Hash: SHA1
Rough draft... posted 7/19/2006
LEARNING, CERTAINTY AND CAUSALITY
LCC-2
19 July 2006
Copyright (C) 2006 Homer W. Smith
Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes.
THE A's AND THE B's
If A and B are two objects, and A changes state and B doesn't,
then A and B were and are two DIFFERENT objects.
If A and B are two different objects, then one or both are not
nothings, as there can not be two different nothings.
If A changes state, then A is or was a something.
Proof:
A nothing can not change state into a nothing, as that is a no
change.
Thus if A changes state, it either was a nothing and changed into
a something, or it was a something and changed into another something,
or it was a something and changed into a nothing. QED
The following belongs in LCC-1.
[A something can not come from nothing. If an object has the
potential ability to change in to a something then its object
quality set is not empty and thus it can not be a nothing.
Thus if something exists now, something must have always existed.
A something can not go into a nothing.
Thus if something exists now, something will always exist.
Something exists now.
Therefore something has always existed, and something will aways
exist.]
If A and B are separated by a space or time or extension in any
dimension, then A and B are two different objects.
If A and B are two different objects, the only way B can learn
about A, is if A causes B to change state, that is if A has some
effect on B. No matter how much effect B has on A, if A has no effect
on B, then B can not learn anything about A including whether A exists
or not.
Since the only way B can learn about A is to be the effect of A,
the only thing B can learn about A is how A affects B, namely A's
qualities of causal relation to B.
Thus the only qualities that B can learn about A, are qualities
of causal relation, namely how A caused B to change state. All other
qualities about A are inferred as theories from A's qualities of causal
relation.
If B and A are two different objects, at no time does B have
direct observation or contact with A.
Thus even the qualities of causal relation of A are inferred by B
from changes in B's own state.
If B does not change state, there can be no learning at all about
A.
B's change in state IS B's learning about A.
Since B's state gives no proof that B changed state, B can never
be perfectly certain it learned anything about A even if B did change
state as an effect of A.
When B is learning about A, A is the referent and B is the
symbol.
All mechanical learning between two different objects is a symbol
arising from a referent along a causal pathway.
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Tue Jul 18 23:09:25 EDT 2006
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Feb 16 03:06:02 EST 2011
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/lcc2
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFNW4VrURT1lqxE3HERAqhwAJ9lqgAemIaZRU18LvEsFrSKWofqxACffShi
B3w4+9N11at6MZ7Xp8jHsEo=
=c5QF
-----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