THE PROOF, A QUICK SUMMARY
This fine morning is February 14th, 2009, Valentine's Day.
OK, so this lecture is about The Proof.
The Proof is about Learning, Certainty, Causation and
Consciousness.
By themselves these are not new topics, it is the ability to say
something cogent about all four of them in the same sentence that is
new.
Actually there are 5 different cogent statements to the proof, the
first 4 lead to the fifth.
We are going to go over each statement in detail, but not
necessarily in the order in which they are normally presented.
Instead we are going to present them in the order they were
discovered.
The proof is a certainty about certainty. This does not mean it is
therefore circular or self validating, it does mean that the proof is a
very deep statement about the nature of certainty, in particular who or
what can have it, and who or what can't.
Many people have told me 'Homer haven't you ever been certain of
something and found out later you were wrong?'
This is of course complete nonsense, if any certainty could later
be proven to be wrong, then you could never be certain of anything,
because 'you could always be wrong and not know it!'
Tell me you are so unconscious and mentally degraded that you can't
be perfectly certain that you exist and care.
Could a nothing wonder whether or not it was a something or a
nothing?
Could a nothing give a damn?
Do you doubt that you doubt?
Are you uncertain that you are uncertain?
Can you spell 'Mind Broke?'
A perfect certainty can't be proven wrong, and if it can, it WAS
NEVER A PERFECT CERTAINTY IN THE FIRST PLACE AND COULD HAVE BEEN KNOWN
TO NOT BE A PERFECT CERTAINTY AT THE TIME, BEFORE IT WAS PROVEN WRONG.
People have certainty of truth confused with dependability of
theoretical models, they are two completely different ball games.
Theoretical models can be 'wrong' (found to be unworkable), perfect
certainties of truth can not be.
What people are referring to, when they claim they used to be
certain of something that later proved to be wrong was a THEORY, not a
perfect certainty born of direct observation.
Thus people really have no excuse for this "I am certain I can't be
certain of anything" nonsense, it's a lot of wind between the ears, its
their way of remaining disconnected from logical sense, and dodging
important issues and certainties they would prefer to avoid and not be
aware of.
The impossibility of perfect certainty is a deceit of magnitude,
and having institutionalized it as honorable, one has guaranteed the
final oblivion of the civilization.
There is probably no greater crime than doubting a perfect
certainty as merely a theory, or asserting a theory as a perfect
certainty.
Science worships uncertainty, and religion worships faith.
What ever happened to perfect certainty?
Impossible, unimportant, useless, or dangerous?
Wherever you go the party line is the same.
Personal integrity is the ability to know what you know, and know
what you don't know. Once perception of things becomes alloyed with
one's fears, and truth becomes bowed to the jurisdiction of one's
petty desires and self serving prejudices, integrity becomes a
stranger to us.
Things are true whether or not we want them to be true, and most
of us haven't a clue what we really want anyhow.
That's what being clear is about, knowing what you want with
absolute certainty.
Apart from knowing that you are, and that you care.
A clear has 5 perfect certainties that are fundamental to his
being.
I AM
I WANT (desire, care)
I KNOW (personal self awareness, and material knowledge)
I DO (cause, personal agency)
I HAVE (desire fulled or not as the case may be) .
Once a person finds out what he really wants, he can confront
again what he is worried might be true, and thus keep his integrity
intact.
In the end Truth is your friend, it may not seem so at the
moment, and Lord knows, our whole lives we have been taught Truth
isn't our friend, so this may be part of the undreamed dream come true
for many.
Truth rocks!
So the proof flies in the face of an awful lot of human nonsense,
promulgated by bums and professors alike.
The mental disease of wind between the ears (empty headedness
born of illogic) seems not to discriminate amongst the wealthy and the
poor, the educated and the ignorant.
Everyone has their safe solutions to having to actually look at
the world and see how things are, and many make a fine art out not
looking.
Reich called them plague personalities, you try to talk to them
about anything real, and they just cut you to pieces until you become
like them.
And so we have become like them, to some degree or another.
Spotting the zombie zoners in your past and your present will go a
long ways towards rekindling that sparkling, friendly glow-in-the-dark
sweet fondness for truth again.
And the suffering will go, physical, emotional, mental and
spiritual.
That's a big statement, don't go by it.
Fear of finding out and knowing the truth usually results from
wrong indications on matters of importance, resulting in feelings that
are so bad one concludes they must be true.
Thus when seeking for the truth to bad things, one is attracted
to the theories that make one feel the worst, and one judges their
likelihood of truth by how bad they make one feel.
It is beyond most people's imagination that a beautiful truth
could give rise to such horror as this present universe, so one seeks
horrible truths of comparable magnitude to the horror one wishes to
understand instead.
The basic computation is:
Horrible truths explain horrible realities, for there is no way a
wonderful truth could, would or should create a horrible reality.
Since anyone can mock up things so horrible that NO ONE can
confront them, it is no surprise that an entire population of beings
is walking around, with safe solution non-views of the Cosmic All,
that protect them from having to LOOK, and be burned to death, by the
horrible truth they expect to look back.
Most safe solutions actually give a person a moral mandate to NOT
look. And thus you become a bad person if you try to make them look.
I mean what would happen to their kids if someone actually looked and
went splat all over Native State? (Original state of a spiritual
being before manifestation.)
Many people who feel they are mortal meatballs in this life, feel
that they would go insane if they ever found out for sure that they
had lived before. That is possibly because they were quite insane
when they CHOSE between lives to don the deceit of mortality and
forget their eternality as a spirit when they took on their. What in
the whole great Cosmos could possible make an eternal spirit wish to
pretend to be mortal, live once, die once and that's bit bud?
So, for the sake of the kids, most must remain self blindered to
the truth they fear would destablize them forever.
They say ignorance is bliss, and this is what they are talking
about, on the way to the final meat grinder.
The war between science and religion is one such area that has
sown only destruction and sorrow from adherents believing only what
they can tolerate, what makes them comfortably numb, rather than
looking at the enormity of things surrounding them as they really are.
Sure, try as he might, a being can be limited in what he is able
to see, but most are HIDING behind their small minded dogma and
refusing to look further.
"My mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts."
And they will say this as if they have a right!
Philosophical vertigo can wobble the knees of any man, but most
fail to stand up to the vision of the AllThatIs as it really is, and
choose instead to hide behind the safety of their dogma.
The Pope told Hawkings that it was permissible to study the
universe back to the Big Bang, but not before, for that was God's
province.
Both religion and science on Earth add up to a whole hell of a
lot of 'must not inquire'.
Chandrasekhar was born in India and became a world famous
astrophysicist when he was taken under the wing of the ever so prim
and proper Sir Eddington, adjunct to the Royal Astronomer of England.
Chandra worked out much of what we know today about white dwarf
stars, but at the time his conclusions flew in the face of the
accepted theories, especially those held by Eddington.
Eddington would allow Chandra to speak first at lectures, then
tear him apart when he spoke himself. Everyone saw this, and everyone
was quiet.
Then one day Eddington died, and suddenly all of Chandra's peers
came out of the wood work and shook his hand saying what a genius he
was and how they believed him all the time, but none of them had dared
say a word before, because Eddington held all their careers in his
hand.
This is science at it's best.
Science at it's worst is when Bruno said that the stars are suns
with planets and people around them, and they burned him at the stake
on February 17 1600.
Of course it didn't help that Bruno also insisted that the Church
was generally full of it.
But a plurality of worlds was a serious doctrinal no-no at the
time, and remains so to this day. (See discussion of SETI below).
The problem with most religions is these guys fabricate doctrine
out of thin air in order to scare little children into not just
obedience, but total slavery.
*THIS IS A SERIOUS CRIME, PROBABLY MORE SERIOUS THAN MURDER.*
On Earth we have Death Row, well in Hell they have Pope's Row.
When science or religion are held captive to the prejudices and
pinheadedness of a few men of power and prestige, the world suffers a
dark age until they die.
This is the history of both science and religion.
And its good story telling, because the forces of good have to
fight overwhelming odds to make any headway at all against the theses
(degrees) hanging on chair's walls.
It is amazing what a formidable enemy a piece of paper can be.
Back in the early days, mathematics was developed by a kind of
top secret cult, the knowledge of math was not meant for the masses,
and the doctrine of the day was that all numbers were rational, could
be expressed as the ratio of two integers.
When, much to their lo and behold, they discovered that the
square root of 2 was irrational, it sent a wave of disturbance through
them that threatened to undermine an almost religious world view built
on rational numbers.
They threatened to KILL anyone who divulged to the world that the
square root of 2 was irrational.
An awful lot of "I don't want to know" and "I have a right to not
know" crystalized around that one.
So much for knowledge in the hands of those who would push the
party line.
Pushers of the party line are like drug pushers, they profit from
the addiction to lies and small minded world views that they offer.
The search for extra terrestrial life is another example in
point, many of a religious bent do not wish to find life on other
worlds as it would wreck havoc with their view of the Cosmic All.
For one, it might throw doubt on their salvation.
They believe the world is 10,000 years old because that is about
the limit they can tolerate thinking that their all powerful, all
loving, all present, all knowing creator left them alone in a meat
grinder for.
12 billion years? Oh no, that gives them the willies. He's
still thinking about us after all that time?
Thus they make believe that God created the world 10,000 years
ago to LOOK LIKE it was created 12 billion years ago, photons already
en route from distant stars, and the Grand Canyon is only 6000 years
old,
And when asked about life on other planets, the more crude will
tell you
"I don't believe in no N.....s from outer space!"
Such wonderful people.
It's not that they think aliens are black, it's more they think
their Messiah died on Earth for the sins of red blooded American white
people, real humans you know, God's chosen, and not to save the
inferior morally irredeemable sorry asses of snake people made of
silicon and sulphuric acid on other planets.
Christ, imagine having to learn to play harps with them in
heaven?
You would have to change the strings every 10 minutes.
Other's worry there might actually BE other life forms out there
but we shouldn't be signaling them to let them know where we are
because 'We already got enough illegal aliens trying to get in...'
Public funding for the SETI project was killed many years ago by
various Congress vermin of this strain.
They say "there is no social benefit to finding out we are not
alone in the universe."
Other than wiping out pinheaded views of the Cosmic All that is.
Namely theirs.
They are always just trying to be so 'helpful'...
If you ask me, finding intelligent life on other planets might
alter the course of Armageddon itself, which is presently right on
schedule as far as I can see, with everyone lining up to push the
button because they want to be the first to get to Heaven.
This is the first time in history we GOT the button to push, in
the form of chemical, biological, atomic, and genetic warfare, so the
rush is on.
And if the button is cooled by these little computer fans, it
will probably push itself, when one of these fans stop and over heats.
On the other hand finding aliens might help Armageddon along, so
it's a hard call.
There is a particularly rabid form of religious psychosis going
around. It goes like this.
The person believes in "God's Will."
He fears God like a child fears a drunken father.
He fears he will be punished if he doesn't follow God's Will.
Further if he doesn't assure that OTHERS also follow God's Will,
he fears he will be punished for not trying hard enough to be his
brother's keeper.
All of this would be fine if God's Will were that man be happy,
healthy and wise. But no, this poor bloke believes that God's Will is
that man destroy himself or be destroyed in the great tribulation.
Thus when some danger arises such as a plague or incoming
asteroid that might actually destroy mankind, this psycho considers it
is God's Will come to fruition, AND HE WILL OPPOSE ANYONE WHO TRIES TO
SAVE MANKIND OR AVERT THE DANGER, lest they interfere with the Will of
God.
These people really piss me off.
They believe that other men can interfere with God's Will, and
that God needs them to make sure this doesn't happen.
They are about as safe to have around as an asp viper.
The most dangerous thing about them, is how they come to work for
you, and their devotion to that work, towards your own demise.
The most dangerous thing about any enterprise are the few people
in the enterprise covertly opposing the enterprise, and these are
them.
You can sometimes spot one of them hard at work. Just ask them
what they are up to and they will say "Oh just doing the will of God,
brother (big smile)."
Anyone who claims to know what the will of God is, has long ago
started to doesy-doe in the Devil's square dance.
That's because YOU are God in carnation, and you haven't a clue
what you are up to, now do you.
Fortunately there aren't too many of these covert psychopaths in
the world.
The problem is most have been quarantined in Congress.
Anyhow, hopefully God reserves a special place in hell for the
High Priests of both science and religion.
Only for a while though, until they are just toasty well done,
and ready to be civil again.
At least until those theses are ashes on the floor.
So I am going to go through the Proof here really quick to give a
simple overview of the subject, one that can be easily remembered and
communicated to others.
The Proof is the Sword of Excalibur which you can use to cut
through the party lines and 'knowledge' that others try to bury you
under.
But first let's take a break, go get some donuts and coffee.
OK, we are back. I am sorry I took so long with the first part of
this lecture, I didn't realize I was so steamed up inside about these
things.
I should open up a dry cleaning shop.
Don't worry, there is always more.
THE PROOF
We start with the top level 'catechism' on the philosophy of
thought, words, ideas and logic.
CATECHISM
QUALITIES, OBJECTS AND CLASSES
There are Qualities, Objects and Classes.
An Object is any event, existence or state of things in space time
or anywhere else.
Qualities belong to Objects, and Objects belong to Classes.
OBJECT QUALITY SETS AND PERTINENT QUALITY SETS
The qualities that belong to an object make up the object's Quality
Set and describe the nature of that object.
The qualities that define a Class are called the Pertinent
Qualities of that Class.
COMMONNESS AND UNIQUENESS
The pertinent qualities of a class are both common and unique to
every object in the class, and are why the object is in the class in the
first place.
Common means that all the objects in the class have that subset of
qualities, that is the pertinent qualities of the class are common to
every object in the class.
Unique means every object in the world that has that subset of
qualities is also in the class.
Dogginess is a pertinent quality set made of all the things
necessary and sufficient to be a dog.
Dog is a class.
Common means all dogs have dogginess. (Necessary)
Unique means everything that has dogginess is a dog. (Sufficient)
Notice that animalness is common to dogs, but not unique
to dogs, cats are animals too.
Dogginess is unique to both dogs and animals, everything that has
dogginess is both a dog and an animal.
Joey, my dog, is an object.
Brown is a quality.
Statements of fact are of the form:
Quality belongs to Object, or
Object belongs to Class.
"Brown belongs to Joey", means Joey is brown.
Joey belongs to Dogs, means Joey is a Dog.
Statements of fact can be true or false, they don't have to be
true!
Joey was in fact black.
QUALITIES OF BEING AND QUALITIES OF RELATION
There are two kinds of qualities, qualities of being and qualities
of relation.
Qualities of being are qualities that an object has alone.
Qualities of relation are qualities an object has by virtue of it's
unaloneness, it's relation to other objects.
Existence is a quality of being, so is inertial mass.
An object alone can have inertial mass. It may take force pushing
on it to MEASURE that inertial mass, but even without the force, the
inertial mass is still there.
Being next to, is a quality of relation, so is gravitational mass.
The "fork is next to the knife" is a quality of relation that is true
of both the fork and the knife.
It takes two objects to have gravitational mass between them.
You may be big and fat and have a lot of inertial mass around your
belly, but you won't weigh (gravitational mass) anything in outer space.
You would still be hard to push around (inertial mass).
Being the cause of, or being effected by, are also qualities of
relation of great importance.
Qualities of relation come in many different kinds, spatial,
temporal, material, energetic, and causal are the main ones.
The AllThatIs is alone. Aloneness is a quality of being.
Unaloneness is a quality of relation.
SOMETHING AND NOTHING
A nothing is an object with an empty quality set, it has NO
qualities in its quality set.
A something is an object with a non empty quality set, it has SOME
qualities in its quality set.
Notice that a physical something made of matter, energy, space and
time, is a subset of all possible somethings, there may be somethings
which are not physical.
There can only be one nothing.
If there were two different nothings, then their quality sets would
have to be different and thus not empty.
Something can not come from nothing, for if an object had the
potential to give rise to a something, it's object quality set would not
be empty to start with.
Something can not go into nothing, for if an object had the
potential to be given rise to by a something, it's object quality set
would not be empty at the end.
Something exists now.
Therefore something has always existed and will always exist.
THE A's AND THE B's.
'State' is the existing quality set of an object.
If A and B have two different quality sets, then A and B are two
different objects.
If A and B are objects, and A changes state and B doesn't, then A
and B were and are two DIFFERENT objects.
FOLLOWINGNESS
Consider that A and B are objects or events.
There is followingness.
That means B followed A at least once.
There is dependable followingness.
That means B follows A every time we have ever observed it.
There is necessary dependable followingness.
That means B MUST follow A because A CAUSES B to happen.
Causation means necessary, and necessary means causation.
There may be MORE to causation than mere necessariness, but
necessariness is necessary for causation to exist.
REFERENTS AND SYMBOLS
Symbols symbolize and refer to referents, and referents are
symbolized and referred to by symbols.
If A causes B, then A is a referent and B is a symbol for A.
After B has been affected by A, B's state contains a data imprint
on it that reflects the nature of A.
In this way we can learn something about A by looking at B, if we
theorize that B's state was affected by A.
Once a referent has caused a symbol to change state, the symbol
then itself becomes a referent of its own and can cause another symbol
to take place later on.
In this way a causal pathway is created which transmits data about
the referent to many sequential symbols later.
CAUSAL PATHWAYS
A causal pathway is a series of referents and symbols, each the
cause of the next in line propagating through space and time at the
speed of cause (light).
The longer the causal pathway, the more 'hops' from original
referent to a new symbol, the more likely the original data from the
nature of the referent will become degraded and unrecoverable from the
later symbol.
The symbol of final authority is the symbol that is studied to
determine the nature of the referent. Notice this is not the last
symbol in the chain, as there probably is no such thing, as most chains
go on forever.
Tracking is the fact of the symbol changing state in tandem with
the state of a referent, but with a time delay between them, due to a
causal influence of the referent on the symbol.
We say that the state of the symbol tracks the state of the
referent. In the absence of dependable tracking, learning about the
referent by looking at the symbol degenerates.
Data transmission takes place by dependable tracking between
referent and symbol across causal chains (pathways) from source to
destination.
EVIDENCE AND MODEL
If B changes state because of A, we say that B is the evidence and
A is the model that explains the change in B. Together B and A form a
theory.
Models are neither true nor false, merely workable or not workable.
The purpose of a model is to create the ability to predict
dependable followingness. This is HOW things work, the rules of
operation, it has nothing to do with why things work, the truth.
DOMAIN ERROR
A Domain Error is when a quality is assigned to an object to which
the quality can not apply,
Asking what is the square root of a dog is a domain error, as dogs
do not and can not have square roots. Numbers can have square roots,
and dogs are not numbers.
Asking whether a model is true or false is a common domain error,
as models are not descriptions of what is, but descriptions of what
happens.
Any pretense of a model to explain WHY things happen is just that,
a pretense.
THEORY BALLS
A theory ball consists of observations (evidence), theories
(models), and predictions.
When all observations are explained by the theory, and all
predictions made by the theory are observed, we say we have a complete
theory ball, a 'perfectly round theory ball'.
Theory balls are mostly useful for playing croquet, because they
tend to result in a thesis hanging on a wall, smug satisfaction in the
purveyor of the thesis, and thus they stop further inquiry.
The real problem with theory balls, is that with limited access to
the facts, one can create a theory that explains everything, that is
much smaller than the AllThatIs.
As the search for the grand unified theory of everything is a
highly desired prize, theory balls can become very hard to crack, mostly
due to vested interests in being the winner.
The people who create such perfectly round theory balls tend to
lose interest in finding any more facts that might roughen its edges.
OCCAM'S RAZOR
Occam said
"Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatum."
What he meant to say was entities should not be multiplied greater
than necessary.
In other words, given all the facts, the simplest theory that
models it all, may be the most workable one and the one that should be
persued for funding purposes.
By more complex theory, we generally mean a theory that predicts
all the existing facts plus some more.
We eschew the more complex theory because if it were workable, the
extra facts that it would predict should be observable.
In other words, if a theory says that certain facts CAN happen, one
would expect that eventually they WILL happen.
Thus given all the facts, if those extra facts are never seen to
happen, then it is unlikely that the more complex theory is valid even
if it does ALSO explain all the facts seen to date as does the simpler
theory.
This results from a tacitly assumed 'lex parsimoniae', or law of
parsimony.
Why would a universe have more complexity if it was never going to
use those abilities that came with that complexity?
We do not imagine that a universe could have cards to play, and
then never ever play them.
Much easier and more useful to assume is that those extra cards
never existed in the first place.
The real problem with Occam's Razor is, who has all the facts?
You will find those that think they do, out on the croquet courts
of life kicking their theory balls around for everyone to see, or
holding chairs at universities.
Remember, sophomore means one who thinks he has wisdom.
Apparently many chairs graduated early.
SEEING THE WORLD THROUGH THEORY COLORED GLASSES.
Once a person has a theory in mind that explains everything to him,
it becomes almost impossible for him to look at things without the
theory in mind.
So you have a meatball in a white lab coat who is just sure that
consciousness is a process in the brain, and no matter what you say to
him he will tap with his pencil for a moment on his clipboard and then
'explain it away' by telling you immediately how the brain might
accomplish such a thing.
Their toughest argument to defeat is confuscation through
complexity. "Oh if you just make it complex enough, it can feel
pain..."
Confuscation is a transgenetic mutation of confuse and obfuscate.
THEY have no idea how complexity will give rise to the phenomenon
in question, and they hope you don't either.
The underlying party line here is that everything is a multi
dimensional machine, and self awareness is a function of mechanical
complexity.
The hell it is.
Zero dimensionality and perfect certainty alike are persona non
grata in the halls of wisdom on this planet at this time.
When you fully understand the Proof, you will finally have a tool
to deal with this kind of institutionalized nitwitism.
In order to find out anything about the world, and to crack open
those rock hard theory balls, you have to be able to throw all your
theories away, along with their underlying party lines, and be able to
look at the world as if you know nothing about it.
Then you might be able to learn something new.
We are proud of what we know and ashamed of what we don't know, so
we are constantly trying to sell what we know to ourselves.
Therefore knowledge tends to obscure observation, because we try to
fit what we observe into what we already know.
This is particularly true of theoretical 'knowledge'.
People with a theory going around in their head can be practically
blind and tend to be owned by it. They can't think outside of it.
Particularly if by the grace of vanity they are trying to push the
idea that their theory is practically a certainty.
No theory is ever practically anything but a theory.
I don't care how long a theory has 'stood the test of time', one
counter example and it's gone.
You would be surprised to find out how many of today's accepted
scientific and religious theories are walking dead men.
The theories know this, its the people who hold to the theories
that don't. Theories just roll their eyes and get so embarrassed
sometimes by people who insist on touting them who ought to know better.
The Proof on the other hand is a perfect certainty about the nature
of perfect certainty.
As such the Proof can be used as a standard of certainty against
which to judge all the mere theories that pretend to certainty, but will
never be.
The Proof is the nutcracker of all nutcrackers to crack open theory
balls that pretend to be round but aren't.
A non round theory ball is one where not all observations are
modeled, or not all predictions observed.
All it takes is one new observation to throw a perfectlly
good theory ball out of round.
Then they are not even useful for croquet.
LEARNING
Say B is trying to learn about A.
Learning, is a change in state in B, by which B records knowledge
(data) about A, or the rest of the world.
Knowledge is data about the quality set of the referent object A in
question, which is recorded in B's new state after being affected by A.
Thus when we say that B is trying to learn about A, we are saying
that B wants to know what A's quality set contains.
In the absence of a change in state in B, there is no learning in
B.
Thus, learning implies a change in state, and a change in state
implies learning. The new state in B IS the learning gleaned about A.
More succinctly:
Learning implies change in state in B
No change in state in B implies no learning.
Thus the only way that B can learn about A, is for B to change
state BECAUSE of A.
Thus B has to be an effect of A, and A has to be cause over B.
This is very important because it leads to our first major
assertion called the First Law of Learning.
THE ONLY WAY THAT B CAN LEARN ABOUT A IS IF A CAUSES B TO CHANGE
STATE.
If A has no causal agency over B, B can never learn anything at all
about A, including whether or not A even exists.
No matter how much effect B has on A, no matter how much B causes A
to change state, if A has no effect on B whatsoever, then A might as
well not exist for B.
Now notice that the only contact that B has with A is via causal
relation, so this leads us to the second major assertion called the
SECOND LAW OF LEARNING.
THE ONLY THING THAT B CAN LEARN ABOUT A BY BEING THE EFFECT OF A,
IS HOW A AFFECTS B, NAMELY THE CAUSAL RELATIONS BETWEEN A AND B.
This is important because if A has qualities of being or relation
that do not in any way affect A's causal relations to B, then B can
never know about them, they too might as well not exist for B.
Thus the only thing you can learn about something by being the
effect of it, is how it affected you.
To sum this up into one statement we can say:
If A and B are two different objects, the only way that B can learn
about A is to be the effect of A's cause, and the only thing that B can
learn about A are the causal relations involved in that cause/effect
relationship.
This leads us directly to the second statement, but first
discovered, of the Proof.
2.) Learning between two different objects implies learning by being an
effect.
Because any form of space time distance between two objects forces
them to be two DIFFERENT objects, the second line of the proof becomes,
2.) Learning across a distance implies learning by being an effect.
Or:
2.) DISTANCE AND LEARNING IMPLIES LEARNING BY BEING AN EFFECT.
We note in passing that distance means distance in space or time.
OK, we are going to take break here and continue after the break.
Homer
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Wed Feb 18 21:58:12 EST 2009
_______________________________________________
Homerwsmith-l mailing list
Homerwsmith-l@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
No comments:
Post a Comment