Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I realize it's allegorical in nature, but one of the conclusions made in the article is

> Reaching the absolute information is individual and simply any human being is able to achieve that.

Is that a reasonable conclusion? I'm curious how this jives with the 'on the shoulders of giants' concept that we've built a lot of our modern knowledge on.




In the end language fails to actually convey the real information, but one’s own discovery can be guided.

To understand a mathematical proof I follow the reasoning but the internal model I build looks different from what is presented.


How do you interpret "reaching the absolute information"?

I'm content with reaching the relative information about the bits of the universe that I find most interesting, and hope to add a few good and novel ones during the remainder of my lifetime.

Two areas where a community helps are (a) finding the known ways blazed* and (b) avoiding becoming a crank.

For the former it makes sense that one prefers to make good time. For the latter, finding a new way to get to new fields that may or may not be fertile may or may not be worth doing; finding a new way to get to existing fields that either (a) shaves trip time for those travelling light, or (b) is more easily passable for those travelling with a bunch of baggage, is definitely worth doing.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_blazing

EDIT:

Tiger got to hunt; bird got to fly; man got to sit and wonder 'why, why, why?' Tiger got to sleep; bird got to land; man got to tell himself he understand.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: