Isaac derived laws from reality directly through his senses. His perception was incredibly attuned to minutest of fluctuations in reality. He was extremely sensitive to reality. I’ll be doing the same. What would it be like to derive formulas, equations and laws directly through psychology? He focused his intellect on the external. I’ll be focusing on the mind instead and when I have acquired a thorough grasp of the internal, I’ll focus on the external. This way the gap between reality and the mind would be bridged. Several of the p vs np (I’m aware of the complexity) problems will be solved or rather dissolved. Whichever happens is just a matter of categorizing the problems and making decisions based on predictions. These decisions themselves are psychological and there must be an underlying pattern to describe it if not explain it. If I land on an explanation, I’ll further simply it to a description. I’ll go for a pure description.
What are these words I’m thinking? What description underlies the choice of these words? Are they repetitive patterns or is each of the cases unique in expression? What is the description behind choice? If i can describe choice would i thus prove that there’s no free will? I’m not talking about merely psychophysical mechanics. Or maybe I am. Maybe that’s all there is. I don’t think a pure description would be composed of repeating patterns. They’ll probably be non-periodic or the description will be truly random without repetition. Yes this makes sense. A purely descriptive nature of objects would be such that the essence will be revealed. What’s essential isn’t subject to probability and thus not non-periodic (repeating of smaller irregular patterns) much less periodic.