how much can you produce with the limitation that is knowledge?

its interesting to include; with limited knowledge we* have limited resources - this applies to cultures as a macrocosm.

-2016 edit-

If one's capacity for productivity is limited to knowledge, than it is the unknown and un-certified that enable a greater capacity for productivity.

oops

i have no doubt we will observe a particle that permeates the space around us, but when we do its relation to gravity will just be imagined...

like we imaigine synapses firing are whats responsible for the images we can see in our mind
in reality we dont know if one is the product of the other or visa versa

"i know what i dont know, therefore i know more then anyone who claims knowledge"
-Wolfgang Schirmacher, on the doctrine of metaphysics

ironically my writing here seems to be a perfect example! ^^'

stretching eachother

's perspectives, i think his is ignorant, but im glad to see more of how it is he got there so that i might know its ways. here's something i wrote for someone on reddit in a push and pull, he kept replying so i kept trying;

basically what i was saying was you cant use the pythagorean theorem to multiply 5 by 5. logic is based on premise assumed to be true, because world wide our assumptions differ we all individually (or culturally) follow different belief's/patterns through the application of logic. its possible that someone is behaving illogically but its far more likely they are accounting for "truths" that we are not. the correctness of truths is only determinable through their consideration, whether correct or not initially doesn't matter, you may find a place for them in a pattern of your own in the future or they may become overwhelming to a point where one has to re-organize ones self. here are some "truths" of mine that i have tried to make you consider; 1.dark matter is more likely attributable to concentrations of waves then it is an invisible particle 2.depression is someone in need of a re-organization of truths 3. medications (if they arent pain killers) for the most part attempt to restore balance without knowing what balance looks like

consider everything, take what you think you should

i ended a little dramatically, and i should have tried to relate the difference in use of equation to the asking of the right question when determining the correct answer (quantifying density of waves vs searching for new particles)
but i was tired of it i had erased my first attempt at replying by changing the page by accident and losing my progress, which comes slowly.. :(

ill preferred sciences

science doesn't indefinitely say much about the nature of our universe - thats part of what makes it so agreeable. id like to see good qualified minds be sponsored to seriously investigate the potential "scientific reality" of spinny-hat claims

the problem is a pharmaceutical company will pay a higher salary to any team of researchers then a tibetan monestary will

to my understanding, an "enlightened" perspective claims that our experience is a re-organization of energy to isolate whats preferred, and otherwise, all in an attempt to better understand our own preference

in considering that our experience is energy organized in a particular fashion, it isnt outside of reason to also consider that energy as a whole acts under predictable universal laws. to me, when this notion is "applied scientifically", it suggests trying to introduce new quantifiable variables to old confirmed patterns, specifically; the potential gravitational effect of waves with density relative to particles, in their accumulation in space (and on earth and in the body)

but im just one ignorant person, and thats only one idea - im sure there could be many more and many better ones as people more generally respect the values of cultures outside their own.