ADORE467 (fwd)

HomerWSmith at lightlink.com HomerWSmith at lightlink.com
Sun Feb 22 17:37:57 EST 2015


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


      THEORY

      I find dictionaries to be one of the greatest sources of MU's,
particuarly on subjects that are close to the truth.  True original
meanings are defined out of existence, and replaced with meanings that
leave no room for thought about the original.

      (MU means Mis-Understood word, mechanism or intent.)

      There are two kinds of logic, inductive logic and deductive
logic.

      Inductive logic allows us to generalize from a finite number of
observations.  Only the observations are certain.

      We observe that 100 apples fall when dropped, and so we conclude
that all apples will fall, and always have and always will.

      We generalize from the certain observation that "100 apples
fell," to the uncertain theory that "all apples fall."

      All apples fall is called a theory.  Only one observation to the
contrary will prove it wrong, and no number of observations supporting
it will ever prove it right.

      Theories are born to die in obscurity as observations move on.

      But don't tell a theoretician this, as it gives him the willies.

      Deductive logic goes in the opposite direction, it starts with a
theory, and tries to predict what will happen in a specific
circumstance.

      All apples fall (theory), and this is an apple (observation), so it 
too will fall (prediction).  We drop the apple, and it falls, so our 
prediction turns out true, thus supporting the original theory that all 
apples fall.

      The irony is that inductive logic is based on perfect
certainties, namely the original observations, but can never give us a
certainty in a generalized theory.

      Deductive logic is based on these very same theoretical 
uncertainties, Thus one certain observation contradicting the uncertain 
theory disproves the uncertain theory with certainty.

      Do not confuse the words induction and deduction with the word
inference.

      Inference comes from To Infer, is the process of induction *OR* 
deduction.

      One induces/infers from the observation that 100 apples fell the
theory that all apples fall.

      One deduces/infers from the theory that all apples fall, that the
next apple will probably also fall.

      Inference is the process of logic, whether inductive or
deductive.

      So we get,

      1.) Certain observations

      2.) Induction: Certain Observatons -> Uncertain
theory/generalization

      3.) Deduction: Theory -> predictions

      4.) Certain observation of the opposite of the prediction.

      5.) Certain disproof of the original theory.

      There is no room for confusion or misinterpretation with the
above, it says what it says, and nothing more or less or else.

      People who are certain they can't be certain of anything, and those
who are certain of things that no one can be certain of, will choose to
argue with the above, but in the end its all their yap and natter, and
is wind between their ears.

      Like people who mention that logic isn't logical and mis quote
Godel, whom they hardly know, and barely understand, to logically prove
that logic is illogical, well they just are not worth talking to.

      That logic may be 'incomplete', ie capable of producing undecidable
propositions, does not mean that logic is wrong where the propositions
are decidable.

      *THE UNDECIDABILITY OF ANY PROPOSITION WILL NEVER AFFECT THE
DECIDABILITY OF A DECIDABLE PROPOSITON.*

      Thus the mere fact that logic or math or algebra are incomplete,
and can produce undecidable propositions, in no way lessens the absolute
truth of the propositions which are decidable.

      Is is Is, Is isnot IsNot.

      IsNot is IsNot, IsNot isnot Is.

      That's a hard one on the mental loony tunes, but it's absoluteness
is unquestionable.

      Since the above little ditty in is and is not absolutely and
irrevokably describes the nature of one's own consciousness,
consciousness then is a standard bearer of the nature and meaning of is
and is not.

      As much as I like dictionaries, and as much as mine does a
relatively good job of defining the words in question, even this one
skirts around the issues.

      To speculate means merely to think about.

      To conjecture means to speculate about, but also means to posit
with out certainty.

      The best words are to suppose, to pretend something is true in
order to see where it leads.

      Theories are, in the end, guesses that make predictions that either
are observed or not.  Only observations are certain, no theory is ever
certain.

      For one, certainty has to do with truth, theories have little or
nothing to do with truth, they only deal with models that work.

      Workability does not mean true.

      Notice the statement that only observations are certain does not
imply that ALL observations are certain, although I would assert this to
be true also.

      Just because we SEE space, doesn't mean there IS space, but it does
mean we SEE space.  Get it?

      That we SEE the moon bigger on the horizon doesn't mean the moon IS
bigger on the horizon, but it does mean we SEE the moon bigger.

      Seeing the moon bigger is the observation.

      Claiming that the moon is therefore bigger is the theory.

      Other observations can be made which then counter the theory.

      The observation is always certain, the implied referent may or may
not be as you are seeing it.  Often the referent doesn't exist in any
actual sense at all.

      It's an illusion that the moon is bigger on the horizon, but sorry
ladies it's also an illusion that the moon exists at all except in the
dream you call your life.

      That we all dream the same thing at the same time is interesting,
but not proof that anything more than a co dream is taking place.

      Collapsing conscious observation and physical referent is the act
of the insane.

      Homer


      THEORY:

      1.) Systematically organized knowledge applicable in a relatively
wide variety of circumstances; especially, a system of *ASSUMPTIONS*,
accepted principles, and rules of procedure devised to analyze, predict
or otherwise explain the nature or behavior of a specified set of
(observed) phenomnenon.

      1b.) Such knowledge or such a system distinguished from experiment
or practice.

      2.) Abstract reasoning; speculation.

      3.) Broadly, hypothesis or supposition.

      SPECULATION:

      1.) Speculating, to meditate on a given subject, reflect.

      2.) A conclusion, opinion, or theory reached by speculating.

      CONJECTURE:

      1.) To infer from inconclusive evidence, to guess.

      2.) An opinion or conclusion based on inference.

      INFERENCE:

      1.) To conclude from evidence, deduce through deductive logic or
to induce through inductive logic.

      HYPOTHETICAL

      1.) Of or based on a hypothesis, suppositional, conjectural or
uncertain.

- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith     The Paths of Lovers    Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF        Cross            Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer at lightlink.com    In the Line of Duty    http://www.lightlink.com

Sat Mar 10 23:51:26 EST 2007

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Fri Feb 20 03:06:06 EST 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore467.memo
Send mail to archive at lightlink.com saying help
================== 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)

iD8DBQFU5uruURT1lqxE3HERAo9cAKDZq0WG12wA67oICUnQYhMvEoLQ8ACg2e5q
0AMuNYNF6kOy/smopswAaQ0=
=vmJs
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Sun Feb 22 17:37:55 EST 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore467.memo
Send mail to archive.com saying help
================== 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)

iD8DBQFU6lpEURT1lqxE3HERApEsAKCT2D8EizumnlTtzuarJcMiL1rZAQCgnXvY
Qf29sTahJNJkkEDAj5Zksjw=
=NkN2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L at mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l


More information about the Clear-L mailing list