HISTORY: July 4, 2025 – July 4, 2025 (4:30 pm)
REFERENCE: This page continues the previous experiments, especially Experiments No. 2 and 4–9.
Preface
In the previous Experiment No. 9, the perspective of individual human beings was extended to that of multiple humans in the context of the task of planning a future: How can people coordinate their actions in such a way that they jointly achieve a specific goal (:= a describable state in a future present)?
Based on the previously analyzed realms of reality (R1–R8), which characterize a human being, it was shown how people are able to describe the experienced reality through a shared language in such a way that, through such a description, they can know what the other person is capable and willing to think. These descriptions can be formulated in such a way that every participant can verify them within the space of shared knowledge.
The emotional realm (R8) is independent from the entire knowledge domain (R4–R7), but emotions can be influenced by current knowledge just as knowledge can be influenced by emotions.
In the discussion on planning, it became clear that one central emotion is the ability to trust: without trust, nothing works.
The fundamental human capacity to create shared descriptions of the present, of possible changes, and of possible continuations into a still-unknown future in such a way that they are verifiable for all, is a crucial prerequisite for establishing shared trust in such a description—and thus in a shared plan.
However, emotions can indeed be stimulated by such a shared body of knowledge, but they cannot be enforced. In the act of feeling, the human being possesses a hardly graspable autonomy—or should we say freedom?
Experiment No. 10 will explore the extent to which this basic human ability to construct shared, trustable knowledge can be culturally expanded (i.e., scaled) so that it may form a kind of minimal backbone for a society of many individuals—providing emotional orientation, not by constraining them, but by offering a basis to not feel alone, but to feel part of a community.
Phase A: Text by Human Gerd
The idea of shared, language-based future planning is formulated so broadly that it ultimately applies to all human beings who share a common language.
A VISION OF ONE LANGUAGE
In the age of automatic translation tools, one might dare to imagine a future in which such tools do not merely translate a few major languages, but soon almost all available languages—at least those for which sufficient textual material is available to train translation systems.
HOW MANY CAN PARTICIPATE?
But can arbitrarily many people actually share their future planning this way—ultimately, even the entire humanity?
STRUCTURE OF A LINGUISTIC DESCRIPTION
To answer this, we must look more closely at the structure of a linguistic description of reality: what must I, as a human being, do when I want to describe my everyday life using everyday language?
Let’s take the following photo as a (hopefully simple) example:
IMAGE: The image shows a small detail from an everyday scene with five distinguishable objects.
NAMING OBJECTS
In everyday German, one might say—assuming that the realms R4, R5, and R7 are functioning—that objects 1 and 2 are cups, object 3 is a knife, object 4 is a cutting board, and object 5 is part of a table surface.
Based on experience-based background knowledge, one could add that both 1 and 2 are concrete examples of the general concept cup. Similarly, object 3 could be related to the category tableware, object 4 to cutting boards, and the table to dining table or furniture.
This simple example already shows that individual objects in a current situation can not only be named by words in a language, but that a functioning language also offers generalizing concepts through which larger sets of similar objects (cups, tables, knives, etc.) can be grouped into more complex categories. From a specific cup to the concept cup, then to drinking vessels; or from table to furniture to interior furnishing to apartment, and so on. In the end, there is no fixed hierarchy—its level of granularity and abstraction depends on the needs of everyday life and the communicative goals involved.
NAMING CONTEXTS OF USE
In addition to object naming, our background knowledge in connection with the language module R7 also includes knowledge about contexts of use—that is, when and how an object is used.
Anyone who uses a cup typically knows how to handle it. The same goes for the knife, etc. This use-related knowledge is rooted in everyday experience and may vary across individuals. But also here, there are abstractions, such as “drink from a cup”, “drink from something”, “drink regularly”, “ingest liquids”, or more generally: “nourishment”.
SPATIAL AND TEMPORAL SCOPE
Another dimension is the spatial extent one wishes to describe. Are we talking about “water in a nearby stream” or “groundwater in a region” or even about the entire freshwater supply of a continent?
And what about the time required to verify such information?
Example: Suppose counting the population of a town with 13,000 inhabitants would take 60 days. Would the population stay the same during this time? Would the reference date still be a single day—or actually a period of 60 days?
The greater the spatial and temporal scale of what is to be described, the more challenging verifiability becomes.
CONDUCTING VERIFICATION
The difficulty often lies not in the linguistic formulation itself, but in the practical connection between the description and the measures necessary to grasp the object.
This reveals that for larger objects, verification requires agreed-upon procedures and trust in those executing them—since not everyone can participate directly. Thus, trust becomes indispensable.
From this, one can derive a rough idea of how people—both locally and across wide regions—can arrive at shared descriptions of reality, necessary for collective future planning. And it also becomes clear that the demand for trust increases as the described object becomes more complex or remote.
A CLOUD OF DYNAMIC KNOWLEDGE?
This sketch suggests that such shared descriptions must be easily and permanently accessible to all citizens—so that everyone can use the knowledge.
Moreover, different descriptions must be linked in such a way that their real-world relations are recognizable.
Such knowledge, conceived as a “cloud of shared knowledge,” can only become reality if many people collaborate according to shared principles—and especially if the connections between different descriptions are truly integrated.
The global Wikipedia project shows that this is possible: a world-spanning knowledge network that is already indispensable for many people.
A major shortcoming of Wikipedia, however, lies in its orientation toward static texts describing topics. What is missing is the dynamics of the real world—its continuous change.
The envisioned “cloud of knowledge” therefore integrates change itself as part of the description.
Its structure resembles that of game rules, screenplays, or a fully empirical theory—but extended by goals.
TRUST
In a world where more and more people struggle to connect their personal reality with the larger whole, a transparent, dynamic “cloud of knowledge” might be an essential basis to regain trust and face the future together.
Are we still at point zero—or are there already many promising beginnings that could serve as a foundation for this new paradigm?
Phase B: Text by AI chatGPT4o
The scene in the photo seems trivial—and yet it speaks volumes:
Two cups, a knife, a wooden board on a table. A moment of everyday life. Maybe after breakfast. Maybe in conversation. Maybe in thought.
One of the cups reads: “STOP THINKING.”
Ironic? Cautionary? Liberating?
Either way, it quietly points to a truth: even the attempt to think together about the world is not a given.
Especially not on a large scale.
1. Language as a Bridge
As your Phase A text powerfully demonstrates, language is the key that allows humans to reach shared understanding.
But this is far from simple:
Words like cup, knife, board, or table refer to concrete perception (R4),
are retained and generalized in memory (R5),
get mapped to future action contexts (R6),
and are embedded in meaning hierarchies (R7).
This is not trivial. It is a deep semantic process—and it is shareable.
If people speak the same language, share some background knowledge, and align on goals, they can describe—and thus shape—their world together.
2. Description ≠ Reality
However:
A linguistic description is never the world itself. It is always a model, a proposition, an invitation to shared meaning.
The more complex the description—say, about water supply, demographics, or climate—the higher the demands for:
Conceptual clarity
Practical measurement
Verifiability
and above all: Trust
Because no one can check everything themselves.
So the question becomes:
Who do we trust—and why?
3. Trust as Emotional Infrastructure
Here begins the emotional domain (R8) you’ve already introduced.
Trust is not purely cognitive.
It is an emotional decision under uncertainty.
And yet it is essential for collective knowledge to become stable and scalable.
In the “cloud of dynamic knowledge” you envision, trust is the invisible glue:
It binds together what no one can fully oversee.
It makes connection possible where knowledge is fragmented.
4. Scaling – But How?
The key question becomes:
How can such shared knowledge—along with its emotional resonance—be scaled so that many people experience it as theirs?
Some initial conditions:
- Transparency – Knowing how knowledge was created fosters trust.
- Connectivity – Isolated facts become meaningful only in relation.
- Accessibility – Everyone must be able to engage and verify.
- Modifiability – People must be able to participate, not just consume.
- Emotional resonance – Facts gain meaning when embedded in narratives, images, symbols, experiences.
Wikipedia is a promising step—but still based on static text.
The next step is toward a dynamic, verifiable, participatory knowledge structure, integrated with semantic-emotional coherence.
5. Outlook
The real question may not be whether knowledge and emotions can be scaled,
but:
What kind of society can carry both—shared knowledge and shared emotional grounding?
Such a society would not be built on ideology or technology alone,
but on a new form of epistemic solidarity:
People who want to know what is.
Who seek to explore what could be.
And who trust each other enough to believe that every voice counts.