PWIP 37

Epistemology

Existence and non-existence can both be said to exist in some sense. Non-existent things are said to be unable to show themselves in reality. These objects appear to have linguistic form but not physical form. Perhaps these are existentially broken objects; they have aspects of existence, but not those that can push them pass the existence threshold. Language is flexible enough to bring the idea of non-existent objects to the mind based on properties with no solid connections. If the ontology allows absurdities, the epistemology doesn’t appear to participate in it, save perhaps the ontology itself as presented as an epistemology.

How do we balance the thing, its opposite, and its negation? Nonexistence appears to be the opposite of existence itself, and not of the thing. It appears that it must exist that the thing must exist or not exist. Existence being a necessary property of a thing and its negation says nothing about the thing’s opposite. The opposite of a thing appears to be those in its family that generate significantly different results. The properties of the elements in a family present themselves in the relationship between mind and world as the mind attempts to correlate epistemology to ontology.

The unequal relationship between epistemology and ontology generates uncertainty. From the epistemology’s point-of-view, there is a conflict between existence and reality. When a thing is real and exist, it is considered true or actual. What are things which don’t exist but are real? Can they be said to exist in the future or past, thus being real but not existing currently? Perhaps these things exist in nonexistence, thus they are real there and not here? And what of those things which are not real but do exist? Can they be said to be fiction, since people will say they exist in some sense but not in the one which makes them real? Non-reality and nonexistence appear to lead to non-being. Non-being, from the epistemology’s point-of-view, is beyond all hints of awareness. These are being which appear forever unknown to those who can know anything.

The letter appears to exist in ontology in the same sense as number, in that anything that is one in number is also a word in letter. All phenomena appear to be in some sense nameable. Such makes an epistemology equal to the ontology theoretically possible, though impossible without omniscience. Since to explain the ontology is to equate words to what is, one can give the whole a name and be done with it. However, one can only confirm the parts by observations of them, and they appear to have some type of infinity. Without the complete truth, one doesn’t have the Truth. Though unobtainable it is still a goal to pursue.

The models and theories of the mind must mimic the world for there to be truth. The law must mimic ethics for there to be justice. This is typically dependent on Kantian Politics and whether virtue has any power. The mind judges its grasp of the world on its frequency of correct predictions. Likewise, the mind judges its grasp of ethics based on its frequency of producing good outcomes. Knowledge is used both in epistemology and ethics. Whereas the value of knowledge in epistemology is truth and falsehood, the value of knowledge in ethics is good or bad. Ethics may further its distance from epistemology by being more concerned with action than knowledge. Although, knowledge as a prerequisite for action is necessary for one to be an ethical agent. It would appear that Ontology is indifferent to truth, Epistemology is indifferent to virtue, and Ethics is indifferent to beauty.

PWIP 36

Epistemology

One may observe how anything that can possess an epistemology understands itself. We can’t hide from our own knowledge, only hope to forget it or bury it deep in our subconscious. Knowledge in the form of rules and patterns are easier to follow. Every things’ place possesses meaning. Existence itself appears to have an omnipotent spontaneity with every place being filled with (something, anything, everything(?)). Though having an epistemology that can replicate the ontology in its totality is impossible, the goal is still necessary to pursue.

We may discover the values in existence by separating ourselves from it. We see ourselves as no longer belonging to the world but to ourselves. The falsehood generates distinctions that further separate the epistemology from the ontology from the epistemology’s point of view, all remains one to the ontology. We can’t claim we are the Ontology, so it appears true that we are separate from it in some sense. Order manifests itself out of the relationships made in the separation of the ontology from a whole into parts. The ontology molds the epistemology, it is an epistemology, and it transcends epistemology.

The most basic form of information is motion. The falsehoods in motion relate to differences between the world as it is and the world as it is given or understood by the senses. Distance presents itself as a problem throughout epistemology. The distance between the mind and the world confuses what is in the world and what is in the mind. There’s temporal distance between observations and the explanations for them. Mental distance between concepts can make it difficult to make the connections needed for understanding to function.

Ethics Build

The aspects of a being that appears to give them ethical value are suffering and belonging. Suffering can be a negative state of being meant to promote survival in biological machines. Belonging refers to a relationship between the owner and owned. Animals have a sense of belonging to themselves that other beings (e.g. rocks) don’t appear to possess. Such may be a result of the DNA’s inclination towards survival, equilibrium, a particular pattern in the world, or something of the like. The individual extends their sense of the self by belonging to his/her self. An uninformed state of nature may find it difficult to identify objects of ethical value. Our problem isn’t an inability to identify belonging, but rather a lack of utilitarian math. Suffering is not mere pain, it appears to be the intent to harm for the sake of harm and destruction. In this light, there’s a distinction between unethical acts, actors, and environments. Each form of the unethical state is bad, only the actors can take blame for actions or environments.

The difference between Kantian Politics and Relativism Aesthetics is the difference between individualism and collectivism. This is the problem that presents itself in ethical dynamics. We must contend with the question of how much of ourselves are we willing to give to the group? And how much of the group belongs to an individual? Groups are similar in functionality to individuals but with more power. Groups with virtuous psychologies are more predictable because their rules for behavior use less probability. Groups can appear ethical because their numbers follow a strict program for action. Actions based on tastes can contradict ethical principles. Unethics spreads rapidly when Kantian Politics is based on a group’s taste, who themselves would say they belong to a particular individual. The tension between individualism and collectivism comes from the authority of belonging. An unethical kantian politics is unstable due to the malicious belligerence of vice. Wisdom being a virtue grants the virtue psychology the ability to communicate the reasons for his/her right to act. Those who actively pursue vice are typically easier to identify than those who fall into vice through neutrality.

Eclecticism Ethics

Kantian Politics

The aesthetics of the world allows for no strict duplicates. All beings appear to have their own experiences. Despite that, equality, fairness, symmetry are still ideals to look towards when stabilizing a system. Maths can make everything one. The representative of the group, the government, is judged on its math rather than its aesthetics. Do the leaders of the group provide for the group? If all members were of perfect virtue makeup, the group is stable regardless of conditions. Equals need no functional leaders.

Utilitarian Mathematics

The brain measures the value of beings. The mental weighing is scaled up in economic systems, but essentially one can make an ordering of preferences that can be transformed into arithmetic. Utilitarianism is concerned with a preference ordering that prefers the good. We see that math deals with many aesthetic conflicts. Agents can vote, compete, or gamble to settle disputes. Aesthetics is important because everything with function needs a form or appearance. Ethics may require justified ownership.

Ownership can’t merely be who found what first or keeping what one has always had. Utilitarianism plays a major role in belonging as ethics requires everything to be in service to the greater good. Capitalism attempts to mix kantian politics, relativism aesthetics, and math to create a system that doesn’t require virtue. Without virtue, all acts end in self-destruction.

Relativism Aesthetics

Ethics also desires freedom (in as far as it is obtainable in the ontology). There is a preference ordering for one’s own taste. Conflicts tend to erupt between one’s own taste and the good. No form is bad in of itself. It’s a form's relation to another agent that makes it so. Given what appears in reality, it is very difficult to operate without doing vice. This is because knowledge can be difficult to hide from. Once one is no longer innocent of the vice in one’s taste, one is aware of the bad one has done, is doing, and may do. Yet we all are artists. And to only be allowed to make copies of the world is an injustice.

Ethics seems to contain the mundane. We find it in many places of safety and protection. A type of nihilism seems to be contained in the mundane. Ethics becomes void when there are no negative states. One is thus able to pursue one’s taste uninhibited, which is not mundane. But one does this without risk, which is mundane. Such protection or lack of pain is a type of negated freedom, and positive nihilism. Pain seems to want to take meaning with it when it is removed.

Virtue Psychology

There is perhaps less of a need for virtuous agents to use science to discover which rational beings have ethical value from which don’t. A virtuous agent is passive and would only move to help another. The ultimate objective is to help whatever needs help. Individuals with the ability to communicate are quite easy to help. We must balance it with other systems. These other systems can be found in epistemology. The passivity, as opposed to neutrality, allows the virtue agent to avoid doing harm, rather than simply ignore it whenever it occurs. An active virtue agent may scour space for vice or harm. Though the ideal of the perfect virtue agent is impossible, the ideal of vice is self-destructive.

Ethics Dynamics

The outcomes of ethical dynamics are along a spectrum of peace, mercy, conflict, and suffering. The complexity of the system increases with the number of agents, who themselves vary the power of virtue and vice with their choices of either one. The simplest case of the system is peace, in which all agents choose virtue. The more difficult cases of the system involve mixed strategies, unequal power, and the outcomes of mercy or conflict. And, of course, when vice wholly overcomes virtue there is suffering.

A third individual in the equal power game can create an imbalance of power. In a three-person game where there is unequal power either two agents have more power than one or one agent has more power than two. The agents with the most power dictate the outcome of the game. The imbalance of power generates suffering or mercy. Though virtue agents want to make equals out of other agents, there are more opportunities for virtue to prevail when it has more power than vice.

Virtuous agents are trustworthy, and therefore deterministic. Malicious agents are probabilistic, as they can choose to add to the power of either agent. The case is complex, with allegiances to either type being unstable. Agents who play vice are more stochastic in their behavior since they need not obey ethical rules. They can use the tools of virtue as means to ends in vice. Intentions are bad when the goal is malicious. Some can have good intentions but bad knowledge or skill and thus windup with an action that is a vice. The distinction in the origin of vice may change the means but not the end of preventing or stopping suffering.

A Philosophical Work in Progress IX

Individuals accept or attempt to reject characteristics given to them by nature. All objects possess some property which makes them known, I believe. If x were an object with no properties, one could just claim it is contained in the empty set, for even the term “object” wouldn’t apply to it. Language itself doesn’t seem to allow one to express a non-property. Words are either understood or not; and when they are understood, they are typically understood as the role they play in what is being communicated. Thus it would appear that an object must possess a property of some sort to exist. People possess many properties, e.g. potentiality, age, race, thought patterns, culture, income, language, employment, beliefs, physiology, philosophy etc.. Some properties are perceived as companions, while others are seen as enemies.

To identify with particular aspects of one’s self is reasonable. But perhaps one shouldn’t be too intimate with accidental, unintentional qualities, which any quality not obtained by the will appears to be; albeit even extreme possession of one’s own will is a limit to one’s self by applying value inaccurately. An obvious example of accidental qualities is gene inheritance, no one decides beforehand what genes they get, we all simply make use of what we are given. No one can choose their fundamental physical structure, for one would first need to know about the world and one’s self in order to know what qualities are desirable. Such would require that one exist before coming into existence, or that one should possess knowledge of existence before having come into existence. All beings seem to rely on beings in existence to generate their existence or bring them into existence. This condition, which is perhaps cause and effect or something similar, has many forms. This constant generation appears to constantly change while still maintaining somethings constant/unchanging. Thus we come into existence in this biological condition which has evolved/changed over time, where one’s beginnings depends on others. And as one can not split off one’s self into multiple beings of a single consciousness, one can only choose one path, though one may perceive many. “What is the rational course of action?”, seems to be a reasonable question; and though the imposition of rationality appears to limit freedom, any forced denial of its use seem just as oppressive.

Perhaps this is all an attempt to escape bias, obtain a broader worldview, and a more efficient way of thinking. For the most reasonable way of thinking would be to think like God, or any being with efficient thinking. Science can help to fill in more than half of one’s epistemology; though most of science is the work of history and random curiosities. The simplest expression of epistemology is perhaps logic, which establishes the notion of having a notion and deciding to accept of reject notions or ideas. Ethics requires a solemn look into situations. Yet the real ethical dilemmas and examples one perceives (pass rape and murder) are almost comical, if there effects didn’t cause such distress. Biologically, all we do is perhaps for sex, psychologically it is all to escape pain, but these are “simple” pursuits. Philosophy seems to encompass everything. Adherence to any particular notion/idea is a denial of many others, one should perhaps show caution for what one excludes.

So what is really being done in the action of communication? The mere appearance of one’s self to another gives away information of the self, actions and words seem to add information one could not have known with just the mere appearance of the self. Such information usually consist of the self’s physical, psychological, and chronological condition/ing.

Understanding and responding to the actions of others is always possible, in that our domain of physics will always produce an outcome, i.e. reality has a limit to its possibilities. This existence, however, must be an error if no God or perfection exist, but I can’t say for certain that such things don’t exist, or rather I can’t supply sufficient proof that they don’t exist. Philosophy, which is everything, should allow one to contain all possibilities, both the existence and nonexistence of perfection or God and their implications on the world and self.

One can not merely reflect on one’s self to know one’s self, but one must also observe and reflect on the world. One may continue such a process until one is satisfied with the results, such is typical for those biological beings whom know their next move. To reflect constantly on everything is perhaps the curse of a philosopher. Maybe one can choose when to be satisfied and when not to be, or whether such a notion even matters, for such is somewhat derived from the biological entity. To identify one’s self with any particular being is limiting, even if one list every particular factor of one’s self, for perhaps it is the unlisted, unable to be listed, or resilient to being listed items which truly define the self

Passive morals seem quite clear to most individuals, e.g. don’t murder, don’t steal, don’t rape are simple propositions to understand, in that when one knows the action, one knows what to negate or simply not do. If one wishes to know why such rules are in place, one must question the source of the rule. Active morality are actions one should perform or ought to perform. These appear to cause more harm in the world because it appears to force the self to act in an indignant way. These and other sorts of ideas which come from various minds are intimately connected with the psychology of the mind it is contained in to the point that neglecting the ideas are mentally painful.

The mind maybe able to accept any notion in theory, but the contrary maybe the case when it comes to application, as one must go beyond imagination and vague thinking. Any moment of one’s self is the best simplification of all the current knowledge available to consciousness. Though we are all prone to error, there’s an idea which we hold as fundamental and it differs from being to being. Ethics seems to require that all individuals follow the same law, but such limits freedom. How much control does one have in choosing one’s limits? Should one give one’s self to a notion of what the self thinks is good?

PWIP XXXIV

Any sense appears able to perceive patterns, for a pattern can be any sequence or repetition of actions or objects. In that way all senses can be used to conclude something like numbers, given sufficient mechanical capacities that go further than mere observation. The senses can differentiate between absence and something, or 0 and 1. The counting numbers are abstractions of the multiplicity of objects, which one can come to merely from 0 and 1 being two objects and so on, though such an intellectual feat may require high intelligence to come to with minimal prior knowledge. Aside from the abstract form of multiplicity, which is the natural numbers, there is the abstract ideal shapes. The abstraction of raw data, typically rigid objects, to apparent ideal forms, i.e. the mathematical expression of physical objects, appears to require even more knowledge and understanding, which may only be achieved through feedback on already achieved understandings.

The seemingly faint background mental processes are one’s means of functioning in a manner more sophisticated than mere sensory observation. Perhaps one can call such a thing the active observer. The senses with no subjectivity are perhaps passive observers, i.e. reactions and imitations of external environments. An organism at rest doesn’t decide what it is or will sense beyond how it is positioned in the world. A change in position of the observer by the observer is an active observation. As observation is likely layered, the local external environment can only be perceived by the passive observer, which is a mere receiver and reactor to the state of the external environment. Taking what the observer receives and providing feedback or manipulating it is a part of the internal environment, or virtual world, of the organism and is an active observation. The ability to change position in the environment intentionally appears to require the observer hold the external environment as constant in the memory, then it must plot or plan a destination, updating from the passive observer while following the path generated by the active observer to reach the destination. As the passive observation must remain active, the active observation likely remains in the background of the passive observation interface.

The senses appear to be one’s only connection to reality. Even if objects exist in the same space as the perceiver in reality, it is as good as nothing if it can not impress upon some sense. The abstract abilities of an organisms, i.e. the actions of the active observer, appears in a sense to be concealed information in the environment when considering the external environment as a purely physical process, i.e. as a moving set of points. The knowledge in the self is less than that in the environment because the self is locally present, whereas the environment is omnipresent. Sensations as reactions to some external object appear to be an interaction between two objects. Thus, to be may be to be perceivable, even if not perceived. There are higher functions to sensation that one may find in brains and AI. The set of higher functions appear to be larger than the set of sensations. Simple to more complex brains and AI sense something, assuming they are active. Aside from sensations they may have the ability to recall, apprehend/understand, identify, imagine, decide, judge, conceptualize, categorize, attend, reason, calculate, use language, evaluate, classify, problem solve, ideate, associate, rationalize/irrationalize, plan, erroneously think, act, control self, adapt, attach, valuate, learn, inquire, empathize, prioritize, generalize, interpret, manipulate, etc. all of which are context, i.e. space and time, dependent. These may all be subsumed under cognition.

It is difficult to determine which process of cognition is most vital. Memory seems to be used most often. But only artificial intelligence can recreate exact replicas of visual and audio content. Natural intelligence likely uses the imagination to recreate a memory, which isn’t the exact experience. For the memory to be related to an actual event, one likely needs to use some kind of reasoning that uses the notion or process of consistency. The complete explicit expression of all the various forms of brain configurations and what they do may explain the large variety in story telling.

Psychology and epistemology are very closely related, though epistemology contains more content than the psychology. As pure materialism, ontology/existence would be what science has determined is nature. It would perhaps be the body to Descartes’ body and mind duality. There is a question as to whether the body is the final form of one’s being, or whether the body perceives the actual world or a deception? Science, of course, assents to the question begging truth of the body actually existing in the world, yet denies a simplification of the various processes and phenomena in the world. It intersects, but is different from, the view of the world from one’s own perspective; which is psychology. By rejecting the notion of the brain having complete knowledge one can push the limits of one’s understanding. Such is achievable in the virtual space of one’s mind. We can perhaps look at the spectrum of intelligence as the simple brain, the human brain and A.I. Understanding is perhaps a coherence between the virtual world of the mind and the physical world of the body.

PWIP XXXIII

The senses align well with the model of reality. Dogma typically begins with knowledge, but philosophy starts with ignorance. One can imagine the search for knowledge as one being in a room. One’s experience of the room would depend on which sense one uses to search it. Ontology seems related to the sense of smell. This is founded on the animal’s ability to sense objects that are not in sight. The smell of an object is perhaps more telling of the object’s composition than its image. The olfactory system, however, only ever gets the hint of the object, not the object itself, unless the object is a smell. Sight is more related to epistemology. It maybe the second most concrete sense, second to touch, and can obtain a pinpoint perception of what is in the immediate vicinity. Such is dependent on light, similar to how the olfactory sense is based on particles in the air. An image of an object seems to allow for quicker discovery of what the room would hold, assuming there is a source of light. Of course, the experience of pleasure and pain, which is a tactile sense, brings one to ethics. Though pure touch seems binary, e.g. hot or cold, hard or soft, it appears to be the most significant sense. The conscious mind is aware of the animal’s condition through emotions, which appear tactile in nature. Taste seems more closely related to one’s aesthetic self, as it merely communicates what one finds most appealing, not what is most efficient. It is also more closely connected with one’s intimate self, as animals are more willing to touch an object, than to taste it; or rather they touch more objects than they may put on their tongues. Thus ethics would be more closely related with the sense of touch and psychology with the sense of taste. Sight and smell appear to be extended senses, as they can perceive objects a distance away from the body. The last extended sense is the sense of hearing. The audio sense is more spherical than vision, which is rather linear. Hearing is rather communal, as it relates to sociology, since at least half of human communication is audio. Like smell, sound is rather abstract, but unlike smell, it is also rather brief. Ultimately all perceptions seem to be hints from which to reason about the world, rather than explicit expressions of the overall process. It is quite difficult to believe truth is somehow outside of experience, and not buried somewhere within.

PWIP XXXII

This venn diagram is an attempt at a sufficient model for the apparent reality. Ontology is similar to the universal set, in that it is the set that contains all sets. Contained in the ontology is the set epistemology. Epistemology contains the subset sociology, which contains psychology, which itself contains ethics. Epistemology is perhaps bounded ontology, as it appears to be the set of universal and leading ideas.

The sets can’t really be perceived as separate from one another. If the world is merely the world and nothing else, then epistemology is a stable domain, and ontology extends only to impossibilities. What is and is not appears to exhaust the notion of existence, though not much information about what is is given. Ontology is more difficult to discuss because it is supreme universality. When one uses notions such as all, existence, everything, metaphysics or god one is referring to ontology. However, since such notions alone express little discrete information, they are usually found bounded to some other thing. One appears to enter epistemology at the limit of understanding.

Unlike a typical venn diagram, the lines that delineate the sets from one another are also relevant objects. Philosophy separates ontology and epistemology. Science separates epistemology and sociology, as any single human is perhaps too limited to obtain universal notions without others. Language separates sociology and psychology, as communication is the medium for ideas. And aesthetics delineates psychology and ethics, since emotions conflict with morals. Often one may find that the moral obligation may conflict with one’s positive sensibilities. What is truly good ethically is a mix of scientific efficiency, social justice, and personal desire, social justice being the universal fulfillment of reasonable aesthetic desires.

Psychology is a single point-of-view of ontology. Sociology is a collection of such points-of-view. The path of society appears manifested by the interactions of the collective sense. Perhaps the collective sense is the people and machines that observe the environment and exchange information. Ethics considers the biosphere in its entirety and what it should do, assuming it can intentionally do anything as a unit. If ethics does not exist, then perhaps the next best system to determine collective behavior is economics. The difficulty of survival necessitates complex motions, but not pure chaos; a mix that is difficult for linear thinking beings. The weighted judgment, hierarchy of skill, and distribution of labor and reward are just a few properties needed by the group that are provided by an economic system. Ultimately it is the individual’s interactions with the environment (changing the environment) that determines the outcome (the current configuration of the environment).

Perhaps the most interesting sets are ethics and sociology. Sociology and psychology appear rather concrete, as most individuals believe their selves to be a real existing thing. The belief of self existence comes from the locality of thought and feeling, as well as the physical appearance of the body. The physical appearance is also perceived in others, as well as their effect on the self, which makes them appear concrete. Ethics and epistemology appear abstract as they consider universal notions, rather than only the local appearances. Ethics considers the dynamics between each individual psychology. These dynamics seem to change based on needs, wants, skills, character, and possibility.

A Philosophical Work in Progress VIII

One may be able to claim that the consciousness/mind/manual mode is bounded to the body/subconsciousness/automatic mode of this particular being. But there appears to be a kind of freedom for the body from whatever principle governs matter. For Newton stated that an object in motion or rest will stay as such unless acted upon by an external force, I believe. Biological beings move without any apparent external force acting upon them. This is freedom from physics in a sense, but the body itself makes the limit of that freedom known by use of pain it seems.

The body is not outside of physics. It is the awareness of itself, i.e. a point’s ability to choose when to stop/go and its direction based on some rules perhaps, that frees it from inertia. However, being that a being can not merely stop being a being, the body is constantly being bombarded by forces; it itself is an amalgamation of forces. Thus, in a sense, the body is not free to stop, since stopping is death and decay. So it seems the body seeks solace in the mind which seeks solace in certain aspects of the world. I would perhaps say i seek my own solace in philosophy, but that conscious claim is merely one part of my subconscious.

Perhaps the body intends to keep the mind bounded to this place. Because there’s someplace better, worst, or nothingness beyond existence, one that exist can not be sure. Though the consciousness controls the body, it doesn’t control every part of the body. I can’t directly turn off and on my heartbeat, visual system, audio system etc.; it can only be done indirectly, e.g. through blinking, covering one’s ears, perhaps one can speed up and slow down one’s heartbeat. One can not directly perceive how the brain motion, i.e. neurons, translate into mental actions, at least not in a “the brain is telling the mind everything the body is doing and why it is doing it by means of a social language.” The subconsciousness, i.e. some system that runs in the background of consciousness, seems necessary for the body to function without the apparent feeling of constant labor on the consciousness. But it is not only that I feel no labor from some action, I also feel no control. Consciousness still feels any stress on systems it doesn’t have the power to freely manipulate.

Though the mind contains all the information one has interacted with up till now, the conscious only has access to whatever it needs and can get access to at a given time. The subconscious seems to process the bodies condition and stored information, which is a lot of information given the bodies chemical structure and constant operation, and simplifies it into a consciousness, it seems. The automatic aspect of the mind is perhaps constantly adding and changing data, while the manual mind merely changes and selects data. For no one adds anything new to the world, rather we all bring existing objects together. What a mind chooses to do depends on what it believes is possible in the world, and what it believes depends on how it interprets the information it receives. If the consciousness is a simplification of the subconsciousness, how does the subconsciousness decide what information is most significant? Perhaps the subconsciousness uses hierarchical categorization for notions, which could be a result of placing one’s attractions higher than one’s repulsions.

Philosophy for itself appears to contradict philosophy for the good and virtuous, in that one must possess preferences for the world to be a particular way, which appears to conflict knowing the world qua world. Such may only be the mark of the mind as a mere observer of the world, in contrast to the mind as a particular participant in it; or simply put, one’s perceived philosophical place in existence. For whether the mind is free and thus has the dilemma of what to do with freedom, or it is destine but unable to perceive the future, there seems to be a negative feeling associated with attaching necessity to choose. Ethically a least action principle is perhaps the best option if one does not possess certainty in action, but aesthetically something analogous to minimalism is perhaps the least appealing or interesting, minimalism being whatever nothingness would appear to be.