Thoughts on Fallibilism, Consciousness, and the value of Competition.

[2014/12/01 Found the link to the video I am talking about in this post: http://nautil.us/issue/2/uncertainty/ingenious-david-deutsch]

I was stoned (immaculate) one night and wrote down a theory, hours later I came across a talk on Fallibilism by David Deutsch(someone posted it on Reddit... can't find it). It was almost identical.

Last night I listened to it in its entirety (you know how it is, you listen to the first half and never get around to the second half) and I came to an interesting thought:

If there is no limit to knowledge, there is no limit to the way knowledge can influence our mind*; but not that it can be anything (i.e. there are impossible ways to arraigning the material of your brain), just that, of what it can be, there are infinite options of them, yet the brain has a finite amount of (physical/material) orientations. Even at the atomic level, or sub atomic, a huge amount of orientations may esist, yet not an infinite amount according to the quantum theory (due to quantization when getting smaller), so multiple (actually infinite?) knowledge states must exist at each quantized orientation... 

So they merge? that sounds wrong. They just exist?... but you have that orientation, so you can go from one option to another option without having to change the orientation, absent of time... and that change primes the orientation to orient to this new anchor? Which can change the biology of you over time? Consciousness affecting biology?

Maybe its random? But then wouldn't you risk confusion? What is the likelihood of simply being the wrong one, what if it is so far off from the correct one that you are just fucked? Maybe it is very rare. Maybe it is influenced by biology, by a previous orientation... by a future orientation? Does it even need to obey the direction of time... Maybe it is consciousness, the connection between the two, free will, or consciousness is the pursuit of knowledge.

Tangent:
Often people are distorted and curve away from the path of knowledge, rather than gravitating towards it. Given the training, it can be corrected, to produce a positive feedback loop directed at knowledge, the good.
It is the desire for the pursuit of the good.
Maybe.

It relates to an earlier thought that day as I thought about the philosophies of my life, this was a breakdown of one of them:

Left-Libertarian Minarchist (depends, in the case of in sufficient competition, otherwise anarchy can work)

When you think you have it, you remove the competition from the pool for the purposes of efficiency... but then it will deviate (by chance, or it already is) and eventually transform to not good, which is evil. Evil is the lack of good?

If I assert that existence is good, then a vacuum would be worse than torture...

1000 years before it diverts back to evil.
Information is good, or the creation of it (that makes more sense, feeling happy isn't really good, it's what made you happy that is good, happy is just an emotional response to good).

Destruction of it is evil.

Why? because that is the side of the coin we are on.
the human perspective is anchored, so it distorts what we see as good, because we are valued more. Our anchor is our greatest value. Good is the other anchor. Like gravity, what we see as good is a combination of the two bodies, which equals one force at one point.

Also last night:

Democracy

It is am artificial free market (a game). That gives everyone a fixed piece of influence per interaction, with formulated interactions agreed upon... by the democracy. Not a chicken egg problem, so much as it is just needing a start, and then it changes over time to optimize the goal of the game... or at least that would be the most moral thing to do, to optimize the rules. The start is very simple, and does not appear hard to have been created on its own.

Notes:*need to develop a proof for this statement, if the conclusion of the theory is false, then there is a limitation.

Also need to flesh out a lot of the last bits in general, they are more wandering thoughts for others to build on rather than truths.