Simulatenous truths [parallel processing in humans]

Of late, all conversations seem a bit unidimensional, a mere fraction of the truth. A lot is achieved by humanity through conversations, and yet conversations are but simply projections of the high-dimensional truth, a line of thinking given a voice. In all the parallel things that are true at the same time, why this particular thing should get the attention and the voice? And even if it is, why is it treated as anything more than simply a human need in that moment to say that thing.

A local computation by a human within a limited context.

Because reality is high-dimensional, and all other things that have not been said are still true, even though they are not voiced in this conversation.

Lately, I feel the weight of all the simultaneous truths that are unspoken in conversations. How come anyone could speak with any certainty, or claim to be right in any sense of that word, when I can see all the other possibilities?

Do not misunderstand me. I am perfectly in agreement with you if you wish to educate me and say “conversations are useful”. Yes, they help us decide in this infinite possibility space where many, many things are simultaneously true, to pick out certain things which are maybe more important in this moment, in this context, and then act on it.

I am simply stating that the proportion of humanity that accounts for the existence of simultaneous truths that are not part of the current conversation is few. If unsaid “causalities" affect the link that we are trying to establish within any conversation, then in each conversation will be seen as a projection of truth to a biased agent and much less weight assigned to a single thought train.

I simply aim to give voice to an underrepresented motif of human imagination. Parallel thinking towards unspoken links in conversations. Perhaps in time, we grow capable of holding many-many simultaneous thruths and conversing about them all at once with other people. Perhaps we will not align with words but something with higher bandwidth.

Higher bandwidth per human or distributed computation across humans?

The way in which we may still be doing well as a society and decision making is some level of distributed computation where simulatenoues but separate facts are held by distinct agents who champion them. I intuit that higher bandwidth per person is an attractor in the future. Its pulling us towards itself. Near future.