Friday, April 9, 2010

The system and life

In the previous post of mine I had concluded that as long as I am inside the system...a complete understanding of it is impossible....we could be just stones in the mortar of a bigger universe, I thought.
But, one can, without even thinking much, question this statement. Why is it not possible to completely understand the system?....

.....until recently i had been thinking that if X was part of the system that was trying to understand the system then it would ultimately be left with the last piece that is itself 'X' to understand and that it was impossible to understand oneself, hence the knowledge of the system remains incomplete. But that last statement is as good as saying and blindly believing without questioning that "Steve Martin is the next bond hero!!" ......

Now how do I say that it is possible.....well

Say the X in question is divided into infinitesimally small parts (as small as one wants) each part being there are n number of dx say dx1,dx2, dx1 can understand the rest of X-dx1 and dx2 can understand the rest of X-dx2 so the collective integral of all the dx has a complete understanding.... i.e the collective of dxi's understands itself i.e X understands X.....
(Mind you this proof holds true only if one doesn't question the fact that for somebody outside a system it is possible to understand it, questioning this will lead to a different discussion with the same end result that i have here).

so we can now gaily say that It is possible to understand the system.

And now that we have an enlightened X lets ask it "Ex!,hey Ex! do u know why you are in this system?"

EX Bewildered by this question ....will try and find out about the system that put it inside this system.....(realizing that it was part of a bigger system) and extending the same logic as above it understands this completely and gets bewildered again...and the loop goes on.......

Ultimately what this proves is that a complete understanding of the system is not possible and that is because it is infinite and not for any other reason...... (To be continued)


  1. hahahahaha...... i find your post more satirical than anything else. :)
    X understanding itself, I dont completely agree with you. 'Coz there is some dx that is commonly required for understanding everything else... but I agree with you that in some logical sense, the system is in itself an infinite loop... a universe inside a universe inside another and so on.

  2. Wat crap dx is commonly required?....nothing is commonly required...thats the beauty of answer ur doubt id have to teach u calculus first!....

    lol yeah "X understands X"

  3. Never believed that Calculus or logic for that matter is the end-all for any philosophical argument!

    For example, consider this equation.. 1 Pink Elephant + 1 Pink Elephant = 2 Pink Elephants.. It is logically correct.. But then we all know that Pink Elephants do not exist.. Logic cannot always be used by itself..

  4. Now regarding the blog review! :D

    The blog looks simple but beautiful (if i could use that word).. Background looks great, but i imagined that you would keep something related to the title of your blog as a background - rocks, stones and pebbles.. There are lots of awesome rock and pebble pics out there on the net.. Having a background related to your blog's title/content always helps!!

    You've got a good selection of widgets but maybe a few more widgets will not do any harm.. The blog is loading fast without any problems right now, so you can still add good widgets without any hindrances.. Widgets help increase the time spent by readers on your blog..

    Lastly, Ive never been a great fan of 2 column templates.. A 3 column template with a couple more widgets (useful ones) would look awesome.. Id give this a 7/10 :P

  5. Ah sammy that logic of urs has a flaw...
    u said

    1 pink ele +1 pink ele = 2 pink ele

    and then u said there is no pink ele ...its like saying

    0 x 1 =0 x 100

    cancel 0 on both sides and 1 = 100 but that isnt correct... ur assumption shud have come first.....

    THere are no pink elephants

    now you cannot say

    1 pink ele +1 pink ele = 2 pink ele

    btw let me make it clear now...any philosophical/logical argument is based on mathematical axiomatic structure.....they function with in themselves...i dont exactly understand what u mena by functioning by themselves...

  6. thanks for the review!

    hmmm i was thinking abt that 2 column format i was in two minds actually but some how this one gave it some completness which i am unable to pin point...

    7/10 bugger!
    eh wat do u know abt blogs! :P

  7. You didnt get what i was saying re.. Let me repeat myself.. I said logically 1 + 1 pink eles = 2 pink eles.. Logically it IS true.. But actually, we know pink eles dont exist.. Logic is blind, It needs something to guide it along, otherwise it becomes deluded.. Somethings in life defy logic..

    PS: And yes, Im a noob blogger :P

  8. DUDE u made the same mistake again say first ur assumptions....... pink eles dont exist!!

    now u cant say anything that involves pink ele

    and about things in life that defy logic name them...and as i said we have to make axiomatic(or as u put it guide) assumptions for logic to survive....

    .... and again ....about those things that u say defy logic believe me its very difficult find some....there are a few but they exist only because our understanding is the limiting constraint as i said in the post the system is infinite to understand.....what many ppl believed was beyond logic until a few hundred years ago is just common place now...and its going to be the same in the future ... and i am not talking about technology & stuff(though they form a major part) i am just talking about understanding of stuff in general nature stuff that happens around us stuff that is around us both materialistic and other wise..... if something like non-materialistic does really exist!!