> communication is knowledge creation, even if it simply conveys an idea from one brain to another, because there's no direct transfer mechanism the receiver of the idea must create it based on observations of the words of the giver.

I feel like science and mathematics (and even computer science) attempts to counter this.

If we can mechanically generate mathematical proofs, and those proofs can be proven equivalent to one another, then we have essentially simplified the abstraction mechanics of the individual brain and transferred them to a computer.

I view abstraction as a means for expanding all potential permutations of a given model and it's application, and then a reduction to a different set of terms that connects models.

We might be able to prove that we can agree with one another, but we might not be able to prove that we agree with our own selves. We can always make the problem more difficult individually by guessing and creating more questions.

To me the process is two sides of the same coin. One side is creation, the other side is destruction. You can't convey an idea without having an idea, and you can't question that idea without having another idea. Negation is still a logical mechanism. You can question whether there is more to think about than a choice between [(exist) or (does not exist)].

I really prefer to think about possibility and potential. It's an open space to me.