VALENTINE'S DAY LECTURE
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.
More specifically the proof is about Learning with Certainty about
Causation in Consciousness.
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!'
Being certain that you can't be certain of anything is mind broke.
People tell me 'Homer you are playing with words!'
Let me ask you, if someone is certain they can't be certain of
anything, who now is playing with words?
Tell me that you can't be perfectly certain that you exist and give
a damn (care.)
Could a nothing wonder whether or not it was a something or a
nothing?
Could a nothing give a damn?
Could a hallucination have an hallucination?
Do you doubt anything?
Are you SURE you doubt?
Do you doubt that you doubt?
Are you uncertain that you are uncertain?
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. I have actually had friends go so far as to tell me this, "I
don't want to be certain!"
The claim to 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, giving a damn)
I KNOW (personal self awareness, and material knowledge)
I DO (cause, personal agency)
I HAVE (desire filled or not as the case may be)
Once a person finds out what he really wants, he can confront again
that monsterous idea he is worried might be true, and thus keep his
integrity intact, rather than spending his whole life pretending there
isn't a monster under his bed.
Any child knows that monsters live in homes with bed's for roofs.
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 protecting them from having to
look at the world and see how things actually 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 all physical, emotional, mental and spiritual suffering may go,
or start its final walk towards peace.
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 one's fears 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 instead one seeks
horrible truths of comparable magnitude to the horror one wishes to
understand.
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 non-views of the Cosmic All, acting as safe
solutions, 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 the place?
What people fear most is losing control, that their final
vulnerability will be tapped.
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 to forget their
eternality as a spirit, when they took on their body.
What in the whole great Cosmos could possibly make an eternal
spirit wish to pretend to be mortal, live once, die once and that's it
bud?
So, for the sake of the kids, most people remain self blindered to
the truth they fear would destablize or destroy them them forever.
They say ignorance is bliss, and this is what they are talking
about, on the way to the final meat grinder.
SCIENCE AND RELIGION, A BRIDGE TOO FAR.
The war between science and religion is one such area that has sown
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 actually 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 to their willful
blindness.
"I have a right to my emotional stablility!"
Philosophical vertigo can wobble the knees of any man, and most
fail to stand up to the vision of the AllThatIs as it actually 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.
The implied idea is that SCIENCE AND RELIGION CAN NOT TOUCH EACH
OTHER and therefore one shouldn't try, it is immoral to try.
God will damn you if you do try.
Someone is trying to hide something, you see?
THEY know better, but they hope you don't.
Both religion and science on Earth add up to a whole hell of a lot
of 'must not inquire', particularly politically correct modes of of
these areas of study.
THE SINS OF SCIENCE AND RELIGION
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 the Church promptly 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 the
intellectual community 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, as if that would some how ameliorate
their problem, when at best it would give them time to formulate their
apologies, and re position themselves as people in the know.
An awful lot of "I don't want to know" and "I have a right to not
know and we have a right to make sure you don't know either,"
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 proffer.
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 tiny view of the Cosmic All.
For one, it might throw doubt on their own personal 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.
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 Niggers from outer space!"
Such wonderful people.
It's not that they think aliens are black, it's more they think
their Messiah came to Earth for the sins of red blooded American white
people, real humans you know, God's chosen, and not to save the morally
inferior, irredeemable sorry asses of snake people made of silicon and
sulphuric acid on other planets.
Christ, imagine having to learn to play harps with these guys in
heaven?
You would have to change the strings every 10 minutes.
Some people have a plan to divide heaven up into partitions,
so if the wrong kinds of people happen to get in, they can keep
them segregated to the back rooms.
You know, the Pearly Gates and the Obsidian gates for the others.
Some people 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 come here...'
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 can't stand their 9 to 5 job and they want to be the first
to get to Heaven.
If God is going to send the majority of the planet to hell forever
anyhow, why not help Him out and hurry it along.
Waiting and hoping for Armageddon is so annnoying...
This is the first time in history we HAVE 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, when one
of these fans stops and overheats, it will probably push itself.
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 finally 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.
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 towards your own demise, and their total devotion to that work.
The most dangerous thing about any enterprise are the few people in
the enterprise covertly opposing the enterprise, and these are among
them.
You can sometimes spot one 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 with the Devil.
That's because YOU are God in carnation, and you haven't a clue
what you are up to, now do you.
The good news is there aren't too many of these covert psychopaths
in the world.
The bad news is most of them 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 bullsh*t 'knowledge' that others try to bury
you under.
But first let's take a break, go get some donuts and coffee.
THE BEGINNINGS OF THE PROOF
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.
We start with the top level 'catechism' on the philosophy of
thought, words, ideas and logic.
The proof is a rock solid theorem in information theory, meaning
its about who or what can or can not learn about things around them.
As such there is a significant amount of language that surrounds
the proof, and these words and ideas need to be defined clearly and
become crystal sharp in order to deal with the problems involved in this
area.
Since we are trying to build a bridge between science and religion,
no one will mind if I start off a scientific lecture with the term
catechism.
CATECHISM
QUALITIES, OBJECTS AND CLASSES
There are Qualities, Objects and Classes.
Qualities belong to Objects, and Objects belong to Classes.
An Object is any event, existence or state of things in space time
or anywhere else.
A class is a grouping of objects according to similar qualities.
QUALITY SETS
Objects are fully described by an Object Quality Set or OQS.
Classes are groups of objects.
Classes are fully defined by a Pertinent Quality Set or PQS.
The pertinent quality set of a class is generally a subset of the
various object quality sets of the objects in the class.
COMMON AND UNIQUE
Pertinent quality sets are both common and unique to the classes
they define.
In short common means every object in the class has the quality
set, and unique means only objects in the class have the quality set.
Consider a class named dog with a pertinent quality set of
dogginess which delineates every quality that is both necessary and
sufficient to be a dog.
Common means the pertinent quality set is common to every object in
the class, and also common to all classes that are SUBsets of the class.
In other words, ALL members of the class and its subsets have the
pertinent quality set in question.
Dogginess is therefore common to dogs, but it is also common to all
spaniels and beagles and other subsets of dogs. Thus all beagles have
dogginess, although it is not true that only beagles have dogginess.
Unique means every object which has the pertinent quality set is a
member of the class and all classes that are SUPERsets of the class. In
other words ONLY members of the class and its supersets have the
pertinent quality set in question.
Dogginess is therefore unique to dogs, but it is also unique to
mammals and animals which are supersets of dog. Thus only animals have
dogginess, although it is not true that all animals have dogginess.
The above is hard slogging, so I will reword it again as
simply as I can.
Dogginess is common to all objects in the class of dogs and
its subsets.
Dogginess is unique to the class of dogs and its supersets.
Dogginess is thus the defining pertinent quality set of the class
of dogs because dogginess is both common and unique to the class of
dogs, excluding subsets and supersets.
AND and OR
Notice the larger and more inclusive a class is (animals), the
*FEWER* qualities it has in its pertinent quality set, which is why it
has more objects in it.
The smaller and less inclusive a class is (dogs), the more
qualities it has in its pertinent quality set, which is why is has fewer
objects in it.
The class of metal objects is bigger than the class of metal and
red objects.
The above assumes that qualities in pertinent quality sets are
ANDed together, if they are ORed together the reverse obtains.
The class of metal OR red objects is larger than the class of metal
objects.
LABELS
Qualities, objects and classes have labels.
Joey, my dog, is brown.
'Brown' is a quality lable and brown is a quality that belongs to
the quality set of the object named Joey.
'Joey' is an object label, and belongs to the class of dogs.
'Dog' is a class label, and is defined by the pertinent quality set
of dogginess that is both common and unique to dogs.
Notice that the object quality set of Joey has many more qualities
than the pertinent quality set of dogginess.
Notice also that although 'dog' is a class lable, and 'my dog' is
an object lable.
((The following material was not part of the original lecture but
was added later to clarify and expand on the data above.
OBJECT QUALITY SETS AND PERTINENT QUALITY SETS
The qualities that belong to an object make up the object's Object
Quality Set (OQS) and describe the nature of that object.
For example
Object A is metal and square and red.
Object B is wood and square and green.
Object C is glass and round and white.
Notice that qualities in an object quality set are ANDed, they can
can never be ORed.
Thus is would be invalid to claim that this object is square or
round in the context of describing how the object IS now.
The qualities that define a Class are called the Pertinent
Qualities of that Class, such qualities can be ANDed, ORed or NOTed.
For example,
The class of all square objects.
The class of all square and red objects.
The class of all square OR round objects.
The class of all objects which are round and NOT red.
The english language has many ways to express the ideas of
commonness and uniqueness. Below are listed just a few of them.
Again we use the class of dogs which have the pertinent quality set
of dogginess. We also use animals as a superset of dogs and spaniels as
a subset of dogs.
COMMON UNIQUE
Dog is common to Spaniels Spaniel is unique to Dogs
All Spaniels are Dogs Only Dogs are Spaniels
Dog is necessary to Spaniel Spaniel is sufficient to Dog
Spaniel implies Dog Not Dog implies not Spaniel
If Spaniel then Dog Only if Dog, then Spaniel
Dog if Spaniel Spaniel only if Dog
Dog is common to Dogs Dog is unique to Dogs
All Dogs are Dogs Only Dogs are Dogs
Dog is necessary to Dog Dog is sufficient to Dog
Dog implies Dog Not Dog implies not Dog
If Dog then Dog Only if Dog, then Dog
Dog if Dog Dog only if Dog
Animal is common to Dogs Dog is unique to Animals
All Dogs are Animals Only Animals are Dogs
Animal is necessary to Dog Dog is sufficient to Animal
Dog implies Animal Not Animal implies not Dog
If Dog then Animal Only if Animal, then Dog
Animal if Dog Dog only if Animal
End of added data.))
STATEMENT OF FACT
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 affected 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.
Next to, before, heavier than, faster than, father of, are
examples.
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.
ONLY ONE NOTHING
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 FROM NOTHING
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.
((The fact that object A is now a nothing, but was a something,
indicates that A came from a something. This 'coming from a something'
is a quality of relation that relates what A is now to what A was in the
past, and is thus a continuing quality of relation in A's present object
quality set, even though it is otherwise presently empty. Thus A's
object quality set is NOT empty and thus A which came from something,
can't be a true nothing.
In other words if a nothing came from a something, that fact is an
existing quality of relation of the present nothing to the prior
something, and that quality of relation is in the present nothing's
quality set, thus it is not a full nothing because its quality set is
not fully empty.))
Something exists now.
Therefore, since something can come from nothing, 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 have identical quality sets, then A and B are two
different names for the same object.
If A and B are objects, and A changes state and B doesn't, then A
and B were and are two DIFFERENT objects.
If A and B are separated by an actual spacetime distance, then A
and B are two different objects.
If A and B are two different objects, then the only way B can learn
about the state of A, is for B to be the effect of A.
If A has no effect on B, then B can not learn anything about A not
even that A exists.
Thus the only way that two objects that are separated by a
spacetime distance can learn about each other, is by being the effect of
each other.
Learning by Being an Effect is an attempt by B to learn about the
qualities of being in A, via qualities of causal relation between A and
B.
FOLLOWINGNESS
Consider that A and B are objects or events.
There is followingness.
That means B followed A at least once.
DEPENDABLE FOLLOWINGNESS
There is dependable followingness.
That means B follows A every time we have ever observed it.
NECESSARY DEPENDABLE FOLLOWINGNESS
There is necessary dependable followingness.
That means B MUST follow A because A CAUSES B to happen.
That means that B necessarily follows A because A is
sufficient to cause B.
We write this as A -> B.
Causation implies necessary followingness, and necessary
followingness implies causation.
There may be MORE to causation than mere necessariness, but
necessariness is necessary for causation to exist.
In other words:
Necessariness = Causation = Necessariness
or
Necessariness implies Causaton and Causation implies Necessariness.
or
Necessariness <--> Causation
REFERENTS AND SYMBOLS
Symbols symbolize and refer to referents, and referents are
symbolized and referred to by symbols.
Within the language of the proof, we use the terms referents and
symbols in a possibly new and unique way, in that they are related to
causation between referent and symbol in a broader way than normally
used.
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 original referent to many sequential symbols later.
CAUSAL PATHWAYS
A causal pathway is a series of referents and symbols, each the
effect of the referent before it, and the cause of the symbol after it,
propagating through space and time at the speed of cause (light).
The longer the causal pathway, that is the more 'hops' from
original referent to a particular symbol, the more likely the original
data on the nature of the original referent will become degraded and
thus unrecoverable from the later symbol.
SYMBOLS OF FINAL AUTHORITY
The symbol of final authority is the symbol that is studied to
determine the nature of the original 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
Tracking is the fact of the symbol changing state in tandem with
the state of a referent, due to the causal influence of the referent on
the symbol, with a time delay between them due to the speed of cause.
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
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 apparent 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 acceounted for by the theory, and all
predictions made by the theory are observed, we say we have a complete
theory ball, or 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 behind a leather chair, and
smug satisfaction in the purveyor of the thesis, thus they stop further
inquiry.
The purveyors of theory balls like to control the careers of
others to protect the roundness of their theory balls.
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 open,
mostly due to vested interests in being the winner.
The people who create such round theory balls tend to lose interest
in finding any more facts that might roughen its edges or cause it fall
apart completely.
Thus we seek a nut cracker of magnitude that can crack open any
theory ball, allowing its pieces to fall out, so that pehaps we can put
it all back together again slightly differently, to smooth out some of
its not so round 'roundness.'
The proof is such a nutcracker.
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 ALSO explains all the facts seen to date as does the simpler
theory.
This philosophical stance 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 with thesis in polished frames behind
them.
If you have a theory that accounts for all the facts that YOU have,
it will be a very small theory indeed.
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 accounts for 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 that might throw doubt on his position, 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.
CONFUSCATION THROUGH COMPLEXITY
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, but they still want you to
buy their party line.
When it comes to the brain, they don't understand their present
ideas of complexity, so they hope by adding more complexity to it, they
will improve their nonunderstandings of complexity even more.
The underlying party line here is that everything is a multi
dimensional space time machine, and self awareness is a function of
mechanical complexity.
The hell it is.
Zero dimensionality (scalar actuality), 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.
SEEING THE WORLD WITHOUT THEORY COLORED GLASSES.
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.
DOWNSIDE OF THEORETICAL KNOWLEDGE
We are proud of what we know and ashamed of what we don't know, so
we constantly try to sell what we know to ourselves.
Therefore knowledge tends to obscure observation, because we try to
fit what we observe into what we think 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 force of godless vanity, they are trying to
push the idea that their theory is practically a perfect 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 NUTCRACKER
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 a 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.
IF A AND B ARE TWO DIFFERENT OBJECTS, 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 A's
qualities of causal relation, namely how A affects B, 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 and the whole point of this lecture.
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.
or separation along any kind of dimension whatsoever.
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
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Oct 30 00:06:02 EDT 2013
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/val/val1.txt
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning, but
not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith Clean Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth, and Peace, Internet, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com
_______________________________________________
Clear-L mailing list
Clear-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/clear-l
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
No comments:
Post a Comment