Often, simply learning and implementing information is not enough. Everything is a type of model designed by humans. Some are more accurate at quantifying and scaling various scenarios than others. It also depends on the type of model we plan, select for our coverage of particular solutions to a problem. Problem-solving is important but so is knowing to ask the right questions, making enough judgements on elements weakness. Above all, making information easily accessible to others. These can include simplifying a problem, making concise data to be read by everyone and come up with interesting topics. Knowledge is to be shared with everyone. The type of hidden knowledge is not understood and is often intertwined with pseudo-sciences. We don't get proper understanding of the past as we forget it, the multitude of present instances and the future. We also don't completely understand the complete idea and scenario of human existence and the concept of multiverses. The study of black holes, worm holes can also be a type of hidden knowledge because we have no physical evidence or feel of them. Even though gravitational lensing is used but yet it unclear how actually a black hole looks in clear definition.
In typical paradoxical fashion, I both agree and disagree with this prompt. "Everything is a type of model designed by humans" I believe, is erroneous. Everything is not a model created by humans, but rather, everything already existed or had capacity to, or to be known or understood. We need to be careful not to assign human value to processes and occurrences which are inherent to our universe and constant. We only create societal things. Technology, knowledge and science were already there all along. The processes aren't new. To drive this point home: Some people give the example that science is "Iterative and always changing". I see no logical basis that could make this flawed argument true. Science and its correct knowledge in full form are constant and never change. What changes I believe, is our viewpoints and iterative understanding of these constants. This is exciting because it leaves a chance that if humans make it far enough one day, we may not even have anything else more to discover after we have mastered everything. As far as thirsting the quench for knowledge apparent in every human being goes, I wonder what will take the place of science for our dear descendants? This viewpoint should therefore be the end goal of all science. Logically every single scientific endeavor that has ever existed has an optimized end point where introducing anything else would simply be redundant or unnecessary. This goes for all of science. Engineering, theories, ECT. I truy do believe that the mystery factor that may be driving all of human evolution may very well be to reach this point. I mean nobody knows for sure, but I'd say humans seem pretty darn curious and resourceful to me! If enough of us want to figure something out, WE WILL. That as well, is the importance of knowledge. If all humans scientists on earth with skill sets similar to mine, the poster of this question, ect. Decided to all stop being jealous, having zero sum thinking, and things of that nature imagine how much that group of people could accomplish if they really wanted to and worked at it diligent. I fully believe that if every single competent, skilled and amicable individual on this site worked at one goal for an entire year engineering or theory wise, there is probably no limit to the level of advancement that could be achieved. Humans should recognize the value of knowledge is not our own knowledge, but how that knowledge's "puzzle piece" fits with other scientists who may have strength where one has weaknesses, or may think in modes which one does not. This cycle can be endlessly beneficial
Preston Guynn also, Literally every deep space image is a composite image. Which is edited to highlight important features and is in no way representative of how it would actually appear clearly if you stood in front of it. This is not clear definition in any way, and if it is its been enhanced via composites to highlight features as humans currently do not have another way to do this. His specific wording was "in clear definition" although even the study you linked contains informations, schematics and visuals which easily indicate physical and visual properties, it is in no way representative of "clear definition". This isn't to attack you it just seemed unnecessary for you to say that without adding anything to the conversation. Sorry if this comes off as rude in any way. Researchgate is about working amicably with others to advance science not pointing out small inconsistencies in wording.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Econ
- Innovation Economics
- Innovation