Decision Space

By combining the various techniques and methods that exist, it is possible to establish a reasonable neural array that functions as thought. The limitations of human thought lead to some rather odd affectations. The self programming aspects of a persons existence can lead to many problems. Also the system is designed to deal with fairly simple scopes. By defining the nature of logic itself, it is possible to have a symbolic analog of thought.

It is possible to define the choice in very specific ways and also how that choice affects other concepts. In the case of physics, each choice affects the interpretation of all known systems. If I were to reject some existing principle or accept some new principle, then it would influence the interpretation of all other effects observed.

If I assume that light had a variable velocity ( which I do not! ) then it would be easy to find a situation where that would lead to paradox. The greatest conflict in understanding comes from the fact that interpretation of information is based on many dependencies. I don't think that the equipment that we are born with is up to the task of understanding the universe. It is possible to create a method which defines the interpretation of observation. This would be the science that is even beyond physics. It is the premise that allows the prediction and extension of observation to cause and effect.

It seems to me that instantiation of a neural analog is the pivotal choice that leads to better understanding and application. It seems that when situations or data become complex, the limits of the scope of human intellect lead to conflict as to the interpretation of data.

I am considering Quasars and building a decision space that defines the dependency relationships that describe the universe in terms of steady state infinite and big bang. I suspect that somewhere between these extremes is a more realistic ( though more complex ) solution.