We use the notion "know" in this analogous sense , as if it was an attribute of complex motion. it reflects our struggle to comprehend the many connected and systematic actions and reactions within complex moving organizations, which possess cybernetic qualities, and pretensions to "will".
Any sufficiently complex arrangement will draw this notion out of our descriptive box of words.
But the notion of knowing cannot nor should not be so easily dismissed when looking at complex moving systems. Knowing adequately describes a set of relations and constraints on a system with regard particularly to feedback and feedforward looping and sequenced action. Knowing also fittingly describes emergent behaviours in complex systems, and i often use the emergent property description computational consciousness, to describe the crossover from computation to conscious processing.
Computation is a notion derived from manipulation, but manipulation is derived from the ordered and conscious use of an army of conscious individuals, despite its etymological connection to the hand or fist. Thus we do not advance much beyond the apprehension of conscious connected activity when we investigate the source , and in fact many philosophies start with consciousness in some nebulous form or as a fundamental attribute. I have no issue with that , but observe that we can derive all the attributes of consciousness from motion and therefore prefer to start from ceaseless motion and derive consciousness,
This is not better, just more satisfying to myself.
My daughter has had to write an essay on what is space, which is interesting as i have not discussed my exploration of the concepts. At this juncture it serves to distract from the object of this post, but perhaps i will spend some time later considering what she has found out,
Meanwhile the use of a reference frame is tantamount to analogising consciousness as a reference frame. By this i mean that to devise a tool which gives a coordinate for every and any "point" , in principle in space, is to assume a foreknowledge of every position. And even if it may be argued hat we do not hold the entire knowledge all at once , but determine it by a rule in relation to what has gone before, it still implies a foreknowledge that this can be done.
It is reasonable to say that one proceeds in hope, and hope is not dissapointed, but one modestly makes no claim beyond that which is actually measured, however as Appolonius pointed out with his stick, one always seems to be able to poke a little further. So by this it is also reasonable to assume that we have an infinity of scope to which our tool may suitably apply and give "name" to every point. To me this is the same as saying that we may have infinite knowledge, or knowledge of infinite processes, which is the same as comparing infinite mind.
The long or the short of it is that i may place a tool which in principle gives me reference to every point in the universe, and its relation to every other. What i choose to do is ignore that fact and focus on a narrow set of circumstances, to keep it simple. I also ignore my ability thereby to place myself in any one of these poins and orient myself with regard to that point.
At each point or region as i prefer there may well be information that is relative to that region, and accessible nowhere else, but should some universal law exist, then each point will also possess information accessible from every other point or region, and is is the very information a reference frame affords to the observer.
The reference frame therefore provides a connection between what an observer may call his/her mind an a universal information matrix constructed by the mind on the basis of sensory input signals, processed unconsciously.
I therefore prefer to start off with the sensory mesh as a local phenomena which processes and computes some signals from an environment into which the sensors are locked by stimulus, producing the experiential continuum i call space. Space is then intimately subject to whatever tools the sensory mesh may devise or utilise, and in fact the formation of a sense of self may in fact constitute one of these tools .
The appearance or emergence of self changes everything including any computational notion of "output space", or computational output. I may, upon the emergence of "me" imperatively seek to distinguish and define myself as separate to other , and this may involve the emergence of notions of spatial relations of the sorts we are familiar with in our present everydayness. But it is to be heavily emphasised that as these notions develop, they do so at the ewxpense of the primacy and or relevance ot others. Thus within the convoluted "i" that develops from this process are many abilities, and capabilities which go unrecognised.
My favourite one is magnitude. If i have, in response to a multiplex of signals , computationally described and run the scene of a tree blowing in the wind, then every leaf of the tree i have computed , and moreover its dynamic range. Therefore i "know" how many leaves are on every tree i have in my view! Astonishing as that may seem, i believe it to be for the most part true, modified only by the fact that some of the areas of my vision which are not in focus may in fact be computed in less detail, and thus the "count of leaves" would be suitably adjusted.
How can i prove this? Well i cannot prove it but their is plenty of evidence to suggest this is what pertains. And in fact it explains why we can "guess" at number names.
Now i used to trot out the anecdote about aboriginals whose numeral names went "1,2, many", but the significance is this, if i said "prove you know how many leaves are on a tree by giving me the number!" then i am talking crazy. I do not know the name of every number up to a million, and i would be asking you to name the magnitude that corresponds to the leaves you are computing. This assumes that my computational consciousness computes using the names of quantities, which i strongly suspect it would not nor does not. So then i would be forcing you to apply a counting algorithm that is so slow all the dynamism that i am calculating is sucked out of, focused out of and excluded from the computation and i am leaving you with a sequentially focused experience which cannot relate to the dynamic motile scene that existed earlier.
With experience of naming, and an open accessible stance, very accurate "guesses"can be made.
Similarly with a reference frame tool i can guess what every point or region in space is experiencing.
Proprioception provides me with the arena of spaciometry, and by its very nature, the detail of that spaciometry becomes less accurate the greater the distance radially from me.
WE get presented with an either or when show reference frames but we use a combination of polar and cartesian in our natural system.