Oh, it's the chicken and the egg problem again!

We label prophecy as the trivial result, that often is mistaken as surprising, of having self-generated a certain given reality, contrasted to an organic reality. Prophecy is best explained via the dual slit experiment in physics where it has been determined that observing an experiment, even without any sort of intervention, counter-intuitively induces changes in the observed experiment. This leads to a certain level of confusion on whether the result, as well as the act of observation itself is organic in nature. We generally attribute prophecy as a result of architectural invariants, along the lines of "what is, can only be" and definitely the result of a spiral.

Even though prophecy can be debated at length, namely in terms of quantification, certain practical applications can be mentioned that suffer from the paradox of prophecy. One such example can be drawn from legistics, with numerous applications, such as the polygraph test, sting operations or, at large, a fundamental flaw of espionage. Put plainly, the validity of the former in terms of justice is questionable, given that there is a doubt on how much an observation changes a situation. Sting operations, for example, include things such as placing cars that seem abandoned in populated places, inserting key-components into a case at opportune moments such as weapons, such that the act itself manages to change the context of a given subject. If you accept that people are connected to their environment, as well as relying on it, then seems rather trivial to deduce that a different resolution would have been met if the context would not have been changed. In legal terms, this leads to seeing the law as a suicide pact, which is in itself, a concept that has been deemed to defeat the purpose of justice. It is from this perspective, given as far as the human knowledge extends to date, that any effect of any observation, even if not pervasive, is to be blamed on the cause, and iff. the cause includes an observer, lest the intervention of an observer, then the observer themselves carry part or whole of the blame. The former is also indicative of why such constructs are labelled "suicidal", in that being the observer generates self-damaging consequences. In practice, all the mentioned artifacts above (polygraph, sting operations, etc.) are in a state of meta-acceptance by most juridical systems given that the underlying ethical problems are tough to solve.

Outside of legistics, the impact of prophecy can also be observed at large, pertaining to the perception of individuals on certain issues, such that behavioral patterns that might change according to the act of observation as a natural and organic response. For example, social media usage patterns, shopping patterns and similar might all change due to just the knowledge of pervasive surveillance. In principle, a long slippery slope lies forth, starting from benign matters like shopping patterns, followed by bank runs and leading up to civil war where the question is always on which one of the cause or the effect preceded the other. One interesting on-going engine to track, is the Axon camera phenomenon where all the possible acts of violence are being constantly documented by a lens, as well as made available to the public, along with all the possible tertiary impact.

The level of detail of a problem sometimes matters if one would like to perceive all the details of an image. In order to illustrate the former, the following video uses an image and then changes the zoom level on the computer screen. Then, you can judge for yourself at which point the image becomes sufficiently detailed in order to be able to tell all the details apart.

When zooming out, some of the information is missing because the pixels will end up blending together, such that the information contained within the image is destroyed. When zooming in, all the pixels are displayed but regardless of the fact that the entire contextual details pertaining to the image are provided, the image is still not clearly determinate. The process of zooming out adds a little more context progressively, however, the context that is added does not seem to clearly contribute directly to what the indeterminate image is that was zoomed-in upon.

As it turns out, for this experiment, even with all the possible information pertaining to the detail that is to be determined, one does not know what the image truly contains.