(What the wordz mean)
thefreedictionary.com/gestalt
thefreedictionary.com/pleomorphic
thefreedictionary.com/dependent
Let’s talk about why some instances of reality are connected or attached to others.
Dependant motion, would most likely be a format of motion – which could only exist when involved with a specific, other instance.
During quantum entanglements, I’ve guessed that an instance becomes “incomplete” – or more “complete” – after being altered by another instance. The only reason why each quantum entangled instance’s motion is dependent upon the other which it is entangled with – is due to each being incomplete without the other. Their format of motion requires more than just one instance. It is a composite motion.
Whether you call this motion a particle or a wave, I don’t care. It seems more like a combination of geometry and force, to me.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement
One could say that instances are “stuck together”, or “bonded”, but this may just be a mental reformatting of information for the interpretor, in the same way as words and reality are not each other. Thoughts and words are formats of symbolism.
In this same way, opinions about instance are symbolic. It is still mere pattern recognition, and an effort towards systemic prediction, eventually, leading to a sort of engineering. Human ontology has always been like this.
If behavior of quantum instance is dependent upon situation, and situation can always be unique, for example, then it will be unpredictable, and will not be comprehended very well by human comprehension formats. Instead, the whole, gestalt process of realty is seen as individual pieces, because the mind classifies each part, in order to focus upon, and then predict – one tiny situation at a time.
In the same way that solid matter can become light and heat energies, etc, I’ve estimated that almost anything can become anything else, and it is all a question – not of what instance itself “is”, but a question of what situation instance “is” “within”.
Matter is not merely made of light, heat, and other such things… is it? Is it really? Or, is motion just in a certain situation?
If the “big bang”, for example, was just allot of hydrogen, or whatever, then how would one explain how all of the elements came into existence? I’m guessing that, again, motion can exist in any format, and format is situation, which is seen as behavior, or class.
If I were to consider reality to be a whole, completely interconnected and interdependent situation of instance, I may not actually wish to think about what is “cause” and what is “effect”, as I do not dualisticly separate a whole process into supposed parts.
If separateness and individuality is purely a subjective fantasy, based upon the situation of finite, incomplete understanding – leading to a mental compensation for that incompleteness, known as classification and categorization, then, when wondering how to fully understand reality, is this a question of how each part works, or should one instead do work upon that which is doing the understanding and questioning? (The brain itself.)
The entire paradigm of knowledge – is only human. It is that of symbolism, quantification, prediction, form, and deconstruction…? How can this one mental system, “know” “reality”? “Truth” is that which brings result. Despite one gaining result from action, one does not need to fully “know” what is “really happening”.
In this same way, physics seems to be somewhere between trying to “know” what everything “really is”, and simply tring to predict it systemically, so that “knowledge” can bring a form of “result”.
