MAJORITY VOTE typos fixed, clarified
Homer Wilson Smith
HomerWSmith at lightlink.com
Thu Dec 3 18:22:21 EST 2015
THE MAJORITY VOTE
This was about a machine using video cameras to check its own
circuitry, including the circuitry of the video cameras against
schematics held in its own memory and the impossibility of determining
with perfect certainty that all circuitry matched the schematics.
As an aside, notice that if a machine could verify with perfect
certainty that its circuits matched its schematics, it could also verify
with certainty that it existed.
> 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 trust 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 computer 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 at 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, it might mean that there is a
third party C causing both A and B to happen as if A was causing B to
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 perfect 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 all and not something else.
In the physical universe, all learning is by making a theoretical
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 ring the bell.
Sufficiency is weak for learning, the sensor bell might ring for
many different reasons, so we can't 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 right 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
Worse all use of cause to witness the first of the two end events
is via indirect perception which can always suffer from a 3rd party
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.
Consciousness is always a certainty of no third party between cause
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
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.
Tue Dec 1 23:48:08 EST 2015
Homer Wilson Smith Clean Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth, and Peace, Internet, Ithaca NY
homer at lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L at mailman.lightlink.com
More information about the Clear-L