PROOF1 (fwd)

HomerWSmith at lightlink.com HomerWSmith at lightlink.com
Fri Jul 3 20:07:00 EDT 2015


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


      PROOF I

      Specifics do not prove generalities.

      That this dog is red, does not prove that all dogs are red.

      That this dog has 4 legs, does not prove that all dogs have 4
legs.

      In this context, proof means Perfect Certainty.

      Perfect Certainty means 100 percent certainty with no chance of
being wrong.

      Science can only observe a specific instance of something.

      Science can never observe a generality, all instances of
something in all places, and times and circumstances.

      It can observe for instance that "*THESE* two balls fall at the
same speed in this vacuum."

      Science can never observe that "*ALL* balls fall at the same
speed in all places, all times and all vacuums.'

      Since science can never observe a generality, it can never prove
a generality.

      It can however disprove a generality with one observation to the
contrary.

      "These here two balls are not falling at the same speed in a
vacuum, so clearly its not true that all balls fall at the same speed in
a vacuum."

      That produces proof, a perfect certainty, that the generality was
false.

      Observations are observations of specific instances.

      Theories are generalities, an effort to generalize all possible
observed instances.

      If enough observations do not disprove the theory, one can attain a
state of trust in the theory and conclude that it is highly unlikely
that any observed instance will ever disprove the theory.

      This does not prove the theory right, this is not a perfect
certainty that the theory is true.

      At best it is a bet based on sensible trust and high probability
that the theory works well enough for practical purposes,

      Direct observations however are always with certainty.

      Theory and their generalitzations are always with no certainty.

      Theories can also lead to further logically derived predictions
about other specific instances, which can then be verified with
certainty through more observation.

      For example, one observes that two balls in a vacuum fall at the
same speed, so one generalizes a theory that all objects fall at the
same speed in a vacuum.  From this one predicts that two different sized
cannon balls should fall at approximately the same speed from the Tower
of Pisa, even though it is not a vacuum.  One can then do the experiment
and verify if the observation matches the prediction.  If it does, the
theory gains further support.

      At no time does any theory ever gain perfect certainty or proof.

      Theories, being generalities, can only be disproven with certainty.

      One must be careful not to confuse a scientific theory in the form
of a generality or 'law of nature' with theories concerning specific
instances that could or can not be observed.

      For example, you come home one night and observe your door is open,
there are tracks on the floor, and money is missing from your drawer,
and finger prints are all over the place that don't belong to any of
your house hold people.

      One can 'theorize' that someone entered and took the money, that's
a specific instance that is not observed and can not be, because it is
gone in the past.

      Notice that even if Joe next door confesses to the crime, hands
back the money, and the prints match his, this does not prove with
perfect certainty that he did it.  It may however fit the legal
definition of 'guilty beyond a reasonable doubt'.

      This 'beyond reasonable doubt' is again based on trust we place in
basic unprovable theoretical generalities, to the effect that only one
person can have the finger prints, or upon our acceptance that the whole
scene was not set up by the CIA or even by God.

      This last is refered to as the third party law (not to be confused
with LRH's third party law) which states that if B follows A, then it is
possible that A caused B directly or that C caused both A and B in such
a way as to make it look like A caused B.

      Ultimately the only thing that can be proven certain are specific
observations, and the only thing that can be directly and specifically
observed is one's own conscious pictures and experience.

      Everything else is a theory.

      Homer

======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Fri Jul  3 20:06:59 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/proof1.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)

iD8DBQFVlyOjURT1lqxE3HERAom8AJwORV4LpOEBE620L9+a6N+C6WPRSACgyKVv
ooq2HKl6D51g8KYXq1E5QAM=
=qJ5l
-----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