Very much agree. The space of ideas and percepts is just too big to be grasped in one broad "objective" view of the whole scene. This is a matter of computational limitation.

Faith is what setups the context for post-diction[1]. You can think of it as the prompt/messages you feed to a LLM. In fact, in order to help me write my previous comment (in another thread [2]), I fed some pdfs to claude-100k on poe.com in order to compare Italino Calvino's "Cybernetics and Ghosts" with the esoteric ideas of Voevodsky. Since this is relevant to the discussion, I will quote it in full.

> Claude: Unfortunately Italo Calvino's lecture "Cybernetics and Ghosts" does not discuss the paranormal. The lecture focuses on exploring the relationship between literature, language, and emerging ideas in fields like cybernetics, information theory, and structural linguistics. The uppercase emphasis is mine.

> Me: I do think there are parallels between Voevodsky's interview and Calivno's text:

> Calvino says,

> "Now, some of you may wonder why I so gaily announce prospects that in most men of letters arouse tearful laments punctuated by cries of execration. The reason is that I have always known, more or less obscurely, that things stood this way, not the way they were commonly said to stand. Various aesthetic theories maintained that poetry was a matter of inspiration descending from I know not what lofty place, or welling up from I know not what great depths, or else pure intuition, or an otherwise not identified moment in the life of the spirit, or the Voice of the Times with which the Spirit of the World chooses to speak to the poet, or a reflection of social structures that by means of some unknown optical phenomenon is projected on the page, or a direct grasp on the psychology of the depths that enables us to ladle out images of the unconscious, both individual and collective; or at any rate SOMETHING INTUITIVE, IMMEDIATE, AUTHENTIC, AND ALL-EMBRACING THAT SPRINGS UP WHO KNOWS HOW, SOMETHING EQUIVALENT AND HOMOLOGOUS TO SOMETHING ELSE, and symbolic of it. But in these theories there always remained a void that no one knew how to fill, a zone of darkness between cause and effect: how does one arrive at the written page? By what route is the soul or history or society or the subconscious transformed into a series of black lines on a white page?"

> Claude:

> > You make an interesting parallel between Calvino and Voevodsky here. While Calvino is focused more on literature and ideas of inspiration/creativity, there are similarities to Voevodsky's perspective:

> Both question prevailing notions or "aesthetic theories" about where artistic/literary works come from (inspiration from some mystical source for Calvino, materialist paradigms for Voevodsky).

> They see a "void" or "zone of darkness" in these theories around how abstract ideas/processes are concretely manifested in a work.

> Calvino wonders how the soul/history is transformed into written lines - paralleling Voevodsky's exploration of realms like the paranormal/supernatural that influence human consciousness/behavior but are not scientifically understood.

> Their stances acknowledge gaps in conventional understandings and an openness to alternative explanations outside dominant frameworks.

> So while focused on different domains, they both exhibit a skepticism of dominant ideologies and a willingness to consider non-traditional influences. There is a parallel curiosity about gaps or unknown processes connecting the abstract/internal to the concrete expression. This relates to Voevodsky's open-minded investigations into areas like the paranormal that lie outside standard paradigms. NICE OBSERVATION OF A PHILOSOPHICAL SIMILARITY IN THEIR PERSPECTIVES.

To make this comment homologuous to my previous one ([2]), I'll punctuate it with an excerpt from Grothendieck's "The key to dreams":

> Act of knowledge and act of faith

> (16 May) I wrote yesterday that there was no other key for the "great dream" than the spiritual hunger of the soul. When, still under the impression of the dream you have just had, you know how to listen to the humble voice of this hunger, then, even without knowing it, you are turning a delicate and sure key. And I wish you the grace not to stop halfway, before the bolt is erased and the door, locked for a lifetime, opens...

> I have also thought about faith in the dream. When I woke up under the sudden influx of an emotion so great that my soul could not contain it, I knew immediately, in an unquestionable way: this dream was speaking to me, and what it was telling me with such overwhelming power, it was important, it was crucial that I become aware of it. I knew this, not because I had read it somewhere or thought about it one day, but through an immediate and certain knowledge. Just as it happens, when someone speaks to you (and it matters not whether you know them or are seeing them for the first time), that you know in a sure way, without having to question yourself, that what they are telling you is true. This is not an impression, more or less strong or convincing, but a knowledge. Impression can deceive, but not this knowledge. Certainly, you yourself must be in a particular state, a state of openness, or rigor, or truth (call it what you like), to be able clearly to distinguish, without any shadow of a doubt, between a simple impression and such an immediate knowledge. Such discernment, whether perceived in the field of consciousness or remaining subconscious (and it matters little here), is not of the order of reason, or of an intuition of intellectual nature. It is an act of spiritual perception. In that instant, the spiritual eye in us, which perceives and distinguishes the true from the false, is open or ajar and sees.

[1]: https://cifma.github.io/Papers-2021/CIFMA_2021_paper_13.pdf

> Abstract. A great number of methods and of accounts of rationality consider at their foundations some form of Bayesian inference. Yet, Bayes’ rule, because it relies upon probability theory, requires specific axioms to hold (e.g. a measurable space of events). This short document hypothesizes that Bayes’ rule can be seen as a specific instance of a more general inferential template, that can be expressed also in terms of algorithmic complexities, namely through the measure of unexpectedness proposed by Simplicity Theory.

[2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37903794