HomerWSmith at HomerWSmith at
Tue Dec 1 23:48:08 EST 2015

Hash: SHA1


      This was about a machine using video cameras to check its own
circuity, including that of the video cameras against schematics in its
own memory and the impossibility of determining with perfect certainty
that all circuitry matched the schematics.

>     Why does an examination of the circuitry in a one-to-one reference
>to the schematic fail?  If any part of its circuitry was wrong, a
>mismatch to the schematic would show up.  No?

      Not if the circuit doing the match was bad and reported 'match' for
all queries regardless of truth.

      That's why mission critical systems use a majority vote across 3 or
more rendundant circuits.

      If there were only two video cameras aimed at the world, and one
said incoming, and the other said nothing there, which would you place
your bets on?

      If there are three, and two say incoming and one says nothing
there, then which would you bet on?

      But that's a BET, not a certainty.

      And if your video cameras were messed with during the night by the
Borg, so that two reported nothing there, while one reported incoming,
your bet on the majority vote would be wrong.

      Causal pathways are based on trust in theory, not in certainty by
direct perception.

      And that's why the movie Minority Vote was made.  :)

      You can't have certainty of A by looking at B.

      All learning in the physical universe involves trying to learn
about a prior event by looking at a post cursor of that event.

      Since there is no certainty between the post cursor event
and the pre cursor event, there is no certainty of learning.

      Just because the mouse trap is found sprung in the morning,
does not mean a mouse sprang it.

      A computer is trying to learn about incoming, that's A, by looking
at the report (final image) from the video camera and its connecting
circuity, thats B.

      Whether or not there is incoming, the compuer never sees it
directly, only the video report.

      Consider a simpler system.

      We have a light sensor connected to a counting register A, which is
connected to register B by other circuitry,

      At time = 0, A and B both read 0.

      When the sensor picks up a photon, it sends a signal to A which
then changes state by adding 1 to itself

      Every second or so, register B polls register A, comparing A's
value with B's, and if A and B are different, register B prints out
'Different!' on a printer, and then copies the value in A to itself, so
they are the same again.

      Thus in theory every time a photon comes into A, B will print
"Different!" and then wait for the next polling to take place.  If the
next polling does not show a difference between A and B, then B does

      So given that circuit, would you bet everyone's eternity in hell

      1.) Every time B reports different, at least one photon hit A?

      2.) Every time B does not report different, no photon hit A?

      If you are not comfortable betting on those two statements, why?

      The main reason for this phenomenon is called the third party law
or the man in the middle attack.

      If B is set up to change state every time A changes state earlier,
this may be because A has a direct causal relation to B, light shines,
sensor rings a B.

      This means you must trust that there is some kind of trustable
dependable followingness between the state of A, light on, and B, the
sensor ringing the bell.

      The point is that just because B follows A dependably, this does
not mean there is cause between them, or it might mean that there is a
third party C causing both A and B to happen as if A was causing B to
happen directly.

      For example, if God is causing B to follow A every time God makes A
happen, then God could just as easily cause B to happen without causing
A to happen.

      B can't tell the difference, and neither can anyone trying to learn
about A by observing B.

      Since the non existence of God or any third party can not be proven
with certainty using only effects to surmise cause, one can then never
be certain that the state of B is actually tracking the state of A at

      In the physical universe, all learning is by making a theorectical
assumption that there is necessary or sufficient tracking between the
states of B and A, and then testing the theory via its dedendable

     Necessary tracking means A must preceed B, A is necessary to B.

     There must be a photon for the sensor bell to ring.

     Thus if B happens you know that A happened.

     Sufficient tracking means B must follow A, A is sufficient to B.

     If there is a photon, the sensor must right the bell.

     Sufficiency is weak for learning, but the sensor bell
might right for many different reasons, so we could to
assert A just because of B.

     Necessariness is strong for learning, if B happens we
then known that A happened.

     But necessariness is not determinable by science which
can only see B and surmise about A.

      Necessariness is a universal statement, B always follows A, which
can never be proven by any finite number of observations.

      Necessariness is the same thing as cause.

      Where there is necessariness there must be cause.

      Where there is cause there must be necessariness.

      Since looking at A or B does not give the NECESSARINESS of their
followingness, we can not prove cause by looking at the two end events
on either side of that assumed cause.

      Causation is not sufficient to witness causation, because all
causation can witness are the two end events, and events alone do not
prove cause.

      Worse all use of cause to witness the two end events is via
indirect perception which can always suffer from a 3rd party attack.

      Consciousness can see red and green and know it is seeing
two different colors with perfect certainty, a machine can't do that.

      Consciousness can SEE there is no third party between what
it is observing and its learning about it, a machine can't do that.
This is because consciousness can see across the effect to the cause
directly and thus know nothing is inbetween.

      A machine can only see the end effect in itself, and never reach
out beyond that to determine if there is or is not a third party between
the effect and the alleged cause causing false effects.

      Thus it is impossible to know who sent the messenger, the King or
someone else.

      Necesssariness or sufficiency or both between two different events
in the physical universe is always a theory, never a directly perceived

      Since all learning about A by looking at B assumes *NECESSSARY*
dependable followingness, and since all we can see by looking at B is
the dependable followingness and not the necessariness (cause) between
the two of them, certainty of cause by looking at effects is impossible.


======================= ========================
Posted: Tue Dec  1 23:48:08 EST 2015
Send mail to saying help
================== ===================
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.

Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)

HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L at

More information about the Clear-L mailing list