On Possible, Impossible, and Pov's

Day 39

Creation, or expanding the world, can also be talked about as 'how the possible turns into the actual', and just like all methods of talking about the same things in different ways, this both obscures and reveals information. For example, we know that some things are possible, and that some thing are impossible, and also that there are things we do not know. So, we might try placing things into categories such as: known possible, unknown possible, known impossible, and unknown impossible. At first glance, categorization, of these or any other category seems like it could be a reasonable way to go. However, I've found this not to be the case. For two main reasons – first, categories are vague and depend on a point of view. We might disagree about which category something goes in, and unless these categories have some practical use, there is no obvious way to even begin to untangle the mess. Secondly, lets try looking at the categories I've pronounced so far, through the lens of the possible and impossible. The known possible things we know are possible, or can exist as a gem in the world, so that if x is known to be possible, then x is possible. If x is something which is possible but unknown, an unknown possible, then x is possible, but we don't know x is possible, so that within a world, x might be possible. This also means it might be impossible. The unknown part of the equation, the piece outside the world that we can't access, means that we have no handle on the unknown possible x. If x is known to be impossible, then it is, so it is a gem in the world. Yet all gems have an unknown core, and all we have access to are open, so that we can never know for certain that something is impossible. So, if x is a known impossible, it might be possible. If x is an unknown impossible, then we don't know that its impossible, so it appears to us in the world that x might be possible. At the end of this categorization, we end up with any x which we place in any of the categories being possibly being possible, at least from the point of view of a world. We could of course continue into the known unknowns, the possible possible, and so on – but at this point we are just confusing ourselves. As well, even if we ended up with categories which worked, we would still have to place things into those categories, and each of the structures we would end up with would be different for each point of view. We might be able to describe a point of view by figuring out how a certain point of view saw each of these categories however, which could be an interesting project, though not one I'll get into here. The category that one places an x into is function of the belief in the possibility of x that one has. Your personal evaluation of model risk.

If categorization won't get us very far, what about some sort of formal logic? Lets start with the actual and then move to the possible. To say that x is actual is to say that x is a gem in the world, and to say that x is not actual is to say that x is not a gem in the world. To say that x is possible is to say that could be a gem, and to say that x is not possible is to say that x could to be a gem. Thus, we have x>a, ~x>a, x>p, and ~x>p, in a w, or under a w-lim. Thus, if we want to say that x exists, we say that x>a/w. If we want to say that x does not exist, we say that ~x>a/w. If we want to say that x is possible and not possible, or that it could go either way, we say that x>p and ~x>p / w. If we want to say that x exists in one logic field but not another, or in one point of view but not another, then we can say that x>a/pov1 and ~x>p/pov2. There are other things that we can say as well, such as if pov3 contains pov2 and pov1, then in pov3, it could, for example, appear that x>a and ~x>a /pov3. This is not a mistake, but rather a way of pointing out that there is some x/pov3 which has two aspects, or appears to be two different things from two different pov's, or in two different logic fields. This reveals that there is a difference between logical possibilities in small minds and in large minds, the key difference being the existence of aspects of x, for any x/povL. This suggests some very interesting information about paradoxes in simple minds vs large minds. A paradox in a simple mind, or a single LF, are devastating. Paradoxes in a large mind can be devastating, and could also be due to opposing aspects within the complex LF. This suggests that two opposing beliefs could be in conflict in a large mind, but not in a simple mind. This is because a large mind, almost by definition, always has areas of stress where logic fields within it do not agree. Thus, a large mind is almost guaranteed to have what appear to be paradoxes. These paradoxes are still devastating to the large mind if directly interacted with, but perhaps this gives us an idea for how people can believe illogical things – because they are ignoring the paradoxes in pov3, but this does not mean that the stresses caused by the paradoxes go away. We then have two ways of perhaps understanding a paradox. The first is paradox as a hole in a logic field, a flaw in the world, or an interior limit in a possibility space under a limit. The second is a paradox as opposing aspects in a complex logic field, multi-headed or multi-colored pov, or a large mind, which, through the incompatibility of contained logic fields or small minds, leads to a stress which places pressure on a complex logic field or large mind, so as to distort and direct it. In other words, sometimes when we have paradoxes in our head we know we do because we feel the danger of world collapse when we consider them and so we deal with them by not thinking about them. Other times, when we have paradoxes in our heads, we aren't aware of them because we exist as a large mind, but we can feel them. Our head contains both aspects of the x, the paradox, and it is only when we investigate the reasons for those aspects, or the particular logic fields which are involved in making those aspects appear to us, that it becomes apparent to us that we have a paradox in our heads, in our worlds. This is what happens when we have two equally good ways of describing the world, but which are incompatible with each other. Thus, it can appear to us that x/pov and ~x/pov, for the same pov, but only when that pov is complex.

What is a point of view, or a pov, though? A pov is another name for a logical field, but a specific type of logical field. We stated once that a logical field is a set of things which are linked together, and that we could also describe a world as a logical field. Something which is logically possible in a logic field is also possible in a world, and something which is impossible in a logic field is something which does not exist in a world. For something to exist in a world is for that something to be a gem in the world. Thus, the points in a logic field are gems in a world, and also areas of possibility space under a limit. This also means that points in a logical field can be complex, because they are areas of possibility space, and not points in possibility space. This is how logical fields can be complex, by containing other logical fields at these points. A logic field can also be understood as something like a language, where each meaning in the language is a possible point in the logic field which is analogous to the language. Notice however, that there are things we know but do not know how to say, do not know how to communicate to others, or what the meaning is, such as feelings and ideas which as of yet have no name, and paradoxes which we won't touch. This means that in certain logical fields, certain pov's, there are some things which are impossible, some things or possibility spaces which do not appear to exist or are not reachable by the pov. This illustrates the difference between points in a logic field pov, and points in a logic field-world. Namely, that worlds contain gems.

Because a world is all that is, a gem, by definition, is also linked to all other gems. Thus, for any x in w, or for any x/w: all xRx. Yet for a x/pov, this is not the case: for any x/pov, some xRx. We can also say that that a pov is a further limits on the space of w, which means that lim/pov is weaker than lim/w. It is the case that for any x/pov and x'/pov, there is some means by which xR...xRx..Rx', however. This points out that all pov's are contiguous structures with themselves, and that if they are not, we seem to have more than one pov. The different shapes of the connections and the different x's which make up the pov's, mean that the shape, structure, and existent things for a particular pov's are not often identical to other povs'. What this also means though is that while we can have sub-pov's, or pov's which are in other pov's, and pov's in worlds, we don't have sub-worlds, because every sub-world is identical to any other sub world. This also means that a large mind, or a pov which contains other pov's which can pass information between each other, can be just a large pov, or can be the world if the mind is large enough.

Now, we have talked before about the expansion of worlds by creation. The expansion of pov's is mostly similar, but not completely identical. When the limits of a pov and the limits of the world match up, they are the same. However, that the limits of a pov meet the limits of the world at some point does not mean that they meet at all points. It may be the case that for some x, x>a/w, and ~x>p/pov. Call this this outside x. So that something actually exists in the world, but not only does not exist in a pov, but cannot exist in a pov. This could be something like division by zero, infinity, a prejudiced outlook, or a moral outlook. Whereas when an outside things enters the world, because the world is changed, the world always acknowledges the existence of the thing in some way, that it is, for some kind of is'ing, or some way of being. However, an outside force entering a pov can be ignored by that pov, because while a world is like a single giant crystal, a pov is more like a net. The outside x can fall through. If the pov is an area of possibility space, and only allows that some things are possible, then there are some things which are impossible. Moreover, these impossible things are possibility spaces where the lines of the logic field do not go – the outside x falls through the hole. When can also envision this process as the x entering into the logic field, but for the outside x, (Ox), no xR(Ox)/pov.

Sometimes when people can't understand something it is because they understand what it is, but they cannot allow such a thing to exist in their world. This can be something like calling a belief in religion illogical or thinking an event impossible, when obviously some people are logical and believe in religion, and some events are possible which we just don't like to think about. This is denying something which you know is possible, because you don't want to admit either that it could be, or that you don't know its impossible. Note that outright denial of possibility is not the same as thinking that a belief is foolish, or that an event is unlikely.

On the other hand, sometimes when people can't understand something, it is because they do not understand what it is, and they do not see it. This happens when someone is stuck in a pov, and cannot get out of it. They are blind to the world. This is something that might happen because of a prejudice or a phobia, where you believe that it honestly appears to you that all people who talk or dress in a certain way are automatically regarded as criminals, or where all dogs are obviously out to kill and eat you. You are confronting this sort of blindness when someone simply cannot understand why you hold the views on politics, religion, or purpose that you do. This is what happens when people are talking past one another as well, when you seem to be using similar words but there is still no actual communication of meaning. Because when this happens you are blind to the world, the edges of the pov seem to be the edges of the world, and yet because the pov is more fragile than the world, to escape the pov seems to be akin to destroying the world, and is thus terribly frightening.

The third way in which people do not understand something is relatively innocuous compared to the first two. This way of not understanding is simply something like being unable to understand math, or being unable to understand a foreign language. In cases like these, you are not blind to the world because you can understand that there is a math problem you can't solve, or a sentence you don't understand. In this case you have a thing in the world, but you don't know how to connect it to other things. When you learn that two in Spanish is dos, you learn that 'two' has another aspect to it, 'dos'. When you learn that 'three' has another aspect in 'tres', and that 'two' and 'three' connect to each other in the same way that 'dos' and 'tres' do. You now have the beginning of a structure of Spanish, a pov of Spanish. As you learn Spanish, or math, you slowly learn extend, connect, and communicate between the pov's, or logic field, which make up your large mind and the world.

Knowing which case of misunderstanding is at hand can be very useful. The person who misunderstands you because he is ignoring the world, reacts with pain and denial when you push him to understand what he refuses to acknowledge. The person who misunderstands because what you are saying doesn't make any sense from his pov, reacts with anger and confusion, because you appear, to him, to be a very pretentious and obstinate idiot. The person who misunderstands because he understands you are saying something that he could understand with work, but doesn't currently understand what you mean, will respond by wanting you to clarify or translate, and convince him that what you are trying to say is worth the work of figuring out. There are two traps to look out for when a misunderstanding appears to happen. The first is thinking that because you can't communicate that it is because they can't understand you – perhaps it is you that can't understand them. It is also important to realize the difference between actual misunderstanding, and pretending to misunderstand – are you trying to exchange points of view with a brother, or a troll?