Is it maybe that the pursuit of knowledge through science is simply just a "crafty" escape from the unknowable and immeasurable?

Or put differently as a metaphor, "life" could be seen then aa projection. This projection manifests itself as thought and gives rise to the concept of the thinker or individual. Turning off the projection, or seeing beyond it (perhaps even logically) reveals an underlying reality, or the unknowable/immeasurable-the might then be an escape in the form of a never ending pursuit of knowledge for the benefit of future, present, and past mankind.

How to rectify these two possibilities?

Have you ever read The Raw Youth by Dostoyevsky. It's basically where Dostoyevsky goes on to explain how science can't really find answers for the deeper human need.

I really like this guys explanation of what reality is which is just data/information

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hzS...FB4ZqASowjoM0g

I'm still able to engage in "normal" on the subject, but i should point out that you have simply posted another line for an "escape". And so as relavant as the writing on the subject might seem, it might not have the actual relevance it intends to.

Careful or you are gonna get us kicked out!

It is difficult for me to give time to random vids, but i may be able to comment anyways, in that the video attempts to propose a bridge between the two views in the OP. Such a bridge as well as the need for it, again become simply the creation of an "escape"

This would imply a certain difficulty then, that one leaves on the journey towards deep knowledge without considering the possibility the "journey" is really a "self" manifested rabbit hole.

I'll add that I think this has "frozen" many parts of my intellect for many years.
I can't resolve it.

Is it possible that you are doing this:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/False_dilemma

The scientific method is a series of iterative steps and interactions that have self-corrective mechanisms built into its structure (from hypothesis to eventually publication of results to verification by independent parties). Since this is a human pursuit it is still subject to some error - but the self corrections, eventually, eliminate most of that error.

So perhaps you need to define, or quadrant off is probably a better way to state it, what is or what portions of the observable universe are unknowable or immeasurable.

Hint: Planck length?

Turns out i am in fact watching the vid.

Thx Zeno, perhaps ill restate/redefine, but I have some words and concepts to study up on first

He's discussing in the video exactly what you're talking about in the OP. He is one of few physicists actually saying reality as we know it is a "virtual reality" of information and is probabalistic. It steps away from the paradigm that our reality as we know it is objective.

Yes it turns out it was quite related, and added a sort of limit like Zeno suggested might be useful. It's difficult to tell if its just an explanation though or of the speaker actually comes from the view point he gives.

I can appreciate the metaphor that information is what is "there", however he describes differently people processing that information. And this I think is where he steps into his own escape. Can it not be that the processor itself is information. Is it that time is not casul (past then present then future) but rather information, but there is no person separate from the in/out flow of information, but the "person" is itself part of the information as well.

And this is where I think bohm's work becomes useful because in this virtual reality described in the video (although seemingly a metaphor), there then needs to be the discussion of what holds up this virtual reality and whether or not we are thinking an describing in that realm. Bohm describes a language of math that is able to allude to such higher levels and so far reading his works is the only scientific viewpoint that makes any sense to what is natural to me.

And I really think in the context of the video it is difficult to understand how we cannot be relating this to a decentralized ledger based on the consensus mechanism SN proposed and had implemented.

Then we must start to understand we will be able to "simulate' these virtual realities but to a point beyond what we believe is possible right now. And so we aren't really touching on the whole of it I think. But the video seems to imply that a certain consensus mechanism is in fact that guider of our collective reality.

And I can't help but think the cosmos itself is a consensus mechanism consisting for example stars (nodes) continuously sharing information that "physics" beyond quantum theory will shed light on.

But the contrasting view is that things such as "logical fallacy" and studying the cosmos are really just escapes from a truly more objective view point.

And if we want to most describe the unknowable and immeasurable, I guess the best way to describe/see/categorize it, is that which remains when we are no longer in a process of "escaping".

I am quite convinced how ever that to some significant degree these two ideas are in fact mutually exclusive. Although in observation they can seemingly both exist and or not exist, when viewed from the perspective that knowledge is an escape, there cannot really be a unifying knowledge to the two possibilities.

I might for example delve deeply into the ancient hindu vedas and other texts and see a story that perfectly describes the history of the universe and man, and I might think then that is truly to the direction of "truth" about "reality" but it actually might be, no matter how convincing or "correct", that direction of such texts is really a distraction from the intention which perhaps should be "experiencing" truth of what is.

I can't positively say or not, whether it is logical fallacy, but I suspect it is not.

http://wiki.my-big-toe.com/index.php...._Campbell,_Jr.

Faster than watching a video.

It's OK...I enjoyed watching the video.

Also you seem to have linked to the wrong page as there is nothing there.

Someone mean must have erased it.

http://wiki.my-big-toe.com/index.php...._Campbell,_Jr.

Yup interesting, ill prob watch some more of his.

Well he is saying it is different for different people because reality is subjective, not objective. Our reality follows certain rule sets that govern the universe but it is still experienced completely subjectively for every person and most of science can't break away from the objective model. They want it to be an objective reality that can be completely explained and they keep searching for how but they can't put all the pieces together because it's not objective. When they measure matter, they can't get a length or height measurement with any absolute preciseness because the atoms that make up the edges of the matter are all over the place. They can only get estimates and with enough measurements come to an agreed upon conclusion.

So what he is saying is matter isn't fundamental, it's just information. Consciousness (the awareness of not only our own awareness but also whatever information we can perceive) is what is fundamental. Anything that can be perceived as matter is just information manifesting for a conscious experience.

It's my impression from much of the hindu teachings I've seen it says through meditation you learn to perceive the truth of what is for you based on your own experience.

Thank you, this elucidates my point exactly I think. His claim, summarized as "reality is subjective" is itself a "subjection". So to suggest reality is based on ones view, is simply to show one has used their "view" to arrange reality to support it.

I can get behind this to some extent but then "consciousness" isn't fundamental, consciousness is just another subjective view. And what IS fundamental is that which is not subjected on. I think science claims the objective view, but its very roots and existence is a subjection. But it becomes obvious that science cannot then "detect" itself as a subjection (bohmian science can)

The fundament is "seen" through complete "objection", and in that there can be no "objector" because such a division of an objecting objector creates a subjection.

We KNOW this, I'm sure of it, but I think we brush it aside because we do not understand (and so fear) what is beyond it.

As for the hindu texts, we cannot use a past reference to support an argument that transcends causality. The best we can use them is as a counter point to causality/methodology/science. The can show time is not real (perhaps they don't), but they cannot show that time, in the way we generally understand it, is real/valid.