-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
THE PROOF AND CERTAINTY
The certainty of the proof comes from the fact that the proof is
about certainty, and thus the proof is a certainty about certainty.
If certainty itself were not the subject of the proof, then
attaining certainty on it would be much less certain :)
The proof, other wise known as the machine certainty theorm, is
very simple:
Learning with certainty across a space time distance is impossible.
"There is only one Proof.
Learn it, love it, teach it, master it.
All can, but for some it may be a very long time between now and
then, for you can't move your house around town if you have locked
yourself inside it.
In Excelsis Deo." - Adore
((Jane has asked me to explain what the reference to moving your
hour around town means.
BEING can create, change and destroy BEINGNESS (often called
BECOMINGNESS when it is a created identity in space time.)
BEINGNESS is your 'house', what you are and live in as you play the
games of life.
If you get too stuck in your BEINGNESS, you won't be able to
reascend to BEING in order to create, change or destroy your existing
BEINGNESS, i.e. to "move your house around town."
The last line means 'In the most high is God', namely that the
being is God in carnation and if that being has chosen to lock himself
in his own house and throw away the key, there is not much you can do
about it, as sovereign all knowing rights have been exercised, for a
while.
So, don't worry, be happy.))
CERTAINTY
Understanding the proof involves knowing what we mean by learning,
certainty and space time distance.
For example although it might seem obvious what certainty is, one
really needs to consult an example of certainty in order to really come
to know it.
In the absence of any examples of certainty, it would probably be
quite hard to tell what a certainty was.
Having a standard of certainty then allows one to easily reject the
many false pretenses of certainty in the world.
At this point we ask the reader to engage in a thought experiment,
the kind made famous by Albert Einstein.
Consider for the moment, as you sit there reading this posting,
that you are in fact quite asleep in bed and dreaming, that everything
you see around you including this posting, is a conscious color form
with no actual physical referent on the other side of it. In a few
minutes you will wake up to the real world, and remember this dream in
its entirety including every word of this posting.
Just by way of reminder, in a dream the conscious color form
experiences are actual, but the implied physical referents are not.
You may see an apple out there, but there isn't a corresponding
physical apple that the physical body can eat.
Now, while considering yourself asleep and dreaming, we enjoin you
to look around you and spot any object with at least two different
colors in it.
Before you saw the object, did you know for sure it had at least
two colors?
Are you sure you see two different colors?
Would you bet your eternity in hell you see two different colors?
Would you bet everyone else's eternity in hell that you see two
different colors?
Good.
That's a certainty, a certainty that there are (at least) two
different colors and you see them.
Notice that certainty of difference implies certainty of existence,
as a color can't BE DIFFERENT from another color without BEing in the
first place.
Thus not only have we defined certainty by direct observation, but
also existence.
In fact since the two colors have an implied viewpoint, you should
be able to spot with certainty where you are looking at the colors from,
and spot the looker looking at the colors. The looker is as actual as
the colors that are being looked at, although the looker has no color.
The 'color' of the looker is agency, self awareness and "I AM!".
So now that we know what a certainty is, if someone asks you to say
something with certainty about the nature of certainty you can always
say "Well learning with certainty across a distance is impossible,
certainly!"
That means by the way that there is no distance between you and the
two different colors you are looking at and know are different with
certainty, even though the illusion of distance between you and the
colors is very strong.
In fact not only is there no distance between you and the colors,
you in fact ARE the colors, looker and looked at are one and the same
object and event.
This is a very big deal.
On the order of discovering special relativity, the cure for
cancer, or finding God under your pillow.
So be aware in this matter that you know something of import.
Don't just throw it in the same bin along with all your other
knowledge.
If God is perfect, then looking upon a perfect certainty is
possibly looking upon a functional part of God.
Some have even gone so far to say that consciousness IS God Light.
LEARNING
Again we enjoin the reader to notice that before looking at the
above object with two different colors, the reader did not in fact know
how many colors the object had, one or more.
But after looking at the object in question, the reader was able to
determine with certainty that the object had at least two or more
colors.
That is learning, a coming to know, in this case with perfect
certainty.
Thus we have fully defined Learning with Certainty.
SPACE TIME DISTANCE
Space and time are both conscious experiences, but we
anthropomorphize them into actual phenomenon in the alleged physical
universe.
We like to think that because we SEE space and time, that therefore
there IS space and time OUT THERE.
By the way, long time ago, Godel wrote a paper claiming that
Einstein's theory of special relativity proved that time didn't exist at
all. No one took him seriously, they considered him a loon. But to
complete the lunacy, space doesn't exist either, so in truth spacetime,
both space and time, are illusions.
Both space and time are dimensions, meaning collections of things
which are identical to each other in their nature, but different in fact
from each other. Like having two pennies, each one a perfect copy of
the other, but each none the less distinct.
Just so, points in space extending out from anywhere to anywhere
form a line of identical 'points in space', but each one is in a
different place relative to the end points of the line. Thus, in
conception anyway, we have a continuum of 'points of space' from one end
to the other, each identical to the other, but each one its own point in
space. Thus the only difference between two points in space is where
they are, and thus 'where they are' forms a dimension of otherwise
identical entities.
Same for moments of time forming a time.
Now we run into a problem with distance because distance is a
consideration of how many points of space there are between two other
points forming the end points of the line segment.
We have learned in school that there are an infinite number of
points between any two points, no matter how close the two end points
are together, so we can't use 'how many points' as a measure of
distance.
Worse we have been taught that there is no distance at all between
any two 'adjacent' points on a line, yet the line has length. This is
problematic because if you have a million points with no distance
between them, that adds up to no distance! One million times zero =
zero.
Unfortunately, even if you had an infinite number of points with
zero distance between them, there would still be zero distance between
the first and last.
Zero rules, because zero times infinity is still zero.
And infinity thought it was so big.
So distance is a difficult concept, particularly if we try to
measure it in points between, but we don't need to deal with the
difficulties in order to understand the proof.
All we need to understand is TWO DIFFERENT POINTS which are not on
the same point.
In physics we have learned that a point in space and time defines
an event or object. Even if there is nothing there at that moment in
space or time, the space time point was there, and that is an event or
object enough to call it so.
If a photon or other material object passes through a space time
point, then that adds to the description of the event at that space time
point. Rather than just being a moment of space and time, it now also
consists of a photon passing through it at a given angle, speed and
frequency.
If a ball is just hanging out in space time, then at its position
in space time, we have an event consisting of a point in space and time
plus a ball.
If the ball moves off that point in space time, then we have an
event of just space and time remaining at the original spot in space,
but which is in a new point of time.
Events are often considered to be CHANGES in space time points,
for example say the ball moves from one point to another. Then the
first point goes from having a ball in it, to not having a ball in it.
But changes are actually a comparison of TWO DIFFERENT moments in
space time with each other. The point in SPACE may have been the same
point in space during the two events, but the point in time certainly
isn't, or no change could have occured.
Change implies time, and time implies change.
In this case the space time point at the first moment in time had a
ball in it, and the same space point at the next moment in time didn't
have a ball in it.
Thus changes are comparisons across two different space time
points.
A space time point is different from another space time point if
either the space point or the time point or both are different.
Now here we have a weird one, that might take a moment to see the
sense of it.
If the space and time points of two events are not different, then
they aren't two different events, the two events are actually one and
the same event. Get it?
We may have a more complex event because two events are embedded
into one, but we consider there is only one event and not two.
For example let's take a theoretical piece of 8 x 11 paper and mark
two points on it with a pencil at different locations.
Then let us fold the paper over on itself so those two marked space
points overlay each other exactly.
Then any event that happens at one of those two points will
instantaneously happen at the other, not because the transfer of event
is infinitely fast, but because they are the same point in space time
anyhow.
DISTANCE IS DIFFERENCE
The word distance therefore can be defined as that which puts
difference between two points in space or time or both.
That's deep, for now we can't say that two points that have zero
distance between them are two different points.
We don't care about how many points there are between any two
different points, we only care that they are two different points.
This is very important because the proof says that learning with
certainty across a distance is impossible.
What this means is:
Learning with Certainty across two different space time points
is impossible. That means one point can't learn about the other point
with certainty.
The above is true regardless of whether there is something or
nothing in those space time points or between them.
This is not an issue about the kind of stuff that might occupy
those space time points, but an issue strictly about the two space
time points being two DIFFERENT space time points.
Thus it does not matter what the world is made of, what kind of
'stuff' exists or is created INSIDE that space time continuum,
learning with certainty across a difference remains impossible. This
fact has nothing to do with the nature of the stuff within that space
time.
Thus we can conclude that if A and B are different, either
because they are separated by two different points in space time, *OR
FOR ANY OTHER REASON*, then A and B can never learn about the other
with certainty.
WHY?
Because A is not B.
A can only be A.
B can change state BECAUSE of A, but even then B remains B. How
does B know the change was caused by A? A remains forever a theory to
B.
All learning across a difference in space time involves one point
in space time receiving an impingement from another point in space
time.
Say we are sitting there, just being a point in space time, and
siting there, and sitting there, and suddenly we are also a photon for
a moment, then another moment later we are just a point in space time again.
So a photon passed through us, causing us to change state from
'photonless' to photonfull'.
But does that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the photon
came from the next point over from us before it hit us?
We certainly could theorize so, its called the theory of
electromagnetism, first clearly elucidated by James Clerk Maxwell, but
why couldn't God have just fabricated the photon where we were for a
moment and vanished it? Why did it HAVE to come from somewhere else
first?
This is called the Third Party Law.
The Third Party Law states that in the absence of the ability to
directly see the NECESSITY between two events A and B that follow each
other, then it is imposible to determimne whether A caused B to change
state, or whether some third event C caused both A and B to change
state in such a way that it LOOKED LIKE A caused B to change state.
Since necessity can not ever been seen directly across a distance
between two events, it is impossible to determine with certainty the
causal relation between the two events.
For any two events that follow each other, therre may always be a
third or fourth or fifth party, unsuspected but present and operating.
That there isn't remains always and forever a theory.
Because necessity CAN be seen directly between conscious looker
and looked at, we know there must be no distance between them.
Causation is necessity between two events.
Certainty IS necessity. Necessity of truth born of directlly
observed necessity of causation.
Look at the two different colors. Can you observe them
*CAUSING* you to know that they are different without possibility
of error?
When the looker sees the two different colors and knows they are
in fact two different colors without possibility of error, that is
necessity of truth and causation operating, which results in perfect
continuously reverfiable certainty.
Necessity of correctness can not operate across a difference or
distance and thus never across a dimension or space time.
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
Sun Feb 25 23:53:04 EST 2007
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sun Sep 13 12:06:01 EDT 2015
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore457.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help in body
=========== 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.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFV9Z7pURT1lqxE3HERAvyKAJ9KvYO3oDFoQkGslhmJDaKWQJ+F1ACglvkY
zp9nnk+FVK180GbI7blhJSA=
=Yby6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
No comments:
Post a Comment