Thursday, September 29, 2011

ADORE863 (fwd)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


In alt.clearing.technology Roger Larsson <roger.larsson@live.com> wrote:
> If the universe we lives in is located in Gods asshole it's not all
> safe to speak low about him as it is in Hubbards and scientologys
> cases. It can't be so fun to be awashed by the flood.

This comment seems to indicate a belief that God MADE us, that we
are not God itself in carnation, and thus we need to fear God and thus
dare not speak freely against the sin of separationism.

Separationism teaches us, there was God, then God created the
universe which was not God, and then create us who are not God, and then
dumped us into the universe to be tested for his own approval.

The truth is that the soul is the co eternal active part of God,
that God is a multi I-AM being, and each I-AM can at its own sole
discretion incarnate with other I-AM's into a game for its own fun and
pleasure.

Thus all there is of God in any particular universe are the
souls that have incarnated into that universe, either as physical
players or higher plane players.

In this state we call God the High US, to remind us that God is a
MULTI I-AM being, it is both a one AND a many. The one is the subtrate
that connects us that we all share in common and allows us to share
dreams, and the many are the eternally individual souls who enjoy
dreaming together once in a while.

The universe is a color form glow in the dark image created in the
body of each soul called its consciousness, it has no other external
actuality. In other words the soul descends from the static of non
manifestation into the dream time of the kinetic, rendered as a color
form display only in each soul's consciousness.

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

- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 May 1 14:28:12 EDT 2011

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Thu Sep 29 03:06:02 EDT 2011
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore863.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFOhBjaURT1lqxE3HERArwHAJ4t3ohwYuFIAmo+Upd7mgznAi2JQACfa4Sb
MeUOL5fzpJkvdOnRoynIDro=
=2ifA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Homerwsmith-l mailing list
Homerwsmith-l@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

Tuesday, September 27, 2011

INTRO TO LOGIC

INTRO TO LOGIC

Here follows the first broad public issue of the Machine
Certainty Theorem (MCT).

There are two fundamental aspects to any theorem or proof, the
LOGICAL FORM, and the CONTENT.

The logical form can be expressed with out the content by
replacing the various words and phrases in the proof with variables
that have no meaning. This allows the logical form of the proof to be
studied independent of its actual application.

Once the logical form is verified, then the variables can be
replaced by the meanings they stand for, and application of the proof
with its content can be studied independent of its logical form.

Any proof has at least three parts. The ASSUMPTIONS, the LOGIC,
and the CONCLUSION.

The logical form of the proof consists of all three parts in
abstract variable form, as described above. The content of the proof
also consists of all three parts in the concrete form where all
variables are replaced by their intended meanings.

The Machine Certainty Theorem states that a space-time machine
can't be certain of anything, yet a Conscious Unit can, therefore a
Conscious Unit is not a space-time machine.

Before I get on with the formal presentation of the Machine
Certainty Theory, I would like to provide a small sample proof to
explain the various parts of what you are about to see to those who
have little training in formal logic.

In this case I will work backwards from an actual argument in
concrete CONTENT FORM, to its abstract LOGICAL FORM so that you can
see how the process will be reversed when we get to the actual proof.

Consider the following argument.

1. Joe is a Christian.
2. All Christians believe in Hell.
3. Therefore, Joe believes in Hell.
Q.E.D.

Q.E.D is Latin for Quite Easily Done, this is placed at the end
of the proof to demark where the proof ends and that the conclusion
has been proved. (Actually QED stands for Quod Erat Demonstramdum,
'that which was to be demonstrated'.)

All proofs contain three parts, the ASSUMPTIONS, the LOGIC and
the CONCLUSION. The conclusion is true if and only if the assumptions
are true AND the logic is valid. If either the assumptions are false
or the logic is invalid, then the conclusion may be false (it could
still be true though, you don't know.)

For example, it is clear from the argument above, that if Joe is
not a Christian, or if some Christians don't believe in Hell, then the
conclusion that Joe necessarily believes in Hell becomes
indeterminate, he may or may not.

A properly presented proof would show all three parts,
assumptions, logic, and conclusion, clearly marked so that no
confusion could result.

The purpose of first presenting the proof in logic form devoid of
meaningful content is to verify or validate the LOGIC part of the
proof.

Once that is accomplished, then the proof must be presented for a
second time in CONTENT form, so that the assumptions and conclusion
can first be UNDERSTOOD and then their truth verified or argued. One
first verifies each of the assumptions in turn. If all of the
assumptions check out to be true, then the conclusion must be true if
the logic is also valid.

One then looks to see if the conclusion actually fits with
actuality. If it does you are finished for the moment. If it turns
out the conclusion is observably false, then either the logic was
invalid or one or more of the assumptions was false.

In the above example, there are two assumptions.

1. Joe is a Christian.
2. All Christians believe in Hell.

There is one conclusion,

3. Joe believes in Hell.

Normally in a more complex proof there would be more statements
inbetween 2 and 3 which would be partial conclusions on the way to the
final conclusion, but in this case the logic is so simple we go
directly from lines 1 and 2 to line 3 with a logical form called Modus
Ponens.

Modus Ponens is a fancy Latin phrase meaning 'If A implies B, and
A is true, then B is true too.' (Actually Modus Ponens means 'Mode
that affirms')

For example, 'If being a dog implies being an animal, and Joey is
a Dog, then Joey is an animal.

Modus Ponens can be compared to Modus Tolens, another fancy Latin
phrase meaning 'If A implies B and B is false, then A is false.'
(Actually Modus Tolens means 'mode that denies'.)

For example, "If being a dog implies being an animal, and Jane is
not an animal, then Jane is not a dog."

1. "Joe is a Christian" can be symbolized as "J -> C" which says
"If it's Joe, then it's a Christian", or "Being Joe implies being a
Christian", or more simply, "Joe implies Christian".

2. "All Christians believe in Hell" can be symbolized as "C ->
H" which says, "If it's a Christian then it believes in Hell", or
"Being a Christian implies Believing in Hell", or just "Christian
implies Hell".

3. "Joe believes in Hell" can be symbolized as "J -> H" which
says, "If it's Joe, then it believes in Hell" or "Being Joe implies
Believing in Hell", or "Joe implies Hell".

We can thus symbolize the entire argument as follows, and this is
its logical form.

We explain each part in the section below the proof.

************************************************************************

LOGICAL FORM OF THE PROOF

1. J -> C (Being Joe implies being Christian)
2. C -> H (Being Christian implies Believing in Hell)

(1,2)[A] 3. J -> H (Being Joe implies Believing in Hell)

Q.E.D

(M.P.) A. (A -> B) and (B -> C)) -> (A -> C)

************************************************************************

In the above example there are two assumptions, lines 1 and 2,
and one conclusion, line 3.

The '(1,2)[A]' to the left of line 3 denotes that line 3 was
derived from lines 1 and 2 using Logical Form A which is shown at the
bottom below the proof below the Q.E.D. The particular Logical Form
in this case is Modus Ponens, which is denoted by (M.P.) to the left
of the same line.

Not all logical forms have formal names, and if not, the name or
its abbreviation is left out.

So how does one go about checking this proof out?

1.) Well the first thing that needs to be done is to check out
and verify all the Logical Forms shown below the Q.E.D, as these are
the extracted GENERALIZED statements of the LOGIC part of the proof
that gets you from the assumptions to the conclusion.

2.) The next thing to do is to familiarize yourself with the
assumptions and the conclusion.

3.) The next thing to do is to verify each step between the
assumptions and the conclusion to see that indeed the GENERAL Logical
Forms stated below Q.E.D are used correctly in their SPECIFIC
application to each step of the proof between the assumptions and the
conclusion.

The GENERAL Logical Forms will usually be stated in generic
variables like A, B and C which have nothing to do with the proof.

The assumptions and the conclusion and the SPECIFIC USES of the
general Logical Forms will usually be stated in letters that relate to
their content, such as J, C and H (Joe, Christian and Hell).

Thus one needs to be able to see that the SPECIFIC use of a
particular Logical Form parallels the GENERAL use of the same form to
know that the general form has been used correctly.

For example,

GENERAL ((A -> B) and (B -> C)) -> (A -> C)
SPECIFIC ((J -> C) and (C -> H)) -> (J -> H)

Where ever there is an A in the general form there had better be
a J in the specific form. Where ever there is a B in the general form
there had better be an C in the specific form. And where ever there
is a C in the general form there had better be an H in the specific
form.

Don't get the C in the GENERAL form confused with the C in the
SPECIFIC form. They are unrelated and are the same letter only by
coincidence. In the general form the C doesn't stand for anything, it
is merely a place holder. In the specific form the C stands for
Christian and corresponds to the PLACE HOLDER B in the general form!

Now at this point it should be possible to say with perfect
certainty that the proof is either logically valid or not.

There is no such thing as an uncertain proof. Either it is valid
or it is not valid. This can be determined with perfect certainty
before anything else is known about the meaning of the variables in
the proof.

Remember though that just because a proof has been proven valid,
this does not mean that the conclusion is necessarily true. This
would also depend on the assumptions being true, and determining the
truth of the assumptions, not the validity of the logic, comprises the
main body of work in verifying the conclusion of a proof.

Verifying the validity of the logic of the proof is the first and
easiest step and by this time in the analysis should be satisfactorily
completed.

So that was a lot of work, no? But, as I said, we are not done
yet.

Once the logic form of the proof has been verified completely as
we have just done, you next need to verify the CONTENT form of the
proof.

This is done by replacing each specific variable in the proof
with its English equivalent so that you can see what each of the
assumptions and the conclusion actually say.

This is done first by providing a little table that shows what
each variable means, like so.

J = Joe
C = Christian
H = Hell

Then you plug them in and you get the following.

************************************************************************

CONTENT FORM OF THE PROOF

J = Joe
C = Christian
H = Hell

1. Joe -> Christian
2. Christian -> Hell

(1,2)[A] 3. Joe -> Hell

Q.E.D

(M.P.) A. ((A -> B) and (B -> C)) -> (A -> C)

************************************************************************

This provides a rather sparse and pared down version of what the
proof is about, but it serves to convey the meaning of each of the
lines.

The last step would be to take up each line of the proof and
expand it into a grammatically correct full English sentence and
discuss it at length.

Discussion of the assumptions would involve not only their
meaning, but also evidence that they are true.

In general there are 4 kinds of assumptions.

1.) Logical Tautologies.
2.) Definitions
3.) Observations
4.) Intuitions

LOGICAL TAUTOLOGIES are always true because of their inherent
logical structure. An example of a logical tautology would be,

1.) Christian or not Christian

A full english expansion of this might be,

1.) Joe is either a Christian or not a Christian.

You have to be careful when presenting such tautologies to make
sure that your words are defined in such a way that the tautology is
true. If someone has a sloppy or fuzzy definition of what it means to
be a Christian, then it might be possible to be both a Christian and
not a Christian! But really he would be changing meanings in mid
sentence, so its a good idea to set rigorous definitions of your words
that everyone can agree on before you start an argument or proof like
this one.

DEFINITIONS are statements that are true by definition.

An example might be,

1. All Christians believe in Christ, if they don't believe in
Christ then they are not real Christians.

Such a statement is true only because we say it is true, it has
no other basis. There may be other people who don't believe in Christ
who none the less wish to be called Christians. This is not a
problem, you have the right to define your words how ever you wish,
just remember that what you are calling a Christian may not include
others who call themselves Christians. They will no doubt complain,
but their complaints will be irrelevant to your proof.

If you wish to define your words in some other way, that is fine,
just make sure that everyone knows what YOUR definitions are before
you proceed.

OBSERVATIONS are statements that are true by observation.

1. Some Christians go to Church on Sunday.

It's true because it's true, go out and LOOK for yourself. It's
not true by LOGICAL TAUTOLOGY, and it's not true by definition, it's
true because someone went out and measured the phenomenon and reported
back what he found.

The certainty level of a observation is dependent on how many
vias you use to make that observation, how many levels of symbols
referrering to referents before you come to the actual thing being
observed. A person who is using radio telescope data to determine the
temperature of some planet circling a sun 4 galaxies away, is on far
less certain grounds, than someone looking at a thermometer in his
back yard. Someone who goes out and just feels that it is hot outside
is in even more direct contact.

Observations of the external physical universe however can never
be perfectly certain because all observers are using effects in
themselves to make conclusions about what must be out there.

In this sense, 'making an observation' means 'to be the effect of
an external cause' and THEN to logically compute back in time to what
that cause might be like in order to have had the effect that one
received.

That one received an effect might be a certainty, but the nature
of what caused that effect can not be determined from the nature of
the effect alone.

This 'computing back from later effects to earlier causes' is
always an uncertain process, because effects 'here' do not prove
anything about cause 'there'. One can merely create a 'causal model'
and hope for a dependable but uncertain world view.

Observations of one's own conscious color forms, though, CAN be
perfectly certain. If you see a color form mockup of red and green in
front of you, there can be no denying that you see it. Anything it
might be USED TO REPRESENT to you in the external universe might be
uncertain, but the existence of the color form itself is certain.

INTUITIONS are statements which one feels to be true because it
violates some inner sense of propriety to think they aren't. This of
course doesn't mean that they are true, but it does mean that if you
can get agreement among a number of people who have the same sense of
intuition, then you can proceed with your proof as if your intuitions
were true, recognizing that the truth of the conclusion is only as as
certain as the truth of your intuition.

Even if you can't get agreement among others about intuitions,
you can still have your proof to yourself and be satisfied with it as
far as it goes.

As an example of an intuition,

Something can't come from nothing.

Any given proof will have assumptions that consist of mixtures of
the above 4 kinds of 'truths'. It is often enlightening to actually
state next to each assumption which kind of truth it is.

For example,

A something is an object with a non empty quality set. DEFINITION
An nothing is an object with an empty quality set. DEFINITION

0.) An object is either a something or a nothing LOGICAL
1.) Something can't come from nothing INTUITION
2.) Something exists now. OBSERVATION

Q.E.D. 3.) Something must have always existed. (conclusion)

In closing I would like to add that it is not clear that every
argument can be put into such simple terms as I have laid out here, or
that every assumption can be divided into the above 4 categories.
Sometimes its takes an enormous reworking of the WORDING of an argument
to make it conform to the simpler rules of logic. The English language
is very complex and the simple Logical Form is often lost in more poetic
forms of argument.

People in fact with often try to hide bad logic in the complex
nuances of the language, which is why it is important to break arguments
down into raw logical form.

However for the purposes of the Machine Certainty Theorem, the
above discussion is relatively complete and satisfactory.

The Machine Certainty Theory is VERY SIMPLE, so simple in fact that
once you get it, it will be a BIG DOWN, because you will have been
expecting all these fireworks to go off in your brain once you realize
this 'Great Eternal Truth' of the ages.

Your actual reaction will be more like, 'Duh, so what else is new.'

However it is the application of the MCT to consciousness that will
give you something to think about.

Machines can't be certain of anything, consciousness can.

Finally, I would like to remind you of a wise old saying.

"At first they said it wasn't true.
Then they said it wasn't important.
Then they said they knew it all along.
Which was true."

Well, the guy who said that, was talking about the Machine
Certainty Theorem, which is the grand daddy of all truths that people
argue about with you until they convince themselves they showed it to
YOU in the first place!

At that point you know they got it.

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

LCC-MCT3 (fwd)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

INTRO TO LOGIC

Here follows the first broad public issue of the Machine
Certainty Theorem (MCT).

There are two fundamental aspects to any theorem or proof, the
LOGICAL FORM, and the CONTENT.

The logical form can be expressed with out the content by
replacing the various words and phrases in the proof with variables
that have no meaning. This allows the logical form of the proof to be
studied independent of its actual application.

Once the logical form is verified, then the variables can be
replaced by the meanings they stand for, and application of the proof
with its content can be studied independent of its logical form.

Any proof has at least three parts. The ASSUMPTIONS, the LOGIC,
and the CONCLUSION.

The logical form of the proof consists of all three parts in
abstract variable form, as described above. The content of the proof
also consists of all three parts in the concrete form where all
variables are replaced by their intended meanings.

The Machine Certainty Theorem states that a space-time machine
can't be certain of anything, yet a Conscious Unit can, therefore a
Conscious Unit is not a space-time machine.

Before I get on with the formal presentation of the Machine
Certainty Theory, I would like to provide a small sample proof to
explain the various parts of what you are about to see to those who
have little training in formal logic.

In this case I will work backwards from an actual argument in
concrete CONTENT FORM, to its abstract LOGICAL FORM so that you can
see how the process will be reversed when we get to the actual proof.

Consider the following argument.

1. Joe is a Christian.
2. All Christians believe in Hell.
3. Therefore, Joe believes in Hell.
Q.E.D.

Q.E.D is Latin for Quite Easily Done, this is placed at the end
of the proof to demark where the proof ends and that the conclusion
has been proved. (Actually QED stands for Quod Erat Demonstramdum,
'that which was to be demonstrated'.)

All proofs contain three parts, the ASSUMPTIONS, the LOGIC and
the CONCLUSION. The conclusion is true if and only if the assumptions
are true AND the logic is valid. If either the assumptions are false
or the logic is invalid, then the conclusion may be false (it could
still be true though, you don't know.)

For example, it is clear from the argument above, that if Joe is
not a Christian, or if some Christians don't believe in Hell, then the
conclusion that Joe necessarily believes in Hell becomes
indeterminate, he may or may not.

A properly presented proof would show all three parts,
assumptions, logic, and conclusion, clearly marked so that no
confusion could result.

The purpose of first presenting the proof in logic form devoid of
meaningful content is to verify or validate the LOGIC part of the
proof.

Once that is accomplished, then the proof must be presented for a
second time in CONTENT form, so that the assumptions and conclusion
can first be UNDERSTOOD and then their truth verified or argued. One
first verifies each of the assumptions in turn. If all of the
assumptions check out to be true, then the conclusion must be true if
the logic is also valid.

One then looks to see if the conclusion actually fits with
actuality. If it does you are finished for the moment. If it turns
out the conclusion is observably false, then either the logic was
invalid or one or more of the assumptions was false.

In the above example, there are two assumptions.

1. Joe is a Christian.
2. All Christians believe in Hell.

There is one conclusion,

3. Joe believes in Hell.

Normally in a more complex proof there would be more statements
inbetween 2 and 3 which would be partial conclusions on the way to the
final conclusion, but in this case the logic is so simple we go
directly from lines 1 and 2 to line 3 with a logical form called Modus
Ponens.

Modus Ponens is a fancy Latin phrase meaning 'If A implies B, and
A is true, then B is true too.' (Actually Modus Ponens means 'Mode
that affirms')

For example, 'If being a dog implies being an animal, and Joey is
a Dog, then Joey is an animal.

Modus Ponens can be compared to Modus Tolens, another fancy Latin
phrase meaning 'If A implies B and B is false, then A is false.'
(Actually Modus Tolens means 'mode that denies'.)

For example, "If being a dog implies being an animal, and Jane is
not an animal, then Jane is not a dog."

1. "Joe is a Christian" can be symbolized as "J -> C" which says
"If it's Joe, then it's a Christian", or "Being Joe implies being a
Christian", or more simply, "Joe implies Christian".

2. "All Christians believe in Hell" can be symbolized as "C ->
H" which says, "If it's a Christian then it believes in Hell", or
"Being a Christian implies Believing in Hell", or just "Christian
implies Hell".

3. "Joe believes in Hell" can be symbolized as "J -> H" which
says, "If it's Joe, then it believes in Hell" or "Being Joe implies
Believing in Hell", or "Joe implies Hell".

We can thus symbolize the entire argument as follows, and this is
its logical form.

We explain each part in the section below the proof.

************************************************************************

LOGICAL FORM OF THE PROOF

1. J -> C (Being Joe implies being Christian)
2. C -> H (Being Christian implies Believing in Hell)

(1,2)[A] 3. J -> H (Being Joe implies Believing in Hell)

Q.E.D

(M.P.) A. (A -> B) and (B -> C)) -> (A -> C)

************************************************************************

In the above example there are two assumptions, lines 1 and 2,
and one conclusion, line 3.

The '(1,2)[A]' to the left of line 3 denotes that line 3 was
derived from lines 1 and 2 using Logical Form A which is shown at the
bottom below the proof below the Q.E.D. The particular Logical Form
in this case is Modus Ponens, which is denoted by (M.P.) to the left
of the same line.

Not all logical forms have formal names, and if not, the name or
its abbreviation is left out.

So how does one go about checking this proof out?

1.) Well the first thing that needs to be done is to check out
and verify all the Logical Forms shown below the Q.E.D, as these are
the extracted GENERALIZED statements of the LOGIC part of the proof
that gets you from the assumptions to the conclusion.

2.) The next thing to do is to familiarize yourself with the
assumptions and the conclusion.

3.) The next thing to do is to verify each step between the
assumptions and the conclusion to see that indeed the GENERAL Logical
Forms stated below Q.E.D are used correctly in their SPECIFIC
application to each step of the proof between the assumptions and the
conclusion.

The GENERAL Logical Forms will usually be stated in generic
variables like A, B and C which have nothing to do with the proof.

The assumptions and the conclusion and the SPECIFIC USES of the
general Logical Forms will usually be stated in letters that relate to
their content, such as J, C and H (Joe, Christian and Hell).

Thus one needs to be able to see that the SPECIFIC use of a
particular Logical Form parallels the GENERAL use of the same form to
know that the general form has been used correctly.

For example,

GENERAL ((A -> B) and (B -> C)) -> (A -> C)
SPECIFIC ((J -> C) and (C -> H)) -> (J -> H)

Where ever there is an A in the general form there had better be
a J in the specific form. Where ever there is a B in the general form
there had better be an C in the specific form. And where ever there
is a C in the general form there had better be an H in the specific
form.

Don't get the C in the GENERAL form confused with the C in the
SPECIFIC form. They are unrelated and are the same letter only by
coincidence. In the general form the C doesn't stand for anything, it
is merely a place holder. In the specific form the C stands for
Christian and corresponds to the PLACE HOLDER B in the general form!

Now at this point it should be possible to say with perfect
certainty that the proof is either logically valid or not.

There is no such thing as an uncertain proof. Either it is valid
or it is not valid. This can be determined with perfect certainty
before anything else is known about the meaning of the variables in
the proof.

Remember though that just because a proof has been proven valid,
this does not mean that the conclusion is necessarily true. This
would also depend on the assumptions being true, and determining the
truth of the assumptions, not the validity of the logic, comprises the
main body of work in verifying the conclusion of a proof.

Verifying the validity of the logic of the proof is the first and
easiest step and by this time in the analysis should be satisfactorily
completed.

So that was a lot of work, no? But, as I said, we are not done
yet.

Once the logic form of the proof has been verified completely as
we have just done, you next need to verify the CONTENT form of the
proof.

This is done by replacing each specific variable in the proof
with its English equivalent so that you can see what each of the
assumptions and the conclusion actually say.

This is done first by providing a little table that shows what
each variable means, like so.

J = Joe
C = Christian
H = Hell

Then you plug them in and you get the following.

************************************************************************

CONTENT FORM OF THE PROOF

J = Joe
C = Christian
H = Hell

1. Joe -> Christian
2. Christian -> Hell

(1,2)[A] 3. Joe -> Hell

Q.E.D

(M.P.) A. ((A -> B) and (B -> C)) -> (A -> C)

************************************************************************

This provides a rather sparse and pared down version of what the
proof is about, but it serves to convey the meaning of each of the
lines.

The last step would be to take up each line of the proof and
expand it into a grammatically correct full English sentence and
discuss it at length.

Discussion of the assumptions would involve not only their
meaning, but also evidence that they are true.

In general there are 4 kinds of assumptions.

1.) Logical Tautologies.
2.) Definitions
3.) Observations
4.) Intuitions

LOGICAL TAUTOLOGIES are always true because of their inherent
logical structure. An example of a logical tautology would be,

1.) Christian or not Christian

A full english expansion of this might be,

1.) Joe is either a Christian or not a Christian.

You have to be careful when presenting such tautologies to make
sure that your words are defined in such a way that the tautology is
true. If someone has a sloppy or fuzzy definition of what it means to
be a Christian, then it might be possible to be both a Christian and
not a Christian! But really he would be changing meanings in mid
sentence, so its a good idea to set rigorous definitions of your words
that everyone can agree on before you start an argument or proof like
this one.

DEFINITIONS are statements that are true by definition.

An example might be,

1. All Christians believe in Christ, if they don't believe in
Christ then they are not real Christians.

Such a statement is true only because we say it is true, it has
no other basis. There may be other people who don't believe in Christ
who none the less wish to be called Christians. This is not a
problem, you have the right to define your words how ever you wish,
just remember that what you are calling a Christian may not include
others who call themselves Christians. They will no doubt complain,
but their complaints will be irrelevant to your proof.

If you wish to define your words in some other way, that is fine,
just make sure that everyone knows what YOUR definitions are before
you proceed.

OBSERVATIONS are statements that are true by observation.

1. Some Christians go to Church on Sunday.

It's true because it's true, go out and LOOK for yourself. It's
not true by LOGICAL TAUTOLOGY, and it's not true by definition, it's
true because someone went out and measured the phenomenon and reported
back what he found.

The certainty level of a observation is dependent on how many
vias you use to make that observation, how many levels of symbols
referrering to referents before you come to the actual thing being
observed. A person who is using radio telescope data to determine the
temperature of some planet circling a sun 4 galaxies away, is on far
less certain grounds, than someone looking at a thermometer in his
back yard. Someone who goes out and just feels that it is hot outside
is in even more direct contact.

Observations of the external physical universe however can never
be perfectly certain because all observers are using effects in
themselves to make conclusions about what must be out there.

In this sense, 'making an observation' means 'to be the effect of
an external cause' and THEN to logically compute back in time to what
that cause might be like in order to have had the effect that one
received.

That one received an effect might be a certainty, but the nature
of what caused that effect can not be determined from the nature of
the effect alone.

This 'computing back from later effects to earlier causes' is
always an uncertain process, because effects 'here' do not prove
anything about cause 'there'. One can merely create a 'causal model'
and hope for a dependable but uncertain world view.

Observations of one's own conscious color forms, though, CAN be
perfectly certain. If you see a color form mockup of red and green in
front of you, there can be no denying that you see it. Anything it
might be USED TO REPRESENT to you in the external universe might be
uncertain, but the existence of the color form itself is certain.

INTUITIONS are statements which one feels to be true because it
violates some inner sense of propriety to think they aren't. This of
course doesn't mean that they are true, but it does mean that if you
can get agreement among a number of people who have the same sense of
intuition, then you can proceed with your proof as if your intuitions
were true, recognizing that the truth of the conclusion is only as as
certain as the truth of your intuition.

Even if you can't get agreement among others about intuitions,
you can still have your proof to yourself and be satisfied with it as
far as it goes.

As an example of an intuition,

Something can't come from nothing.

Any given proof will have assumptions that consist of mixtures of
the above 4 kinds of 'truths'. It is often enlightening to actually
state next to each assumption which kind of truth it is.

For example,

A something is an object with a non empty quality set. DEFINITION
An nothing is an object with an empty quality set. DEFINITION
An object is either a something or a nothing.

0.) An object is either a something or a nothing LOGICAL
1.) Something can't come from nothing INTUITION
2.) Something exists now. OBSERVATION

Q.E.D. 3.) Something must have always existed. (conclusion)

In closing I would like to add that it is not clear that every
argument can be put into such simple terms as I have laid out here, or
that every assumption can be divided into the above 4 categories.
Sometimes its takes an enormous reworking of the WORDING of an
argument to make it conform to the simpler rules of logic. The
English language is very complex and the simple Logical Form is often
lost in more poetic forms of argument.

People in fact with often try to hide bad logic in the complex
nuances of the language, which is why it is important to break
arguments down into raw logical form.

However for the purposes of the Machine Certainty Theorem, the
above discussion is relatively complete and satisfactory.

The Machine Certainty Theory is VERY SIMPLE, so simple in fact
that once you get it, it will be a BIG DOWN, because you will have
been expecting all these fireworks to go off in your brain once you
realize this 'Great Eternal Truth' of the ages.

Your actual reaction will be more like, 'Duh, so what else is
new.'

However it is the application of the MCT to consciousness that
will give you something to think about.

Machines can't be certainty of anything, consciousness can.

Finally, I would like to remind you of a wise old saying.

"At first they said it wasn't true.
Then they said it wasn't important.
Then they said they knew it all along.
Which was true."

Well, the guy who said that, was talking about the Machine
Certainty Theorem, which is the grand daddy of all truths that people
argue about with you until they convince themselves they showed it to
YOU in the first place!

At that point you know they got it.

Homer

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Tue Sep 27 03:06:03 EDT 2011
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/lcc-mct3
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFOgXXbURT1lqxE3HERAmPEAKCm+sVHo/13fBTI175FpPMyzIGxWgCglQSk
pyZQtQUZEbVhu28lh0WeLbU=
=VoDE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Homerwsmith-l mailing list
Homerwsmith-l@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

Sunday, September 25, 2011

THE BROKEN CHALICE

THE BROKEN CHALICE

The soul forms a single crystal in the Chalice of Life.

The Chalice can not be broken or destroyed because it is an eternal
structure forming the fabric of the AllThatIs.

The soul 'breaks' the Chalice when it decides that it no longer
wants to be in relation to another soul FOREVER, another crystal in the
Chalice.

The soul's own crystal goes dark, and the Chalice is marked at that
point forever more, but never broken.

It is not possible to throw enough hate or harm at another being to
affect them. Oh yes, you may be able to affect their body or other
accoutrements de la vie, but in the end the other being can only affect
himself.

But you certainly can put yourself in jail.

For by casting out another's light FOREVER, it doesn't matter who
they are, you dim your own abode.

Life is made of dicoms, a soul who is 'disconnected' from the
Fountainhead of Source, can act as poorly as a soul, who is connected,
can act well.

Imagine a negative God.

Thus those who would get rid of all assholes, would get rid of all
God's too.

What was RUINED (-8.0 on the tone scale) was not an object or
creation, but a relationship between beings, different crystals in the
same eternal Chalice.

They have no choice but to mend the rift within themselves to
restore the brilliance of their own existence, regardless of what the
other continues to do to themselves.

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

12/09/06 Saturday 8:02pm EST
Sun Dec 10 01:31:36 EST 2006

------------------------------------------------------------------------
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

Saturday, September 24, 2011

ADORE577 (fwd)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

EVIDENCE SCHMEVIDENCE

Theta Bop <doorman.ford@googlemail.com> wrote:
> There is not the slightest shread of evidence for any of these claims-

You mean YOU have never seen any. Please stop considering us
idiots that can't see through your pitiful efforts at logical treason.

At this point you would be thrown out of any debate for criminal
dharma treason.

> though I had never heard of the Murder Rundown. One thing I noticed is
> that Scientologists tend to become very angry people.

They can, it has to do with the unbalance of motivators and overts.

If you run out the overts of a person, and not the motivators, they
become overladen with remaining motivators and start wanting to commit
overts again (anger, no sympathy etc) to balance the load.

If you run out motivators on a person, and not the overts, they
become overladen with remaining overts and feel very guilty and start to
pull in motivators to balance the load.

Auditing should be a 4 flow process, but Book One for example was a
1 flow process, run the motivators only, so people felt guilty and
started to pull in more motivators to balance.

In the Church, too much attention is on pulling overts, and people
feel ashamed to have motivators to run, so the overts get run, the
motivators stay in place, and you get an anger case seeking to overt on
others again to balance the motivators 'he doesn't have'.

> The church has killed on many occasions, with various degrees if
> deliberateness. OT magic pixie dist would be a good way to do this and
> not get caught.
>
> Why not do so?

I hate repeating myself. No one in the Church has that ability.

OT powers up to OT VIII are reserved for power in one's own
universe, and perhaps power in a shared universe with another OT.

Moving the marble in the shared physical universe is not part of
the bridge at that point, nor is killing any one.

Anyone who can kill at a distance is probably no where near
associated with the Church any more.

The people in the Church who try to kill people are dramatizing 007
licence to kill, they are neither clear nor OT.

Many people come into the church only because they want
licence to kill and to overwhlem.

OT's are more likely to spend their time messing around with
elections by globally projecting intentions to vote one way or another.

See?

Having physical magic powers is not what will make you happy.

Having inner certainty and proof that you are a timeless eternal
being will. What power then flows will flow.

If you are being robbed, you would more likely get the guy
to change his mind through projection of intention, than try to
kill him as if you had a gun to defend yourself.

This is why many people who are going OT VII, stop carrying guns as
self protection because they see it is in fundamental conflict with
trying to be able to deal with life with thought reason and group mind,
rather than force.

The point is you made the universe along with everyone else, you
assigned yourself game playing powers, and if you can't move the marble
its because you chose to not be able to, long long ago.

In the past you have been able to kill at a distance, I assure you,
and you regretted it, and finally became disgusted with the power and
yourself, and you decided to become a body which has very little in the
way of power and can't remember it's detested past, and now you want
proof. You see how silly that is?

"YOU CHOSE, what proof did you leave behind you now?" - Adore

If you want power back, you will need to first get back the ability
to LIMIT your abilities, so you can duplicate the original act of
limitation that defined your present power set, which will vanish that
limitation returning you to native state.

Then you can redefine your power set by limiting yourself back down
to where you can move the marble, but not a mountain say or whatever you
want.

Too much power means no game, but in any case:

Power comes with total responsibility for no power.

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
Thu Apr 17 01:14:02 EDT 2008

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sat Sep 24 03:06:02 EDT 2011
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore577.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFOfYFaURT1lqxE3HERAnX0AKDALOIcKpOoFe5zfrUAIh4jYcMY8QCgrmSc
z3CWDhl6bNGRlcQ3gVNyscQ=
=nSIa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Homerwsmith-l mailing list
Homerwsmith-l@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

Tuesday, September 20, 2011

SCALARS

SCALARS AND DIMENSIONALITY

From Learning, Certainty, Causality and Consciousness, 2006
http://www.lightlink.com/theproof

APL is A Programming Language conceived by Kenneth Iverson in the
1960's at the IBM Yorktown Heights, NY computer center.

APL was written to allow designers of the new IBM 360 super
computer of the time to express the algorithms implemented in the
hardware that made up the computer.

They essentially wrote the computer in APL, before implementing it
in hardware.

In that sense APL was a hardware programming language, however they
found once the 360 was built, that the language used to design it was
optimum for use on it in many other areas of application.

Like many programming languages APL deals with numbers and
computations.

It has two rather unique qualities, the first is that rather than
use names for various functions like log and sine, it uses single
characters, and thus needs a special keyboard to enter the special
symbols. If you have ever seen an APL keyboard, you will probably
remember wondering what the hell that was.

Second, because it has so many fundamental operators like log and
sine, there is no order of precedence in evaluating expressions.

In most languages 3 x 2 - 1 would be (3 x 2) - 1 or 5.

In APL, everything is evaluated from right to left unless there are
parenthesis, so 3 x 2 - 1 would be 3.

One of the advantages of APL is that it is an interpreter, rather
than a compiled language, so one is presented with an active workspace
on the computer screen that accepted commands, executed them and
remembered them.

A simple session might go as follows.

Indented lines are typed by the user, unindented lines are typed by
the computer.

A
VALUE ERROR

A <- 3
A
3
A <- A + 2
A
5

The above session shows a number of important things.

Before A has been assigned anything, it doesn't exist at all, it is
a NOTHING per the opening definitions, or a VALUE ERROR per APL.

The opening definitions define a nothing as any object with an
empty quality set, no qualities.

After A has been assigned the number 3 with A <- 3, A becomes a
something, its quality set is no longer empty now being the number 3.

Once A has been assigned a number, it retains that number forever
until it is changed again, for example, in the next line by adding 2 to
it.

The last line where A is typed alone on the line indicates a desire
to see its value, and the number 5 is written.

In fact any line that does not contain an assignment arrow <-, no
matter how complex, means that you want the final evaluation of that line
printed out. Without the assignment <- however the final result is not
stored in any thing, and the value is lost as soon as it is printed.
Better to store it in A first then print it out!

The workspace can be saved at this point and reloaded later, to find
A still exists where one last set it.

A can also be erased, returned to a value error.

)ERASE A
A
VALUE ERROR

Numbers come in many forms in APL, they start with the simple
numbers like 3 in the example above. In that case the 3 is a scalar,
with zero dimensions as we shall see below.

But A can also be assigned to a set of numbers like so:

A <- 3 10 5 17
A + 1
4 11 6 18

In the above example 3 10 5 17 form a 4 element array called a
vector. Vectors have one dimension, like points on a line, and can be
as long as you like, that is have as many elements as you like including
just 1 or even 0 elements!

There are a number of operators that work with vectors to help
you handle them.

First the regular operators like plus and minus work as you would
expect.

A <- 2 4 6 8
A + 3
5 7 9 11
A + 1 2 3 4
3 6 9 12
A + 1 2 3 4 5
LENGTH ERROR

The above shows that you can add a scalar to a vector in which case
the scalar is added to each member of the vector, or you can add two
vectors together, in which case each member is added to the same member
in the other vector. But we can not add two vectors of different
lengths, its meaningless.

There are also more sophisticated operators like the one that allows
you to sum up the values of A

A <- 1 2 3 4
+/A
10

The construct +/A means put the + between every member of the
vector and the execute the whole line.

A more interesting example is is x/A which puts a times between
each member and multiplies them all up.

A <- 1 2 3 4
x/A
24

Notice in APL times is x and not *. The * is exponentiation.

THE RHO OPERATOR

Now here is where you really need to start paying attention, for
without this you won't ever be able to talk about the proof and scalars
in any meaningful way.

There is an operator that allows you to determine the shape and
size of any array, be they scalars, vectors, matrices, cubes or hyper
cubes and higher etc.

It is written and called after the greek letter RHO, in this paper
we will use the small letter p to represent the RHO operator, as that is
the closest to what a RHO really looks like. Its called RHO after
RESHAPE which is what it does.

RHO has two uses, depending on whether it is used with one
argument or two.

With one argument, RHO returns the shape of A.

A <- 1 2 3 4 5 6
pA
6

This says that A has one dimension with 6 elements in it. That's
like a one dimensional line 6 inches long.

You know the extension is 6 because you see it right there in the
answer. You know there is only one dimension because only one number
was printed out.

So when you see 6 = pA, you know that A is one dimensional with an
extension of 6 inches, elements, numbers or whatever.

When used with two arguments, B p A, RHO reshapes A after the
value of B.

5 p 1
1 1 1 1 1

6 p 1 2 3
1 2 3 1 2 3

4 p 1 2 3 4 5 6
1 2 3 4

Now the above notation opens a serious question, which is what is
the value of:

0 p 1 2 3 4

Well we know that the left hand side tells you two things, how
many dimensions and how many elements in that dimension.

So because there is just one number on the left, the answer must
be a one dimensional vector, but it has ZERO elements!

To make it more concrete let's use A again.

A <- 0 p 6
pA
0
A
<- blank line

Since A has no elements in it, when you ask for APL to print it
out, it just prints an empty line. Notice this is not the same thing
as a VALUE ERROR.

Just because A is an empty vector, doesn't mean it is a nothing.
Its a 'something' with one dimension, but no extension.

Now of course in the real world, an object that was one dimension
but zero inches long, would be a material nothing, but we have to be
really careful here, because having one dimension, even if its zero
extension, makes it a something in thge language of the proof, not a
nothing.

It has a quality, namely shape, even if it has no material
existence, thus it can't be considered a true nothing which has no
qualities at all. Shape means dimension with extension. In this case
having zero extension doesn't mean having no shape, thus it isn't a
complete nothing.

One more thing to notice before we move on, it clearly doesn't
matter WHAT is to the right of the RHO if the left is 0, because RHO is
going to take zero elements from the set on the right, and that's zero
elements regardless of what is on the right.

So the following are all the same empty vector:

0 p 1
0 p 2 3
0 p 1 2 3 4 5 6
0 p 0

In fact when someone wants to create an empty vector they often
just use

A <- 0 p 0

Now you might ask why would you want to create an empty vector?
Well it creates a place holder so that you can then concatenate things
on to it as you collect them.

For example:

A <- 0 p 0
A
<- blank line

A <- A, 3
A
3

A <- A, 4
A
3 4

A <- A, 2 4 6
A
3 4 2 4 6

A <- A, 3 p 7 7 9 8 7
A
3 4 2 4 6 7 7 9 Notice the 8 and 7 are dropped because only 3 are
are wanted.

Suppose you tried to concatenate onto B without first setting B
to the empty vector.

B <- B, 3
VALUE ERROR

B isn't defined at all, its a true nothing, so you can't add
something to it.

OK, let's move on. Say you want to create a two dimensional
matrix that is 3 by 4 filled with 1 2 3 4.

A <- 3 4 p 1 2 3 4
A
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4

You see, 3 rows, 4 columns.

Say you want to create a cube of 3 by 3 by 2 filled with the numbers
from 0 to 17.

A <- 3 3 2 p 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
A
0 1
2 3
4 5

6 7
8 9
10 11

12 13
14 15
16 17

You see APL can't print out a cube, so it prints out 3 faces of 3
by 2 each.

So you can see the power of RHO.

Now let's take a look at the consequences.

First let's review what RHO does.

Used with two arguments it creates an object from data on the
right with shape specified on the left.

A <- SHAPE p DATA

A <- 2 3 4 p 3 That's a 2x3x4 cube filled with 3's.

Used with one argument, RHO returns the shape of the object that
was used to create it.

SHAPE = p DATA

A <- 2 3 4 p 3
pA
2 3 4

So this is our first theorem of importance.

SHAPE = p (SHAPE p DATA)

B = p (B p A)

Now here is the next question.

What is the shape of the answer that RHO returns? In other words
what is the shape of the shape of data?

In the example above pA returned 2 3 4. What is shape of 2 3 4?

Well its 3.

So we have

A <- 3 4 p 1
A
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
pA
3 4
ppA
2
pppA
1
ppppA
1

Clearly A is a 3 x 4 matrix of 1's.

So the shape of A is {3,4}.

We put the {}'s around the shape of an object to signify that it is
the shape we are talking about. APL itself doesn't do this.

And the shape of 3 4 is {2}, its a line with 2 elements right?

And the shape of 2 is {1}, it too is a line with 1 element.

Now here is where you ask, but 2 is a single number, why is it
considered a vector of one element instead of a scalar?

Simply because RHO is *DEFINED* to return a vector, it always
returns a vector, it can't return any thing else but a vector.

But it can return a one element vector or even an EMPTY vector.

Say we define S to be a scalar, V to be a vector, M to be a
matrix and C to be a cube.

S <- 3
V <- 1 p 3
M <- 1 1 p 3
C <- 1 1 1 p 3

We have created four objects above.

The first is a zero dimensional scalar whose value is 3.

The second is a one dimensional vector whose value is 3.

The third is a two dimensional matrix whose value is 3.

the fourth is a three dimensional cube whose value is 3.

S
3
V
3
M
3
C
3

So what is the difference?

pS

pV
1
pM
1 1
pC
1 1 1

The shape returns how many dimensions the object has, and each
element in the shape tells you the number of elements along that
dimension in the object.

Take a 1 x 1 matrix, it is two dimensional, but has only one
element. The shape of that marix is {1,1} which means a 1 by 1
or 1 x 1 matrix.

Take a 1 x 1 x 1 cube, it is three dimensional, but also has only
one element, so its shape is {1,1,1}

So you see that the number of elements that an object has is not
related to how many dimensions that object can have.

A vector, matrix or cube can have as many elements as you wish,
including none!

0 p 0 is a zero element vector with shape {0}
0 0 p 0 is a zero element matrix with shape {0,0}
0 0 0 p 0 is a zero element cube with shape {0,0,0}

So how do you make a zero element scalar?

You can't. A scalar HAS TO HAVE ONE AND ONLY ONE ELEMENT.

A zero element scalar is a VALUE ERROR.

So let's talk about the vector and matrix and cube a bit more.

How many elements total does an object have?

Well if it is a 2 x 3 x 4 object, it has 24 elements, or 24 cubic
inches, or whatever your measure is.

Since 2 3 4 is just the RHO of the object we can write that the
number of elements in an object is

A <- B p 1
N = x/pA = x/B

Remember that x/B means to multiply all the elements of B
together. If B is 2 3 4 then 2 x 3 x 4 is 24 elements total in a 2 by
3 by 4 matrix.

Now let's get tricky.

We know there are zero elements in a 0 element vector.

How many elements are there in a matrix with 0 rows and 4 colums.
That's a 0 x 4 matrix.

M <- 0 4 p 5
pM
0 4
x/pM
0

That's right, zero rows and 4 colums makes zero elements total.
Kind of stupid eh?

So is that a nothing? No, its not a value error, its a nothing
with two dimensions and SHAPE, namely 0 rows and 4 columns, and that
surely is not a nothing.

But it isn't a lot of something either.

Say someone gave you a 2 x 2 x 2 piece of gold. That would be 8
cubic inches of gold wouldn't it. That's a lot of gold.

But now say someone gave you a 0 x 2 x 2 piece of gold. That's 2
inches square on a side, but 0 zero inches thick. How much gold would
that be?

Zero cubic inches of gold. Correct.

Now let's say you are a two dimensional flatland creature, you
have no idea about the 3rd dimension, and cubic inches is meaningless
to you, but square inches means a lot.

Say someone gives you a 2 x 2 piece of gold.

How much gold is that?

Well it's 2 square inches of gold, which is quite a bit, right?

But say he gives you a 0 x 2 piece of gold.

How much gold is that?

It's zero square inches, and that's no flatland gold at all!

So what is the difference between

A 0 x 2 x 2 piece of 3 dimenisonal gold and
A 2 x 2 piece of 2 dimensional gold?

The first is 0 cubic inches of 3 dimensional gold which is no
gold, and the second is 4 square inches of 2 dimensional gold which is
some gold!

So we come to our next theorem which is really important, and you
really have to get it, or you just won't get anything beyond this.

If a physical object has a dimension, it must have non zero
extension in that dimension to order to be a physical something.
Anything with zero extension along any of its dimensions is a physical
nothing.

So the minute you take a 2 x 2 piece of gold which is a
something, and give it a 3rd dimension, you HAVE to give it non zero
extension in that dimension or it will turn into 0 x 2 x 2 or no gold.

So if the external physical universe consists of 11 dimensions,
as the string theory boys claim, every one of them HAS to have non
zero extension in them or else the entire universe would disappear
into nothing.

Yes APL does allow for zero extension objects to be called
somethings, they are also called nothings with shape, but physical
existence doesn't.

In APL a object with zero extension along a dimension is
a nothing with shape.

In the physical universe, such an object is a nothing period.

Ok so what about the scalar?

Well the scalar is a rough case, because it doesn't have the option
of being a nothing with shape, it has to be a something or a value
error. You can only be a nothing with shape if you have shape! And
having shape means having non zero dimensions. Since a scalar has zero
dimensions, it has no shape at all.

Further how do you create a scalar using RHO. Since its SHAPE is
the empty vector, you have to use an empty vector to create it!

A <- (0p0) p 4 That's why A <- 4 is so much easier!

Notice that 0p0 is an empty vector, and remember if there is a 0 on
the left, it doesn't matter what is on the right, 0p6 would have done
just as well, its still 0 elements!

Notice also that the above does not make A empty, it makes
A's SHAPE empty, which makes A a non empty scalar!

A
4
pA
<- empty vector, A's shape is zero dimensions
ppA
0 <- indicates that pA has zero elements
pppA
1 <- is always 1 no matter what

So lets make a table out of this showing everything there is to
know about scalars, vectors, matrixes cubes and hypercubes.

Formally the correct way to create all these different kinds of
arrays is as follows.

S <- (0 p 0) p 5 0 dimension, {} shape
V <- (1 p 5) p 5 1 dimension, {4} shape
M <- (2 p 4 5) p 5 2 dimensions, {3,4} shape
C <- (3 p 3 4 5) p 5 3 dimensions, {3,4,5} shape
H <- (4 p 2 3 4 5) p 5 4 dimensions, {2,3,4,5} shape

S
5

V
5 5 5 5 5

M
5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5

C
5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5

5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5

5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5

H
Hey I will let you figure it out! H is a hypercube.


Here is another formal table laying out the p, pp, and ppp of
each of the above arrays.

S V M C H
p {} {5} {4 5} {3 4 5} {2 3 4 5} shape
pp 0 1 2 3 4 # of dimensions
ppp 1 1 1 1 1 always 1

The shape has one number for each dimension showing the extension
in that dimension. Notice the shape of the scalar is empty {}.

The number of dimensions an object has is called its RANK.

Notice the rank of the scalar is 0 because there are 0 dimensions
in the shape {}.

So what have we learned?

An object can either be a scalar with zero dimensions or a non
scalar with 1 or more dimensions, such as a vector, matrix or cube.

If an object has one or more dimensions, it MUST have non zero
extension in that dimension in order to not be a physical nothing.

If an object is a scalar, it doesn't have dimensions in which to
have extensions, but exists anyhow with only one element. That one
element however can be as long or as complex as you want.

PI is a scalar, but is infinitely long and contains an infinite
amount of data.

One doesn't need dimension to encode data, the use of vectors,
matrixes and cubes are merely a convenience. All of the data in the
biggest multidimensional matrix you could concieve, can all be placed
into a single number (large enough or long enough) in a single scalar.

PHILOSOPHY

The ultimate question then is what is the nature of the
AllThatIs. Is it a multidimensional object, or a zero dimensional
object?

Which is true?

0 = pp Actuality or
0 < pp Actuality ?

It is an important question.

From the proof we have learned that one can not learn with
certainty about anything across a non zero extension in a non zero
dimension. Where there is certainty, there is no extension and zero
dimension between learner and learned about.

So where there is perfect certainty, 0 = pp Actuality.

This zero dimensional actuality however likes to project multi
dimensional virtual realities, thus we have the following two
equations that sum up existence.

0 = pp(Actuality)
0 != pp(Reality)

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

Sat Dec 9 01:21:40 EST 2006

------------------------------------------------------------------------
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

Wednesday, September 14, 2011

ACTUALITY VS REALITY

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


ACTUALITY VS REALITY

Actual means what is true.

Real means what we think is true.

Now if someone says, but you can never know the actual, well then that
might be actual. Of course it may only be his reality that he can never
know the actual.

Others may think they know the actual when in fact they
only know what is real to them, delusion about illusion usually.

When something is real to a person, that is an actuality.

WHAT is real to them isn't necessarily actual, but the
fact that it is real to them IS actual.

The concsious unit is actual whether the being is certain
of his own existence or not (not = mind broke).

Do not confuse actual and real, that will lead to more
mind broke than you may already be in.

If you haven't spotted the actual, the perfectly certain,
then continue spotting until you do, it is important.

If you are perfectly certain you can't be perfectly certain of
anything, then you are mind broke.

If you are certain you are uncertain, then that's a perfect certainty.
There are others to be found.

If you are uncertain you are uncertain, that's mind broke.

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

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Mon Sep 12 03:06:04 EDT 2011
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore210.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFOba9cURT1lqxE3HERAshIAJ48hiVx3E5IpIU6wGUk82yVAPi8MQCfWK53
puZqhDQ2YB1BBYKdV5yatec=
=t+VY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Homerwsmith-l mailing list
Homerwsmith-l@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l