| Another way we reconcile our finiteness is by attempting to make the world finite as well, but only in a different way. By stereotyping and approximation we are able to disregard the infinite complexity of the parts of a system and concentrate on the whole. By finding out, with the best approximations, what the mean of an attribute of the parts is, by stereotyping them and stripping them of their individuality so that what is left is a group of parts whose individual attributes are unknown yet patterns within the group of them are visible, an even closer approximation of the whole made up of the parts is possible. This approximation can then be applied to the next level to give us an even better approximation, and so on. The more we do this, and the more the data fit our approximations, the less we remember our first approximation, the one which was the poorest. This system of approximation on different levels allows us to know with increasing levels of probability outcomes and patterns within the higher levels of the hierarchy. And yet the key word here is probability, for through this type of logical analysis of an infinite number of hierarchical levels can yield only approximation and never absolute truth. It can allow us to fit a predicted and probable pattern to infinite possiblities, yet that pattern can never cover the entire breadth of situations possible. To do so would require complete knowledge of every individual on every level of the hierarchy, which in an infinite world is impossible. Or, to do so would require faith, belief that your pattern could fit all possible outcomes and does predict every possible situation. Does this hierarchical analysis itself require some measure of faith though? Let us see. The one premise which it does require is that there is no end to the four dimensions. It requires an infinite world, a world with no smallest particle or largest conglomerate. This most certainly requires faith, for the concept in and of itself can not be determined, is the supreme definition of indeterminability. We can only apply reason to this problem, our species' only way to compare probabilities, and constantly remember to ask ourselves whether our logic still holds true. Can we logically prove infinity? I think not, we can only compare it to its opposing theories. Let us simplify and say that there are two possibilities, an infinite world or one with a smallest and largest particle. We have only limited levels to study these two possibilities, so let us begin at the bottom, the level of particle physics. At the current moment in the field it has been determined that the atom is made up of nuclei, and electrons, that nuclei are made up of neutrons and protons, which are made up of quarks, and that quarks are made up of some indeterminable particle which is the smallest particle experimentally "seen". Yet many in the field hypothesize that there is something smaller. This hypothesis is grounded in the unreconcilled interconversion of matter into energy shown through Einstein's law of conservation of mass and energy. This would require that both matter and energy are composed of similar parts, for one thing can not simply become another. So if we are to believe the hypothesis that there is a smallest particle it would have to be below this point. To do so, I believe, would be incongruent with what we know, which is that nothing we have seen before is the end point of decreasing size. This fact , which is all that we can know from experience alone, is the only true experimental fact to base reason on. So again we are met with a situation which requires faith. For the concept of infinity denotes the fact that it cannot be proven. We can never truly rid ourselves of this need of faith, and because we cannot no definite truths can be determined from our perceptions or experimental data. Approximation is the best that we can do, and through an increased knowledge of the lower levels of the hierarchy we can achieve better and better approximation, know with greater and greater probabilities whether our hypotheses are correct. Is this enough though? How does a concept like this affect us? It is evident that with good approximations we can produce patterns which fit the infinite possibilities sufficient enough for normal living. Physics is a good example of this. Newtonian physics is sufficient for most real world calculations. It serves it's purpose well so long as you stay away from extremely small or large values. But to have absolute faith in the system is wrong, as Einstein has shown us. And to have faith in physics of special relativity is also incorrect, for as we approach the quantum level the laws break down. The complexity increases at the quantum level, and more precise labeling of the forces acting upon smaller particles need to be applied. We only find this increased complexity when we observe this lower level carefully, for although the forces acting on the quantum level are constantly acting in a manner we have yet to fully understand, a generalization of the way they are acting is sufficient enough to know how the wholes that they are parts of will act. How do we, the Homo sapiens, fit into this hierarchical pattern though? It is evident that our physical make up is derived from the same system. As our cells differentiate from conception our hierarchy already begins taking shape. We are composed of different organs, which are composed of different tissues, which are made up of distinctly different cells. At the cellular level we are still composed of a hierarchical system. Our blood vessels differentiate in a fractal pattern too complex to be encoded for specifically in our genes, so a random hierarchical pattern determines their distribution. The same can be seen in the distribution of our neural system. The brain itself, which is very dependent upon the distances and locations of specific regions seems to develop nearly identical in individuals when all we are looking at is regions, but at the cellular level the neurons seem to be set up again in a random fractal pattern too complex to be laid out in our genes. Yes we, like all other forms of life, are designed in the same hierarchical pattern as inorganic matter. Can this same hierarchical pattern be used to describe our thought process, our seemingly innate ability to reason? It would appear so. From our speech patterns (organized first into phonemes, then syllables, then words, then phrases, then sentences, and so on) to our ability rationalize through stereotyping and approximation. But it appears that some areas of our thoughts we do not allow to be set up with reason. Some areas we choose to leave ambiguous. Is this a flaw in our thought process or a required attribute. We now come to a problem, that of the conflict of subjectivity and objectivity. What do these terms truly mean? Subjectivity implies that we bring some internal bias into our judgments by letting our attributes blend with our objects attributes when describing the object. Objectivity would be a description of our objects attributes only. Through our sensual perceptions is there any way in which we could be truly objective. To truly describe something we must receive the data about it from one of our senses, that data then gets compared with data we have received before and in effect we are describing not the object but rather what we were able to associate the data received from it to. This means that every statement that we make is completely subjective to that which we have perceived before, and how well of an approximation this previously perceived data is of the actual object. So objectivity on an individual level can never be absolutely attained. To do so would require that we objectively perceive all that affects our object, the entire world including ourselves and our own perceptions of the object. |