apparent discretion

it is fun
it works
we call the world what we want to call it

things that appear to be discrete are not
and the rules for operating on discrete things are
subservient to that system’s requirements for consistency
(only a future consistent with current conditions and influences is predictable)
these rules contradict “reality”

1 is not 1
but we posit a 1
and manipulate it
that is not reality
that is representation

it is fun
it works
we call the world what we want to call it
that is not reality

indeed, we do not need reality, or even want it
(other than as a substrate for the game we play “on its surface”)

but again
that reliance
that assumption
that construct
that agreement or expectation to play the game
“by those rules” or
“on that substrate”
is merely a reflection of a reflection
the substrate
by these guidelines
must probably always remain unknown
but again, that doesn’t matter

true, science will be in exploration of absolutes
but I sense these absolutes will still be
defined, represented, explained, posited (exist)
as something akin to metaphor

it’s like the certainty of calling a chair a chair
you are sure of it, it is guaranteed
yet it is but a tautology
despite that you can prove its fabric
has a sub-fabric called cotton
and that this cotton once grew in the ground

and these are all “true”
and these are all “true in the chair”

but when we apply this same didaction in situations
where our perception of the individual parameters of our definition are suspect or elusive…

…ah, that’s where it gets interesting

when is a person a system, when is a group a mob,
when is an army a “state”?

physi-political musings like this interest me
whoever that is

(see above)