Oh bugger.
> There is a difference between reality, let's call it the "Ground" and
> our understanding of it, let's call that the "Model".
>
> The "Ground" has structure, it exists and appears to be more
> or less persistent. We postulate a set of categorization/rules or
> "levels" in order to understand and predict the behavior of the
> "Ground".
Accepted, and agreed.
> Now, I agree, the unknown doesn't have defined "levels" in the
> sense that there aren't any natural categories...but our model of
> it WILL have levels in the sense that our models always have
> in the past. I can't tell you exactly what it will be like (as you've
> said...since it's the unknown it's...well, unknown).
And that's the point I'm getting at. You can't postulate how many
levels there are, 'cos it's unknown, and you can't tell what of the
unknown is is what level, it's just not possible.
> But if Richard refers to a "Level 4" or a "level 2.9" he is
> pointing, in effect, to the moon...the place we, as a species
> or as individuals, have yet to go and figure out.
So how do you know that it's in the level that Richard refers to? If
it's unknown, he will have just as little idea as the rest of us as to
what level the moon is on.
>
> Am I making any sense...or is this too far out?
It's making sense. Is my objection making sense?
--Drakir
"We are the New Breed, We are the Future."