingerprint may be uniquely associated with an author, but it is not the author.

Associations and interactions may be unique to a particular object, but Kant reminds us that these defining characteristics – the “phenomena”, are not the same as the object with which they are associated – the “noumena”.

Speaking of fractals (ala fractal enchantment), I think the 'infinite' characteristics of an object are 'collapsable.' For instance, the Mandelbrot set has infinite iterations, making it impossible to behold the object in its entirety, but the set can be expressed quite simply by the recursive equation {Z <-> z^2 + c}. With infinite computing power you can access any portion of this set at your leisure (though even this is just perception of light particles from a monitor, but ignore that for now). Of course, the human mind (and its near cousin, the computer) is limited in its computing power so our ability to behold the entire thing becomes impossible. The closest we can get is the equation of the set. Mathematics being a logical practice can describe the infinite characteristics of certain objects. Maybe this is not satisfactory, I don't know, but perhaps generalizing this idea to other forms of logic can serve other similar purposes of collapsing objects.

Now, I wonder if we can enhance the computing power of the mind. I heard of some projects online where you can donate spare CPU cycles from your computer to increase the processing power of some kind of super-computer cloud. One is using these spare cycles to analyze proteins or something. Perhaps there is a way to do this with the human mind, some way to tap into the spare cycles of the universe. It's strange and probably impossible, but if possible would perhaps enable us to become better beholders. Just a thought.

This is true, but the equation describing the set is not the same as the set itself.

In fact, does the set itself actually exist? If yes, then must it exist in some non-physical, infinite, timeless mathematical realm? And is it possible for an object of infinite complexity to exist anywhere, even in a timeless mathematical realm?

And what does all of this say about reality? The parallels are interesting: We live in a realm where objects can be posited and described, but do they actually exist?

I would say that having all information (or what i'm pointing at, wich is what bleu_velvet refers to, having a sort of formula that dictates the space of all possible information on it) is indeed not the same as having the object.

Yet i would say it qualifies very well for 'knowing' the object or 'revealing' the object itself.

It would be no different than the language we already busy. The same type of knowledge, that is logic.
Though all encompasing knowledge (language, formula) should be possible if there is something static, something finite.

But i dont think there is a static truth, some finite thing to describe, encompass.
The thought of it seems quite absurd to me

I think in order to understand infinity, one should be infinite. there would be nothing to encompass since there would be no begin or end, or other boundary. How about an infinite alphabet?

Think about it later.
Have the feeling i misunderstood something ; )

It are these kind of thoughts that actually lead to my questions about this.

Logic is in the end indeed nothing more than a set of rules, and all it demands is consistency. Those rules in the end all are reducable to simple computations that in themselves aren't logicall at all but just given facts.

Then, what would determine reality, what can we know?
If there are so many senario's thinkable about what's gonna happen somewhere or what happened somewhere in the past, how do we determine wich is real?

So i thought: when we speak of reality, we always speak of a reality frame that determines that reality. Meaning that all possible scenario's must, allthough those scenario's themselve's about what's gonna happen may be not 'the truth', but the reality in wich they take place must be somehow reflected in all of them.
If that would not be so, we wouldn't be able anymore to speak of 'reality' at all.
I mean that when a ball is rolling you could have the scenario's
-the ball changes into a tiger.
-the ball rolls towards the left corner of the field
-the ball suddenly stops unexpectedly
-the ball rolls towards the right corner of the field

but not a scenario like: 'the elephant changes into a tiger' because if somebody would tell us that, then we would no longer be able to determine if we even speak the same language anymore, when i asked him what he thought was going to happpen.

So at least the reality in wich it all takes place must have left it's fingerprint in propositions we can make about it.

Then, if we are left with a given number of possible scenario's, maybe this reflection of reality could help us to determine what would happen with the ball.
We no longer have the past, to verify the truth of the present, so all we have are all the possible scenario's themselves.

This principle of commensurability i mentioned means that in order to be a possible scenario, a scenario must be able to be (even when it contradicts other scenario's) at least comparable with all of the other possible scenario's, meaning that there is something that limits our scenarios down from infinity to only one specific specific infinity (maybe you could call that infinity 'reality'.

Now we have a cloud of possibility's left that each are comparable to the other. Because they're never exactly the same they all contradict all of the others in some way.
But what's realy going to happen will be scenario that comes closest to reality itself. The scenario in wich the reality that is reflected in all of the scenario's is most clearly expressed.

We have
-the ball changes into a tiger
-the ball goes to the left
-the ball goes to the right
-the ball stops suddenly

That the ball changes into something is not expressed in any of the other statements, leaving only 3. That an extra force is added is not expressed in all the other sentences either, leaving only 2.

If two statements are equally likely, then the question whether we can know wich will be the true one depends on how you would determine 'free' like in free-will.

If you believe in a deterministic universe, the answer would be 'yes' because, if you would have chosen any of them, then apparently there was something that caused that choice, meaning that there is a reason to assume that the two equal statements aren't equal statements at all.

If you believe in the randomness of quantummechanic's, then you would probably also say yes, because picking one of the two scenario's would, IF they indeed are equal scenario's, collapse the wave of possibility's into only one concrete one.

..and this is what is so hilariousily rediculous in one sense about the scientific method as a means to understand the universe in it's entirety. The scientific method is important for sure and is extremely useful and is something not to be underestimated or thrown out..but it can not and likely will not ever be able to tell us everything, at least in the way that it is apprached currently. All logic seems to have root in something so illogical that it cancels out the idea of logic as a sort of end explaination..so that must be taken into account when concidering the scientific method..although I am unsure how such a linear and logical methodology could take something so illogical into account.

Logic just cannot explain existance. Logic cannot know existance. It does not even begin to speak to the origion of the existance of all that is. Therefore, logically one must assume that logic is bound and applicable only within the parameters it itself sets up.

"If you believe in a deterministic universe, the answer would be 'yes' because, if you would have chosen any of them, then apparently there was something that caused that choice, meaning that there is a reason to assume that the two equal statements aren't equal statements at all.

If you believe in the randomness of quantummechanic's, then you would probably also say yes, because picking one of the two scenario's would, IF they indeed are equal scenario's, collapse the wave of possibility's into only one concrete one."

Well, the idea of a deterministic universe makes about as much sense as the idea of a non-deterministic universe..both I find too linear to be believable. Someone once said "if things can get complicated, they will"..which sort of contradicts the old saying that "the simplest explaination is the most likely"..I tend to think that the first statement is more realistic personally. Things are usually far more complex than we assume them to be.

So I dont really jive with the whole idea that we either have a deterministic universe or a non-deterministic universe..why one or the other? Wouldnt it be great if it were that easy? I never is though...there really would be nothing "easy" about having either one of those though when you think about it..how can you existentially explain the nature of a deterministic system?..or it's opposite? Who or what is doing the determining?..is it being done randombly? Is that REALLY deterministic at all? How can something be determined to be non-deterministic?-wouldnt that then make our assumption that we can even determine anything sort of irrelevant? How can something be determined even within the parameters of our own minds if the universe we inhabit is inherantly non-deterministic?

Why cant the universe be neither deterministic or non-deterministic? Why not something else far far more complicated than that?..something that requires more dimensionality and less linear parameters?

I wont get into the whole quantum mechanics thing..though I will say that I think that some level quantum phenomenon can be said to be a sort of deterministic randomness..though I am not sure I even subscribe to quantum theory..I think at least certain aspects of hadronic mechanics will take it's place once the dogmas of science drop somewhat.

I’m not quite sure you understand how a “non-deterministic” universe is defined, or for that matter, how the term “indeterminism” is defined. They are not opposites (determinism and indeterminism).

A non-deterministic universe includes all possible universes other than strictly deterministic universes. So any complicated combination of indeterminism and determinism is, by definition, indeterminate. If there is any indeterminism in a system at all, the system is defined to be indeterminate.

Think of indeterminism as meaning “anything and everything that isn’t strictly determinate”. If you define indeterminism this way, you’ll see that any possible reality of any level of complexity is either strictly determinate or it’s indeterminate. There are no other options.

^ I understand that.I just think that is a limited, and contextual use of the terms and therefore only makes sense to a certain degree. The concept is more important than the terms. It still does not explain anything either. For a universe or multi-verse to be non-deterministic, yet still have smaller "pockets" or universes within it that are deterministic it still implies that something is determining that those little derterministic pockets are somehow determined to be that way..so what is that even really saying about the nature of the system? Who or what is the thing that is determining what part is determined and what part is not? I feel like the more I think about it the more the thing seems to cycle in a sort of circlular or spiral pattern..becasue I agree with you..they are not opposites really at all.. and that is what I guess I mean when I say that you cannot really have or the other..both are valid and when you compare them against each other something(though I cant really say what) is lost.

Trying to figure this sort of stuff out is pointless but also enticing..many have tried and most who do likely end up appearing mad to those around them. I dont know how some people dont think about it though.

I didn't want to take the discussion to a determinism/non-determinism thing. It's just that i will not be able to prove that you can be absolutely sure about any state of affairs because there are too many variables for even determining what 'reality' itself means.
My point was that when you come to the conclusion that logic itself is rather trivial, like you say, you're not left completely empty-handed.
The universe may be not completely logical or deterministic, but there seems to be a principle of harmony behind it.

I don't know if i properly described the harmony i was refering to, but i think it reveals itself in the totality of all possibility's, in all the possible scenario's for the universe.

There could be a whole lot of scenario's on what is going to happen if i roll a ball this way or that way, but i think the concept of reality itself requires that not every thinkable scenario can be a possible scenario. In order for it to be a possible scenario, i think it is vital that it can be compared to every other possible scenario, or otherwise the term 'reality' itself becomes meaningless. So the concept of reality seems to require a certain harmonic structure of relatedness between all possibility's of the universe.
In this harmonic structure i think, reality like even the contingent reality of a certain specific condition, is reflected. And the reflection of reality would be part of that supposed harmonic structure.

"I don't know if i properly described the harmony i was refering to, but i think it reveals itself in the totality of all possibility's, in all the possible scenario's for the universe."

See I understand that..my question is how do we know there is even a totality of all possibilities? How would that even make sense? If you have a totality, you can view it as a sort of thing..but where does that thing come from? I would go so far as to say that ANY time you have a totality, the question will arise logically of what preceeded it? It must come from somewhere, no?

But that is sort of a relentless cycle to get caught up in..where does it end? Does an ending even make sense?

This is what I mean when I say that the universe is probabily not so linear. You are still using terms like a "totality" that imply a sort of end state, where the boundries of the universe/multivser/whatever are finally met..but how can that be rationalized? It cant. I dont care what anyone says or what terms have been made up..there is nothing rational or logical about it. It makes absolutily no sense.

Sinse it makes no logical sense..logically we must assume that the reality of the situation is far weirder than we can suppose.

These are exactly the type of questions that made me start this thread.

Many questions seem to go back to the double meaning of the concept of 'relativity' and the problematic meaning of the word 'reality'.

The word totality indeed seems to imply boundaries as well as some finite state of affairs. It's good that you mentioned this.

I think that at this moment you are right that we will never fully understand things the way they are, but i'm trying to figure out where the confusion arises, or what the nature of our understanding/lack of understanding is.

It is clear to me that 'reality' is a concept that is both very real and at the same time a total illusion.

It seems to be related to counsciousness (could there be 'reality' without any counsciousness asserting it?) and with that, with a certain perspective, a certain framework. In itself this perspective and the framework belonging to it are real (or we would not be having this discussion) but they are certainly not an answer to the question what's there or what the universe is.

I suppose that the totality is limited to a certain perspective and that the scenario (in a previous post) where an elephant changes into a tiger could maybe indeed take place. But not within the same 'reality', although that reality may be a many faceted jewel where it would fit one of the facet's we can't see from the perspective we're in.

If that is the case, the concept of harmony remains, but gains a new level of complexity where not only a totality of possibility's within one reality harmonise, but also the many different reality's that may contain other possibility's. In that case you can even see a harmonic structure transcending throughout the entire multiverse/universe/whateververse....

OK, i want to refrase the idea i have and try to expres it more clearly than i did earlier, hoping that it would spark some more criticism that would lead to a greater understanding of things.

The philosophical problem is that is generally assumed that you cannot know the truth/the real world outside, but only your own perception of it, wich is most famously expressed ny kant as the gap between phenomenon and noumenon.

The problem is that we logically cannot perceive anything outside of our own counsciousnous, so for instance, we could be dreaming that we're sitting behind some screen, reading stuff, instead of realy being there and doing that.

So we can think of all kinds of other possible reality's that would answer the big question 'what is real?' that are equally impossible to disprove as the existance of god or the big spaghettimonster.

But the scenario's we can think of that would be answering this question ARE limited in some way: I can ask whether a certain object like a red brick is real or imaginary and the answers could be that it is real, that it is imaginary, that it is in fact another object than i think it is, disguised as a red brick, that it is real but in another location, holographically projected to appear here, etc.
But the answer could not be that for instance, dumbo is flying through the circustent with his big elephant ears, or that eating nuts will make you look younger.
Those answers are so unrelated to the question that if someone WOULD give us that answer, we even would not be able to tell for sure that the person answering us, realy understood the question.
So the only possible answers are answers that are in a certain way related to the question, that have elements of the question in them, structured in a certain way, so we can compare them to the question.

This means automatically that all possible answers must be comparable to eachother. So there can be not one single possible answer to the question "is that realy a red brick i'm looking at?", that is not comparable with all of the other possible answers.

So every possibility regarding the reality of this red brick, every possible reality that corresponds with the question, must be at least structered in a peticular way so that it CAN be compared with every other possible reality.

If every possible reality that corresponds with our question would have some specific features, structured in some specific way, then we can say that in regards to this question, reality must always be like that, meaning that reality IS like that because it could never be the case that it is otherwise.

Reality ITSELF then, has left it's fingerprint in exactly the problem where we started with: that we can speculate that things could be different than we perceive it to be without being able to fully disprove it, and that all we have is perceptions, because it would be reflected somehow in all of our speculations.

So would anybody say that we've come closer now in bridging that gap between the real world and our perceptions?

It seems to me that there’s confusion here between reality and language. The questions we can ask about reality, and the set of reasonable answers related to each question, describe language and its reach and limits.

We can ask a question “Is the red brick real?” and describe a set of possible answers that are not non sequiturs, but I don’t see how this helps us to better understand Kant’s “noumenon”.

We are forever trapped in the realm of “phenomenon”. As living beings, we simply don’t have access to the “noumenon”. We don’t even have a way of determining if there is indeed “noumenon” associated with “phenomenon”. Likewise, language is a part of the realm of phenomenon and cannot help us bridge the gap between noumenon and phenomenon.

I’m not real familiar with Kant - I think he believed that there was an underlying reality but that our perceptions forever keep us separate from it. Another possibility, and I think it’s one he addressed but didn’t believe, was that there is no “noumenon”. It’s possible that the only thing that exists is consciousness. To me, this isn’t a radical notion – it seems very reasonable. After all, the only thing we each know for sure is that “I” perceives.

I don't think i confuse reality and language. As i earlier stated, i suppose that the concept of reality requires counsciousness: it requires both a point of reference, but also a system that makes this reference actually happen. Indeed language belongs to the realm of counsciousness and not to the realm of things that possibly exist outside of it.
But i suppose that whether the world of the noumenon exists outside of counsciousness or not, reality refers to the interaction of 'the world' with a counscious system. This could just as well be the interaction between counsciousness and that same counsciousness itself, so a world outside of it is indeed not required but the referential structure is.
In my view this interaction would be something that belongs to both 'the world' outside as to counsiousness itself.
The structure of this interaction must have it's effect on counsiousness in such a way that the shape of this structure leaves it's mark on counsiousness somehow. If that is the case, then you would expect that although you cannot 'have' the noumenon, the relation between counsciousness and it would 'show itself' within that interaction. If you look within any representation of an object, you would indeed be trapped inside this world and kept from the object. But if you look not at the content of the representation but at this representation entirely, as an object itself, could you isolate the interaction of it with the object? And most of all, wouldn't this interaction be 'real', even when the outside world would not exist?

For instance: if you would say that we cannot know the thing itself, wouldn't that reveal a TRUE relationship between you and the object? wouldn't that be a true description of reality? So wouldn't that clearly show a true awareness and understanding of (at least a segment) of the world of the noumenon?

Let me see if I understand you: You assume that there is an “interaction” between consciousness and “something else”. You acknowledge that the “something else” could be some aspect of consciousness itself, in which case the noumenon is a part of consciousness.

The problem arises when you assume that there is interaction. Why must there be interaction? Do you see the possibility that interaction is illusory? Isn’t it possible that consciousness, including what we call conscious experience, simply is? Many philosophers and even many physicists consider time to be an illusion. If time is illusory, then why not interactions occurring in time?

Maybe the noumenon is a timeless realm containing all possible states of existence – a realm outside of time and a realm without interaction. Everything that can be simply is. So how does examining interaction bring us closer to understanding that which lies beyond phenomenon?