We think it means something tantamount to “engaging with concepts or problems that lack clear margins or precise definitions.” Okay… But what does it mean to “engage” with them?
“Definitions are ephocal. You learn this as a researcher more and more.” You bet. As we struggle with even defining the neural correlates of consciousness (there’s no there there) it seems we will also struggle with the indeterminates of reality and the words used therein. In reading Nick Cook’s Substack serial “The Light Beyond the Mountains”, we come across Hoffman’s Interface theory of reality and Nick proposes the word “rogue” for “icons” that don’t meet our strict materialistic boundaries, what you would call ill-defined. I think you are wise to take a 50,000 foot view as to how we even approach such indeterminates knowing we are nobbled by our imprecise brain. Glad you’re here!
... and when all is said and done, all that often happens is that the wrestlers vaguely gesture at their alleged obscure and ill-defined concepts, utter some words that even they aren't sure make sense, and then think that just because they 'wrestled' — regardless of any sense having been made or not — they thereby act as if some grave, well-defined, huge, gaping, serious problems have been identified in frameworks that don't do this 'wrestling' for various reasons, and encrust their vibes that their wrestling is in fact not nonsense and oh so important and yowza! — in fact they might as well have demonstrated the grave gaps in the non-magical frameworks and the merits of 'wrestling'.
but did they wrestle or just bumble bamboozled, getting high on lush, empty imaginings?
Is there a copy or link available of Prof. Ivette Fuentes presentation titled: Rethinking the Foundation of Physics: What is Unification?
• The Breakthrough We’ve Been Waiting For -- 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUj2TcZSlZc
MANY thanks
The conference proceedings will be available in a month or so. Compiling shortly. Thank you. - Curt
Is there a copy or link available of Prof. Ivette Fuentes presentation titled: Rethinking the Foundation of Physics: What is Unification?
• The Breakthrough We’ve Been Waiting For -- 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUj2TcZSlZc
MANY thanks
Is there a copy or link available of Prof. Ivette Fuentes presentation titled: Rethinking the Foundation of Physics: What is Unification?
• The Breakthrough We’ve Been Waiting For -- 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUj2TcZSlZc
MANY thanks
“Definitions are ephocal. You learn this as a researcher more and more.” You bet. As we struggle with even defining the neural correlates of consciousness (there’s no there there) it seems we will also struggle with the indeterminates of reality and the words used therein. In reading Nick Cook’s Substack serial “The Light Beyond the Mountains”, we come across Hoffman’s Interface theory of reality and Nick proposes the word “rogue” for “icons” that don’t meet our strict materialistic boundaries, what you would call ill-defined. I think you are wise to take a 50,000 foot view as to how we even approach such indeterminates knowing we are nobbled by our imprecise brain. Glad you’re here!
... and when all is said and done, all that often happens is that the wrestlers vaguely gesture at their alleged obscure and ill-defined concepts, utter some words that even they aren't sure make sense, and then think that just because they 'wrestled' — regardless of any sense having been made or not — they thereby act as if some grave, well-defined, huge, gaping, serious problems have been identified in frameworks that don't do this 'wrestling' for various reasons, and encrust their vibes that their wrestling is in fact not nonsense and oh so important and yowza! — in fact they might as well have demonstrated the grave gaps in the non-magical frameworks and the merits of 'wrestling'.
but did they wrestle or just bumble bamboozled, getting high on lush, empty imaginings?
I'm not smart enough to fully understand this, but...
Is it fair to say that objectivity is impossible if each of us are intertwined with what we're claiming to be objective?