magine that we manage to put two fundamental particles in an isolated system we know everything about, and that we're sure nothing else influences the system, would it be possible that we still could not predict their behavior? We would have all the data we need, but it just wouldn't make sense to us, it would appear random. — Skalidris

The basic wrong assumption here is that knowledge is information accumulation rather than information discard. The world is complex. And so the mind seeks to simplify.

That is how science works. It extracts the measurement minimising laws of nature. General equations that can make good enough predictions employing the fewest data points.

One must always make some measurement. But the world is a noisy place. The art is discarding as much of that noise as possible so as to be only left with a high quality signal.

We turn it into an act of us listening for a message to be whispered in our ears. Of all the things going on in some real world system, what is the word we've been waiting for that tells us everything we need to know.

Minds are founded on habits. The ability to act in complex functional ways having reduced our perceived environment to some triggering event. We learn to ignore everything about the world except what tells us what we immediately ought to be doing. A light turns green and so we go.

To me, that scenario is possible because our mind is limited by its building blocks. For example, logic connectors like "and" cannot be broken down into something else. — Skalidris

Logic is a good example of how minds abstract in this fashion. We reduce what we need to know by discounting all else that might lie in-between. Reality becomes for us some atomistic set of switches. If/then causal events. The power of logic is in how much that is vague, ambiguous, too detailed, too broad, too uncertain, too unstable, too irrelevant, too random, etc, etc, is simply ruled out in axiomatic fashion.

And that extreme idealism can also become its defect if you believe in inquiring more deeply into the "reality" of nature – a view a little less dominated by the manic efficiency of the information-discarding and response-automating logical mindset.

That's how science works now, because we can't perfectly isolate the phenomena we're studying, and even if we were, there would still be uncertainties because we don't have perfect knowledge of every single particle in the experiment. So yes, we would need to simplify and discard some data points.

But in my thought experiment, we have everything: there is no noise, all the information is relevant because it's an isolated system and the particles are the most fundamental.

In my opinion, that's an impossible situation, but I thought about this because I think even then, we still might not be able to find a solution because our logic is limited.

in my thought experiment, we have everything: there is no noise, all the information is relevant because it's an isolated system and the particles are the most fundamental.

In my opinion, that's an impossible situation, but I thought about this because I think even then, we still might not be able to find a solution because our logic is limited. — Skalidris

That is easily answered. We have all the information we need to find the value of the nth digit of pi, and it can be discovered with complete certainty. But since it is an infinite series, there is no limit to the information we can extract from the running of the algorithm and tomorrow we will find more than we have today.

Even such a simple digital program can produce an output that cannot be predicted more easily than by running the program. This exactly exemplifies your isolated system... We have deliberately created a machine that we can treat as an isolated system about which we have complete knowledge, and we still cannot compute the results because it is a computer itself.

The basic wrong assumption here is that knowledge is information accumulation rather than information discard. The world is complex. And so the mind seeks to simplify.

That is how science works. It extracts the measurement minimising laws of nature. General equations that can make good enough predictions employing the fewest data points. — apokrisis

That was one of my main technical jobs as an environmental engineer - to take a large number of data points and boil it all down to a few parameters to use for calculations and computer models. That's really what statistics is all about.

But in my thought experiment, we have everything: there is no noise, all the information is relevant because it's an isolated system and the particles are the most fundamental. — Skalidris

This is not and never will be possible in even the simplest system. There is no place to hide from the noise and we will never not have to decide for ourselves what is signal and what isn't.

I'm currently reading "Behind the Mirror" by Konrad Lorenz, which is all about just this issue. I'm just a little way in, but I think you might find it interesting. An example:

The simple answer is that the system of sense organs and nerves that enables living things to survive and orientate themselves in the outer world has evolved phylogenetically through confrontation with an adaptation to that form of reality which we experience as phenomenal space. This system thus exists a priori to the extent that it is present before the individual experiences anything, and must be present if experience is to be possible. But its function is also historically evolved and in this respect not a priori. — Konrad Lorenz - Behind the Mirror

T Clark,
You were correct, quite interesting. Any other examples or expansions on this or other rationales of how/why reality is perceived/perceiveable in a particular way, in Lorenz's book?
One question ( not the only one though) that springs to mind, in keeping with the speculative part of this OP, is: Might living things have extra senses that are currently not recognized but influence the experience of everything?
interested smile

Imagine a fluid or graphene intelligence, how would they conceptualize the world? And who would be right, them or us? This inevitably leads to an epistemic relativism.
This states that we can recognize the world within our modality, but not in its 'objective' modality. For this we would need a 'neutral' observer from outside - something like God, who could recognize all subjective worlds.
Instrumentally we could therefore recognize the world step by step, but not epistemologically.

the tools we can create with it — Skalidris

Are they not just an extension of mind, and therefore, within its limitations? If the AI communicates in anything other than a human language, then I think, we can start talking beyond the limitations of human mind.

And I don't mean invents a new mathematics or a new language with its own alphabet and grammar. We too can do that. It's within the limits of human mind.

conceptually, why would people think that our mind happens to have the right tools to understand the universe? — Skalidris

I agree. All we do with our so called scientific knowledge is fit bits and pieces of the universe into a format of "our" (actually, its) own construction. We prize empericism, but it pretends to conclude truths for Mind when they are confirmed by nature; when really, they are constructing so called truths about nature and accepting the ones that fit within the structures of mind. It's one thing to say water is made up of hydrogen and oxygen atoms, but what does nature think about atoms, let alone hydrogen? We have no way of knowing because both thinking and knowing are things within the limitations of mind, and nature is way out of its league. So I agree. Not only what you said, but it's almost "embarrassing" that we think we're actually discovering as opposed to making and believing. Hopefully no one else is watching.

But I do think all of that shouldn't diminish science. That we can make nature fit within our structures and serve functions is not embarrassing. We should just admire science for what it is.

Any other examples or expansions on this or other rationales of how/why reality is perceived/perceiveable in a particular way, in Lorenz's book? — kazan

First off, I only saw this post by accident. If you want me to respond to your post, you need to tag me.

Any other examples or expansions on this or other rationales of how/why reality is perceived/perceiveable in a particular way, in Lorenz's book? — kazan

Sorry, I pushed “post comment” by mistake and posted it before I was ready. Lorenz’s book has lots of examples, but it would make more sense for you to look at them rather than me to try to lay them out.

keeping with the speculative part of this OP, is: Might living things have extra senses that are currently not recognized but influence the experience of everything? — kazan

There’s nothing in the book that relates to that.

@T Clark,
Thanks for your patience regards posting comments. Not the strongest point.
Will take your advise re: "...you to look at them". Thanks.

Will take your advise re: "...you to look at them" — kazan

Here’s a link to Lorenz's "Kant's Doctrine of the A Priori in the Light of Contemporary Biology." It’s much shorter than the book I mentioned and covers the same general subject.

https://archive.org/details/KantsDoctrineOfTheAPrioriInTheLightOfContemporaryBiologyKonradLorenz

@T Clark'
Thanks. Will read it.
For now a tired smile

People often seem to think that even if the human mind is limited, the tools we can create with it (AI for example) can overcome any limitations if we have enough time. And therefore they reach the conclusion that we could understand the whole universe. — Skalidris

I have come to this conclusion: in principle, the whole of the universe can be understood to an almost god-like degree. Mankind, now in its present stage of evolution, is not yet capable of this feat. It is evident that we have capacities today that we did not have in the past, and we will have capacities in the future that we do not have today.

Imagine that we manage to put two fundamental particles in an isolated system we know everything about, and that we're sure nothing else influences the system, would it be possible that we still could not predict their behavior? — Skalidris

I think we would be able to predict the behavior.

We would have all the data we need, but it just wouldn't make sense to us, it would appear random. — Skalidris

I do not believe in true randomness. What we call random is simply a reference to what we do not know or understand. It is our lack of knowledge or understanding of some element or aspect of a system that makes it appear random to us. If we had all the necessary data, any apparent randomness in the system would resolve into a pattern.

However we try to twist our notion of space, time, etc, even when we try it with math and AI, it still wouldn't be enough to predict the behavior of the particles with 100% certainty. — Skalidris

Why not? Is it because we are constantly told about Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, and that randomness is inherent in the universe? If one believes in true randomness, then one can't believe in a truly logical universe. And if one doesn't believe in a logical universe, then there is really nothing to say about anything, for no stable standard of understanding would be possible.

For example, logic connectors like "and" cannot be broken down into something else. We could build an alternative version of "and" that also includes an "or" possibility like with the states of particles in quantum physics, but even that new notion is built with our building blocks "and" and "or". There's no escaping it, we can't imagine a logic that's made without these notions. — Skalidris

Yes exactly. This is why logic is the most fundamental thing we know, more fundamental then even quantum mechanics and mathematics. Nothing can make sense without logic.

But what's the probability that these notions that were developed through evolution are a good match for the understanding of the whole universe? They're a good adaptation to understand the environment on earth that we have access to, but that's just a tiny fraction of the universe, so what are the odds that these structures in our brain would happen to be a good tool to understand a completely different environment? — Skalidris

Well, it is apparent to me that we have already begun to understand our universe with the brains we currently have now, and i don't see any reason why this trajectory will not continue. Every tiny fraction of the universe partakes from the same fundamental logic that everything else does or it doesn't exist. I would say that the probability is 100%.

I think it's arrogant for humans to think that somehow, the universe follows the same logic as the logic in our mind. — Skalidris

It's not arrogant because it's the other way around. It is our minds that follow the logic of the universe.

And I also find it ridiculous that people think anything can happen thanks to AI, that whatever we can't build, AI can with enough time, as if it was magical. — Skalidris

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C. Clarke

In the end it's all about combinaisons: AI can make combinations of things, but it cannot invent something that isn't a combination of the data it gathered. It's like with our imagination, we can't invent something totally new that isn't a combination of known things. — Skalidris

How is the universe or evolution any different in this regard? AI, like our imagination, works by combining existing data in new ways. This is similar to how the universe and evolution operate, creating new things from combinations of pre-existing elements.

Well, it is apparent to me that we have already begun to understand our universe with the brains we currently have now, and i don't see any reason why this trajectory will not continue. — punos

What trajectory? The one where we’ll keep on understanding the universe better and better? Sure, I agree, our knowledge will most likely keep on extending. But that doesn’t mean we’ll able to reach perfect knowledge. In many fields, the gain of knowledge ends up looking like a logarithmic curve: we discover something and then make a lot of new theories, and then we keep on trying to discover more but the progress is heavily slowed down (like Quantum mechanics).

What’s even more striking is that uncertainty is everywhere. The only fields that allow for a perfect certainty are fields that we created, not fields that aim at the understanding of the universe and depend on the state of the environment studied. For example, many mathematical proofs can be “perfect” meaning that we are 100% sure of them, in all context. But the fact that water boils at a 100 degrees is not a certainty: it’s not 100.0000000 degrees, the decimals are uncertain, also, it’s impossible to make perfect assessment of the conditions in the environment studied (pressure,…), there are uncertainties on every measure we take.

Every tiny fraction of the universe partakes from the same fundamental logic that everything else does or it doesn't exist. I would say that the probability is 100%. — punos

Why would it not exist if it doesn’t follow the same fundamental logic?
Is it 100% because of the trajectory? Because that’s not mathematically true, as I explained with the log curve, there can be a limit, even if our knowledge keeps on increasing.

It's not arrogant because it's the other way around. It is our minds that follow the logic of the universe. — punos

It aims to follow the “logic” of the universe through trials and errors (evolution), huge difference.
Evolution is far from perfect, and just because concepts in our mind were “kept” because they allowed for an understanding of our environment and gave us an advantage for survival doesn’t mean they are the best tools we could have.

And evolution is driven by the environment we’re living in. So theoretically, if we wanted to have the best tool for understanding the whole universe, we would need to live in the whole universe… And assuming it is infinitely small and infinitely big and that everything is causal, its simply impossible. And if it is immensely big and small but limited, our little planet earth still seems like a tiny drop in the ocean, it seems ridiculous to assume that we could predict such huge things that are happening far from our bubble when we “got created” through evolution from what was happening inside the bubble.

So if you assume that we could “live” in the entire universe (which would imply that the universe is not infinite), let evolution run its course for as much time as “needed”, where we would have “tiny” “humans” that would explore the quantum world and huge humans to explore the galaxies, AND that all these intelligent species could still communicate with each other to achieve a perfect understanding of everything… There’s already a problem with that last part because the basic tools these species would have would most likely be drastically different from each other (like we would use our logic, tiny humans would use some type of quantum logic, etc), which would make communication impossible…

What trajectory? The one where we’ll keep on understanding the universe better and better? Sure, I agree, our knowledge will most likely keep on extending. But that doesn’t mean we’ll able to reach perfect knowledge. — Skalidris

We are still an imperfect species, and our knowledge of things will remain imperfect for that reason. I never said that we would reach a state of perfect knowledge, just that knowledge would increase. So I do agree with you in this respect, but even so, we do not need perfect knowledge (whatever that means). I don't really think in terms of perfection, just progress, and if this progress somehow ends in perfection in the far far future then so be it. Perfection means to 'do completely', and so humanity along with the universe itself is still in an incomplete state, evolving, aiming imperfectly for perfection.

the fact that water boils at a 100 degrees is not a certainty: it’s not 100.0000000 degrees, the decimals are uncertain, also, it’s impossible to make perfect assessment of the conditions in the environment studied (pressure,…), there are uncertainties on every measure we take. — Skalidris

Yes, measurements are not perfect, but consider a marksman shooting at a target from a great distance. If the marksman hits the bullseye could that be called a perfect shot. Practically it is. Does the bullet need to hit the exact atomic center of the bullseye for it to be considered perfect? Who cares, the result is the same.

Why would it not exist if it doesn’t follow the same fundamental logic?
Is it 100% because of the trajectory? Because that’s not mathematically true, as I explained with the log curve, there can be a limit, even if our knowledge keeps on increasing. — Skalidris

There is one logic, but with two sides: an "active" one and a "passive" one. The human perspective of logic is "passive" in the sense that we use it to predict some future state from a present or past state, and it's the only way anything can be known or understood by us. From the perspective of the universe itself, logic is "active," and it determines what happens and what cannot happen in the universe. The task of human intelligence (or intelligence in general) is to match the right mental logical structure to the actual one in reality. Our inability to understand certain things or to know them completely is a symptom of our imperfect use of logic. People do not use logic correctly or consistently, and this is the source of our uncertainty.

We may not be capable of making perfect measurements, but i do believe in principle that we can be capable of using perfect logic if and when we learn how to use it correctly and consistently. Incidentally i don't think humans will reach this apex understanding of applied logic because of our current nascent state, but we are an integral part of that journey. A child cannot fathom what he will understand as an adult, and in the same way, humanity cannot fathom now what it will understand in the future. Mankind, in my view, is just a stepping stone to a higher form of intelligence. AI is the next step in that trajectory, and it will use a "more perfect" logic than we do without the excessive bias, and emotionalism that we value so much as humans.

It aims to follow the “logic” of the universe through trials and errors (evolution), huge difference.
Evolution is far from perfect, and just because concepts in our mind were “kept” because they allowed for an understanding of our environment and gave us an advantage for survival doesn’t mean they are the best tools we could have. — Skalidris

If evolution were "perfect," then we would not even have a universe. The reason the universe exists in the first place is because the perfect symmetry from which it came broke, and we live in that broken symmetry. Everything evolution does is aimed at restoring that perfection of symmetry, and humans are part and parcel of that aim, whether we know it or not. Evolution itself evolves, and when it started, it was blind and dumb, trying everything. Every time it hit on some partial solution, it held on to it as information instantiated in some form of matter and energy configuration (such as in DNA). As evolution itself evolves, it forms senses with which it can see and knowledge (information) it can apply to further its great work.

it seems ridiculous to assume that we could predict such huge things that are happening far from our bubble when we “got created” through evolution from what was happening inside the bubble. — Skalidris

How are we able to track the stars, and planets in the sky? How are we able to predict the trajectories, and processes that happen inside certain celestial bodies with varying degrees of certainty. We are even able to see the future state of the Andromeda galaxy intersecting our own billions of years in the future. We can detect and ascertain the direction of "dark flow" in the universe where entire galactic clusters are moving away from a "great repeller", and towards a "great attractor". We have just begun to understand things, but we are not done yet. It is a work in progress. These things are way outside our apparent environmental bubble, and yet..

the basic tools these species would have would most likely be drastically different from each other (like we would use our logic, tiny humans would use some type of quantum logic, etc), which would make communication impossible… — Skalidris

I believe there is only one logic (Logos). There is no little logic or big logic; it's all the same logic. "Active" universal logic is consistent, just as the laws of physics are the same everywhere in the universe. Yes, even inside a black hole where it is thought that the laws of physics break down. It doesn't, it's simply a different logical structure in that case and is so in other cases as well. Consider, for example, the Pauli exclusion principle, which states that a fermionic particle cannot occupy the same state as another particle. The simple logic of this principle is "one particle OR the other in one state." Particles that can occupy the same state, such as bosons, can share a state with another particle. The simple logic of this is "one particle AND the other in one state." Mathematics is also a universal language that any sufficiently intelligent species would understand and be able to use to communicate with any other species that understands the language of logic and mathematics.

it still wouldn't be enough to predict the behavior of the particles with 100% certainty — Skalidris

That is already true because the uncertainty principle states that we cannot know both the position and speed of a particle with perfect accuracy. This is not a limitation of technology, it is impossible "in principle". I can give you a source but the internet gives plenty details.

To me, that scenario is possible because our mind is limited by its building blocks. — Skalidris

That is true, and one of the core principles of my own little theory as well. My first article here is about fundamental versus conceptual reality. ( I thought it was a good idea to start that article with Kant, but the discussion went sideways because everybody has his own interpretation/understanding of Kant and they all tried to teach me a lesson. I am planning a follow up on this article. So I am happy with your 'bottom up' approach to philosophy )

I think it's arrogant for humans to think that somehow, the universe follows the same logic as the logic in our mind. — Skalidris

True. 100% agree

The basic wrong assumption here is that knowledge is information accumulation rather than information discard. — apokrisis

I don't see Skalidris makes that assumption, he just gives another way to tell the opposite, that even IF you knew everything, you could not predict it.

We have all the information we need to find the value of the nth digit of pi, and it can be discovered with complete certainty. But since it is an infinite series, there is no limit to the information we can extract from the running of the algorithm and tomorrow we will find more than we have today. — unenlightened

That's a good point also.

ENOAH about AI:

Are they not just an extension of mind, and therefore, within its limitations? If the AI communicates in anything other than a human language, then I think, we can start talking beyond the limitations of human mind. — ENOAH

What we can do, and we are doing this on a limited basis in neural nets already, is create the conditions for intelligence to "emerge". That is the key aspect of my approach, to "get out of the way" as humans, so to speak, and let the thing evolve/emerge by itself. Finding these conditions is not unthinkable, and my idea is to let computers develop their own "language" or "representation code".

Having said all this, I do NOT believe an AI will understand the universe in its totality. But it might form its own concepts in a different way than ours. And it can have a higher speed/bandwidth/memory. So I expect it to become more intelligent than us.

Also, there is another limitation of the human mind, and that is that it is built on top of an animal brain that tries to survive. Causing a lot of trouble. A lot more to say on this, and a lot of open questions as well : will not having this animal brain make an AI naturally friendly or not?

my idea is to let computers develop their own "language" or "representation code". — Carlo Roosen

I agree that doing so is the only way for the 'end product' to stand any chance of being anything but an extension of human Mind.

will not having this animal brain make an AI naturally friendly or not? — Carlo Roosen

Unless 'we' / 'it' evolves a 'way' to feel; tge way we do organically; it will not be authentically friendly. It will only act in ways which function best for purpose. Friendliness may be conditioned for, say, an AI functioning as a house mate, but it would lack the organic bond humans presumably feel

Yes and I should reformulate that. My real question is, would it work in humanities best interest or would it go after its own interest. I do think it will do the first, but the consequences of building an 'evil' or even just 'disruptive' computer with super-human intelligence is something nobody wants. And we cannot just assume it will be nice to us.

or would it go after its own interest — Carlo Roosen

I respectfully submit that without organic feelings or some other unimaginable authentic reward system, it will not evolve its own interests, but will always carry out its presumably programmed function. The risk I think is less in AI pursuing self interest (the self even over rated in humans, a whole other topic) than flawed programming or unchecked evolution (both of which bring us book to square one, which is that AI might be ineludibly always and only an extension of Mind, a cultural artifacts, and never a real Other.

in principle, the whole of the universe can be understood to an almost god-like degree. Mankind, now in its present stage of evolution, is not yet capable of this feat. — punos

Have you considered that all of understanding is actually constructing, and that there is no end to make-beleve? I'm not denying the functional success, what we'd point to as accuracy, even empirical certainty in some of our more daring constructions. But at the end of the day there is no understanding the universe. We are only constructing a [model of the] universe.

Though not inspired by him, I think I'm Blake was on to something, in spite of whatever might have been his intentions. The only way to access infinity is all at once, as if by holding it in the palm of your hands. You cannot do that by the slow and arduous process of building a comprehensive understanding. You can only do that by being that organic particular of the whole universe, like each cell carries the genome.

Have you considered that all of understanding is actually constructing, and that there is no end to make-beleve? I'm not denying the functional success, what we'd point to as accuracy, even empirical certainty in some of our more daring constructions. But at the end of the day there is no understanding the universe. We are only constructing a [model of the] universe. — ENOAH

Yes, but not only is all understanding 'constructing', but any reality (real or false) is also a construction. Every reality is constructed, and thus to understand reality, one must first deconstruct it and then reconstruct it (a reductive/constructive process, or 'solve et coagula'). In the process, one's understanding emerges by virtue of using the same method that nature herself uses to create. What does it mean to understand the substance and structure of a reality? My answer is: to know the organization of substance, its contingencies, and its effects. Substance is the foundation upon which one stands, and to know that is to understand.

Indeed, our constructed models of the universe or its components are still presently imperfect, or somehow inadequate. They used to be less accurate or even completely wrong when it came to predictive results, but they have only improved since the whole enterprise began. The more accurate a model is, the more it demonstrates our understanding, and conversely the less accurate it is, the less we understand. Prediction serves as the litmus test, for if it were not this, what would our models be good for? What else can understanding be?

The only way to access infinity is all at once, as if by holding it in the palm of your hands. You cannot do that by the slow and arduous process of building a comprehensive understanding. — ENOAH

Through a slow and arduous process, a meta-understanding begins to form, eventually resolving into one singular overarching pattern repeated at all scales. The universe is made of patterns within patterns, much like a fractal. To understand infinity or eternity, it is not necessary to examine, for example, every number in the number line sequentially until infinity; all one needs to know is the simple concept of 0+1=x, and x+1=2, etc. Understanding or knowing this alone is sufficient to allow one to comprehend infinity at once in one singular and finite thought.

The easier part, in my opinion, is understanding the big patterns (they seem to pop out), but more difficult still is understanding the smaller patterns that change and mutate by varying rules that themselves also mutate at different emergent layers of reality.

If i or you sire a child, i can tell you with high probability that it will either be a human boy or a girl (not something else), and it will have a head, two arms, and two legs. These are general patterns in our DNA, but the little differences in the patterns are harder to predict, though not impossible in principle. All operating under one principle, one function that becomes mutable within higher levels of complexity or emergence.

You can only do that by being that organic particular of the whole universe, like each cell carries the genome. — ENOAH

Both you and i are already that. We contain within us fundamental particles, atoms, molecules, cells, tissues, organs, and organ systems. We are embedded in a geological and planetary environment orbiting a star, and we are all part of a society that belongs to a global civilization. We have it all inside us, like a treasure trove of nature's wisdom. We have a mind inside a brain that, up to this moment in the 'big history' of the universe, is the pinnacle of nature's work. This is a great work of which you, i, everyone, and everything is an integral part, whether we know it yet or not.

But of course that's just what i think. If you think you have a better way then by all means... place your bets.

place your bet. — punos

I bet that everything you said, I can easily agree with, but constructed, or constructed then deconstructed then reconstructed, you and I are not getting at the substance of the universe, just playing with ideas about it; if one is skillful, the ideas function and we believe them to be reality; but they were structured by ideas, and remain ideas.

you and I are not getting at the substance of the universe — ENOAH

It's quite easy in most cases to determine the substance of an emergent layer of reality. For example, the substance of a cell is the molecule. Molecules operate in the molecular realm, a reality with its own set of rules that are distinct from, yet contingent upon, those of the atomic realm. Molecular organization and intelligence inherit all the logic of the atomic realm, with additional modifications dependent on the novel forms produced at that level.

Form determines function, and function, in turn, influences form. This process can continue indefinitely, producing new forms that generate more new functions. Each consecutive layer has more complexity, which allows for greater and more versatile intelligence and possibilities.

These substances are easy for us to detect with our current level of technological development. However, the layers below the atomic, and more specifically below the quantum layer, are much murkier, making it difficult to determine those substances. Ultimately, there is only one fundamental substance and one quality with the potential for infinite creativity and complexity.

The cell stands on the substance we call molecules, the molecule stands on the substance we call atoms, etc.

just playing with ideas about it; if one is skillful, the ideas function and we believe them to be reality; but they were structured by ideas, and remain ideas. — ENOAH

I never expected my or anyone's understanding of anything to be more or less than an idea. What were you expecting 'understanding' to be? Some sort of material object? All we have are ideas, perceptions, and experiences, and one should not think to understand something by defining it as "what it is" except to define it as "what it does" and whether it works in our favor.

A bad idea is simply a bad function, while a good idea is a good function. Remember that the point of intelligence and understanding is to have a framework for prediction. An organism's ability to accurately predict a future state from a known past or present state is the most useful trait for effective survival.

It's quite easy in most cases to determine the substance of an emergent layer of reality. For example, the substance of a cell is the molecule. — punos

Yes, I understand; but you are DaVinci having convinced me regarding the face of Mona Lisa. Still, I cannot access the real her by your art; you can paint the substance of her face, and give me even the best I can possibly get in our world of painting pictures of reality. But only seeing Mona Lisa's naked face with my naked eyes will have given me any access go her face which is real. Pardon the presentation by analogy; on the other hand, the argument is that, in some sense, all of our knowledge is by 'analogy.'

As far as scientific or philosophical explanations of a cell or the universe go, I have no disagreement with what you say. Philosophically, maybe an intelligence can 'understand' the universe; as long as if by 'understand' we mean paint a perfect picture. In understanding, a picture is inevitably as far as we can get.

But only seeing Mona Lisa's naked face with my naked eyes will have given me any access go her face which is real. — ENOAH

Even when you look at the naked face of Mona Lisa with your very own eyes, all you get is a representation in your mind. A mental picture, a painting in the mind is all you will have of her. It remains as you said earlier, an idea, and you still won't have her like you want to have her. The only difference you would have with a personal meeting with Mona Lisa is that you will have additional information about her voice, her personality, how she walks, etc.. And sure it will just make the painting in your head of her more accurate.

I too think we agree sufficiently enough.

I do have ideas (or, as you might put it, "playing with ideas") about the ultimate substance of the universe. However, I'm not done sculpting the concept in a way that i feel others would understand effectively. I hope to finish that project soon, and then i'll present it in full.

Even when you look at the naked face of Mona Lisa with your very own eyes — punos

Yes, the very subject of my analogy. We cannot know the external universe through our minds. We can only be the so called external universe as our bodies.

I'm not done sculpting — punos

I would consider myself fortunate if I happen to be there to see it; but I note, magnificent as I'm sure tge sculpture will be, it will be a sculpture.