|
Thinking further,
"consistency" is perhaps best regarded as not being of itself causal, but having a decisive role in determining the nature of the consequence/s which result from interactions.
It seems that though the nature of such consequences are many and varied, our current understanding is that the "construction" of such consequences appears to be a process of non random predictability which is logical and understandable--as far as we are currently able to ascertain.
Yet pondering further, perhaps this "conclusion" appears to have validity to us because our ability to apply reason in such a manner is itself very much dependent upon the exercising of logic and evidence of non random predictability?
We might wonder if in such circumstances objective analysis loses traction? and wonder how we might discern not so much by being outside looking on but by being inside taking in?
|