quote:
While you're right in observing that this article demonstrates that there are limitations to human data input (perception), it suggests nothing about the capacity for creative thought either through logical extension of what we already know or (hypothetically impossible) random thought.
I think it does. The article presents a notable example of one way in which most humans remain oblivious to the true nature of the universe. I mean, who would have thought a 4th primary color actually exists?
The truth is that we would have never known if it weren't for the tetrachromatic mutants. And who’s to say there isn’t a fifth primary color still unobserved by homo sapiens?
I base this as a foundation to posit that there are hundreds (maybe thousands) of similar situations. Overall, I believe the secrets to understanding the universe are out there, yet our minds/bodies are too underdeveloped to not only process them, but to even know that they exist. Hence, my conclusion that our species will never reach omnipotence.
Again, my favorite analogy: if you put on a pair of red glasses, everything you see would be limited to the hues between pink and crimson. If you were born with such limited eyesight, and had no frame of reference, would you ever know that colors like blue exist? Doubtful…
Who is to say that the human mind isn’t a similarly limited device, akin to the red glasses?
Sure, it's a speculative philosophy, but I find it to be far more convincing than the one promoting ideas of humans as masters of the universe.
quote:
While you're right that we don't (currently) have the biological means to observe the hypothetical 302 dimensions, that doesn't limit human thinking in such an impossible fashion as you might imagine, since it does nothing to stop people from theorizing about a 302-dimensional reality
Theorizing is one thing. Conclusively proving, and thus knowing, is another. Omnipotence is not defined by assumption.
edit: fuck
This message has been edited by whiskey@throttle on February 15, 2001 at 10:12 AM