Ack! Now I am going to get VERY semantic.
There is a difference between reality, let's call it the "Ground" and
our understanding of it, let's call that the "Model".
The "Ground" has structure, it exists and appears to be more
or less persistent. We postulate a set of categorization/rules or
"levels" in order to understand and predict the behavior of the
"Ground".
Now, I agree, the unknown doesn't have defined "levels" in the
sense that there aren't any natural categories...but our model of
it WILL have levels in the sense that our models always have
in the past. I can't tell you exactly what it will be like (as you've
said...since it's the unknown it's...well, unknown).
But if Richard refers to a "Level 4" or a "level 2.9" he is
pointing, in effect, to the moon...the place we, as a species
or as individuals, have yet to go and figure out. When we
DO figure it our our understanding will consist of levels,
or equations, and or rules of thumb, analogies, parables...
this is just a prediction based upon the past.
Or, as you are indicating, the unknown might contain something
wholly different, emergent, and incomprehensible based upon
today's world-of-mind. But in the same way you expect your
bed to be where it was when you woke up I expect the next
discovery to be "more-or-less-of-the-same". Not to denigrate
that...in fact discoveries that are TOO revolutionary and
different are often incomprehensible the the people that
speak them and the people trying to understand (example:
Marshall McLuhan).
Am I making any sense...or is this too far out?
Reed
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Reed Konsler konsler@ascat.harvard.edu
---------------------------------------------------------------------