Knowledge Map Equation

So far, I have figured that all reality changes mostly outside and partially inside human perception.
All-knowing is not a human trait. Given.

What I'm trying to plot out is a good mathematical equation that will illustrate not only the logical given of what is, but also a process of action that can take place for various mind-sets. Ie, you may have someone that can have an experience, confabulate and self-deceive themselves into believing and remembering and feeling what actually didn't happen and what did happen will be forgotten; whereas, there also exists a person who can perceive an experience for what it is, find out what good can come from it and utilize that experience which is not changeable, and can be appreciated towards a vibrant and connected perception of the world around them.

It's a tough task ahead, anyone have any ideas? :/

>>10
Please, if you seriously think I'm going after physics you clearly didn't observe the title of this thread.

>>11
Yes, Scientific Method. I know it all too well as it is precisely what I've been using to 1) hypothesize 2) create axiomatic experiment 3) Observe results 4) record results 5) conclusion 6) repeat.

...and no, you didn't just save me 2000 years of philosophizing there "sport", and thank you for wasting both of our time and accomplishing nothing but boasting your own pride of bragging about something you think you know. :/

But here is the issue I repeatedly find; Even with continual experiments I run into an "interim" issue with points of recognition. It appears like recognizing step one and then step two just to find out later that step two was actually step five and step one consisted of one thru four. Just as with "intention" there isn't just one choice or one possible outcome, but quite a few choices made from even more options that were considered from what results WERE observed resulting in a plethora of consequences. You see, there is quite a laundry list of what the brain does physically, but also what the mind CAN do cognitively as opposed to "just does". Physics is the expression of "just does" where as mind is the expression of "could do", "does do", "did do", and "what if...?". What I'm trying to extrapolate from this data is what CAN happen and what DOES happen. I'm also looking into what can habitually happen, but that's another experiment all together. I know that knowledge is limited which is why I'm able to continue learning, but what does it take to 1) perpetuate that, 2) reinforce integrity and confidence, 3) build upon that belief, and 4) hold that belief in a flexible state instead of a rigid state confidently.

You see my dilemma? :/
But like I said before, I may be wasting my time here on /sci/, there clearly aren't any intellectuals that have such a wide opened mind. I mostly spot those that are so closed-minded they even believe that they aren't. What fools they be. :/

if you are perfect, then surely there is no need to do anything to become perfect. You are as you are and need do nothing but die. I, on the other hand, am imperfect and must strive for perfection, but I being imperfect have no true concept of perfection, therefore that vision of perfection changes repeatedly and is therefore imperfect. A perfect reflection of what I am. And what is the perfect reflection of what I am not? God. Perfect, invulnerable, invisible, intangible, all-knowing, invincible, all-powerful, and all-forgiving. If there be more to this to be found, it is only because of my imperfection in the details; yet another perfect reflection of who I am.

God exists so that I may know myself. Without God, I would assume myself as God, that which I am not. And if I should stray for a moment out of selfishness being that which is human, it would be a momentary lapse of insanity as an expression of divine imitation.

"Imitation is a form of flattery."