For someone who prioritises knowledge (and its obtainment) over everything else, managing different streams of information to maximise learning is like trying to swim in a particular direction during a flood. It won't happen unless there's excellent clarity, a very good image of the big picture available at all times. Essentially, that translates to knowing - at all points of time - what I want to know and what I will be able to accomplish with it, which is simply impractical.The first response to such a dilemma would be to segregate the incoming information based on some logic. For example, the logic could be medium, and audio and visual objects of evidence could be saved in a set distinct from another that contains no information that can be heard or seen. However, there are too many such "logics" up for grabs. Even if information is separated on the basis of how it is perceived, our faculties of perception come under the scanner. If a video has both great audio and stunning imagery, do I save the file in both categories or in just one category where I think it belongs more? If I save it in both categories, it's going to be redundant half the time. If I save it in just the one, I'm effectively passing judgment that I classified it now and that's how it will always stay classified. Once a thief, always a thief.
However, a classification based on the pathways of perception (Drstam) is indispensable, perhaps more so than a classification based on the pathways of cognition (Anumana) is. The difference between the two is that the former expresses the sentiment "how we see it" and the latter, the sentiment "what we see it for". As is obvious, the two are closely related. In fact, they are coincidental until some intrinsic aspect about them has been projected strongly.
[caption id="attachment_23102" align="aligncenter" width="312"]
The principles of visual gestalt essentially deal with Anumana and Drstam. If we look at the picture to see a duck, we see a duck. If we look at the picture to see a rabbit, we see a rabbit. If, however, we don't know what we are looking for, then what is the parameter that guides us to what we will eventually see?[/caption]For instance, if I interpret inexplicable noises in the dark to be evidence for the presence of ghosts, then what I am seeing - though improbable - coincides perfectly with what I'm seeing it for. Until I find the source of the noise, I will continue to believe in ghosts in that scenario. When I find the source, however, I will empirically conclude that what I saw didn't coincide with what I saw it for. The link between the two will have stood broken when the truth of the observation would have been discovered, thereby making it a projection of fact deemed strong because of its implications for my internal logic.
[caption id="attachment_23107" align="aligncenter" width="446"]
When symmetry breaks...[/caption]Therefore, there are two reasons to introduce a symmetry-breaker parameter:
- To differentiate between Anumana and Drstam when they seem to coincide
- To eliminate the "what we see it for" because determinism can only be incommensurate with an indeterminable scenario within which we are trying to maximise knowledge-gain
This symmetry-breaker is Samkhya. In Hindu philosophy, from which I derive (a part of) these logics, Samkhya declares God as being unprovable. In the information-segregation scenario, consequently, the absence of a controlling external entity enforces the presence of an internal logical consistency (brought about by the strong projection of some fact). Otherwise, the external observer won't be able to make any sense of the information. Because we have assumed that the influx of information is already disordered, the only logical conclusion is that Anumana - the "what we see it for" - and the capacity of logical inference it betokens are necessary.
This hints at an uncertainty principle much alike the one in particle physics:
- I can know what I want at all points of time but not have access to all there is to be known, or
- I can access a pool of infinite knowledge but not be certain about what I want to know.
To break this, either Samkhya could be redefined or the "how" and the "what for" be separated using some other parameter. In this case, the enforcement of internal logical consistency was the introduced parameter; the introduction only precipitated an uncertainty. If Samkhya were to be replaced, then the replacement will also have the issue of logical consistency to deal with. How, then, are we to resolve this issue?
