# val1.txt

Clearing Archive Roboposter roboposter at lightlink.com
Fri Dec 21 06:06:03 EST 2018

```     VALENTINE'S DAY LECTURE

THE PROOF, A QUICK SUMMARY

This fine morning is February 14th, 2009, Valentine's Day.

OK, so this lecture is about The Proof.

The Proof is about Learning, Certainty, Causation and
Consciousness.

By themselves these are not new topics, it is the ability to say
something cogent about all four of them in the same sentence that is.

More specifically the proof is about Learning with Certainty about
Causation in Consciousness.

Like any proof, The Proof consists of assumptions and a conclusion.

There are 5 cogent statements to the proof, the first 4 lead to the
fifth.

We are going to go over each statement in detail, but not
necessarily in the order in which they are normally presented.

Instead we are going to present them in the order they were
discovered.

The proof is a certainty about certainty.

This does not mean it is therefore circular or self validating, it
does mean that the proof is a very deep statement about the nature of
certainty, in particular who or what can have it, and who or what can't.

Many people have told me 'Homer haven't you ever been certain of
something and found out later you were wrong?'

This is of course complete nonsense, if any certainty could later
be proven to be wrong, then you could never be certain of anything,
because 'you could always be wrong and not know it!'

You can never claim with certainty that certainty can not exist.

Being certain that you can't be certain of anything is mind broke.

People tell me 'Homer you are playing with words!'

Let me ask you, if someone is certain they can't be certain of
anything, who now is playing with words?

Go on, tell me that you can't be perfectly certain that you exist
and give a damn (care.)

Could a nothing wonder whether or not it was a something or a
nothing?

Could a nothing give a damn?

Do you doubt anything?

Of course you do, to doubt that you doubt is to prove you doubt.

Are you SURE you doubt?

Of course you do, certainty of doubt and uncertainty is the
beginning of personal integrity.

Are you uncertain that you are uncertain?

Who now is mind broke?

A perfect certainty can't be proven wrong, and if it can, it WAS
NEVER A PERFECT CERTAINTY IN THE FIRST PLACE AND COULD HAVE BEEN KNOWN
TO NOT BE A PERFECT CERTAINTY AT THE TIME, BEFORE IT WAS PROVEN WRONG.

People have certainty of truth confused with dependability of
theoretical models, they are two completely different ball games.

Theoretical models can be 'wrong' (found to be unworkable), perfect
certainties of truth can not be.

What people are referring to, when they claim they used to be
certain of something that later proved to be wrong, was a THEORY, not a
perfect certainty born of direct perception.

Thus people really have no excuse for this "I am certain I can't be
certain of anything" nonsense, it's a lot of wind between the ears.

It is their way of remaining disconnected from logical sense, and
dodging important issues and certainties they would prefer to avoid and
not be aware of.  I have actually had friends go so far as to tell me
this, "I don't want to be certain!"

The claim to the impossibility of perfect certainty is a deceit of
magnitude, and having institutionalized it as honorable, one has
guaranteed the final oblivion of the civilization.

There is probably no greater crime than doubting a perfect
certainty as merely a theory, or asserting a theory as a perfect
certainty.

Science worships uncertainty, and religion worships faith.

What ever happened to perfect certainty?

Impossible, unimportant, useless, or dangerous?

Wherever you go the party line is the same.

Personal integrity is the ability to know what you know, and know
what you don't know.

Once perception of things becomes alloyed with one's fear of what
might be true, and truth becomes bowed to the jurisdiction of one's
petty desires and self serving prejudices, integrity becomes a stranger
to us.

Things are true whether or not we want them to be true, and most of
us haven't a clue what we really want anyhow.

That's what being clear is about, knowing what you want with
absolute certainty.

Apart from knowing that you are, and that you care.

A clear has 5 perfect certainties that are fundamental to his
being.

I AM
I WANT  (desire, care, give a damn)
I KNOW  (personal self awareness)
I DO    (cause, personal agency)
I HAVE  (desire filled or not as the case may be)

Every child knows that monsters live in homes with beds for roofs.

Once a person finds out what he really wants, he can confront again
that monsterous idea that he is worried might be true, and thus keep his
integrity intact, rather than spending his whole life pretending there
isn't a monster under his bed.

In the end Truth is your friend, it may not seem so at the moment,
and Lord knows, our whole lives we have been taught Truth isn't our
friend, so this may be part of the undreamed dream come true for many.

Truth rocks!

So the proof flies in the face of an awful lot of human nonsense,
promulgated by bums and professors alike.

People who are afraid of an inescapable truth and who would rather
not know and die in self deceit than face it.

The mental disease of wind between the ears (empty headedness born
of illogic) seems not to discriminate amongst the wealthy and the poor,
the educated and the ignorant.

Everyone has their safe solutions protecting them from having to
look at the world and see how things actually are, and many make a fine
art out of not knowing by not looking.

Reich called them plague personalities, you try to talk to them
about anything real, and they just cut you to pieces until you become
like them.

And so we have become like them, to some degree or another.

Spotting the zombie zoners in your past and your present will go a
long ways towards rekindling that sparkling, friendly glow-in-the-dark
sweet fondness for truth again.

And all physical, emotional, mental and spiritual suffering will
start to fade, or begin its final walk towards peace.

That's a big statement, don't go by it.

Fear of finding out and knowing the truth usually results from
wrong indications on matters of importance, resulting in feelings that
are so bad one concludes one's fears must be true.

Thus when seeking for the truth to bad things, one is attracted to
the theories that make one feel the worst, and one judges their
likelihood of truth by how bad they make one feel.

It is beyond most people's imagination that a beautiful truth could
give rise to such horror as this present universe, so instead one seeks
horrible truths of comparable magnitude to the horror one wishes to
understand.

The basic computation is:

Horrible truths explain horrible realities, for there is no way a
wonderful truth could, would or should create a horrible reality.

Since anyone can mock up things so horrible that NO ONE can
confront them, it is no surprise that an entire population of beings is
walking around, with non-views of the Cosmic All, acting as safe
solutions, that protect them from having to LOOK, and thus possibly be
burned to death, by the horrible truth they expect to look back.

Most safe solutions actually give a person a moral mandate to NOT
look.  And thus you become a bad person if you try to make them look.  I
mean what would happen to their kids if someone actually looked and went
splat all over Native State?  Who would take care of the kids then?

What people fear most is losing control, that their final
vulnerability will be tapped.

Is there something so dangerous to know it could kill you, or drive
you into an endless quest for self obliteration?

Many people who feel they are mortal meatballs in this life, feel
that they would go insane if they ever found out for sure that they had
lived before.

That is possibly because they were quite insane when they took on
their present body between lives and thus CHOSE to don the deceit of
mortality, IN ORDER to forget their eternality as a spirit.

What in the whole great Cosmos could possibly make an eternal
spirit wish to pretend to be mortal, live once, die once and that's it
bud?

You have a whole planet full of people believing either in death
forever or hell forever, so SOMETHING must be motivating them to don
these spiritual nightmares and live by them, its not an innocent
mistake.

So, for the sake of the kids, most people remain self blindered to
the truth they fear would destabilize or destroy them them forever.

They say ignorance is bliss, and this is what they are talking
about, on the way to the final resting place at the end of the meat
grinder.

SCIENCE AND RELIGION, A BRIDGE TOO FAR.

The war between science and religion is one such area that has sown
destruction and sorrow from adherents believing only what they can
tolerate, what makes them comfortably numb, rather than looking at the
enormity of things surrounding them as they actually are.

Sure, try as he might, a being can be limited in what he is able to
see, but most are HIDING behind their small minded dogma and refusing to
look further.

"My mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts."

And they will say this as if they have a *MORAL* right to their
willful blindness.

"To hell with the Truth, I have a right to my emotional stability!"

Its for the kids and the greater good of the GNP after all.

Philosophical vertigo can wobble the knees of any man, and most
fail at some time or another to stand up to the vision of the AllThatIs
as it actually is, and choose instead to hide behind the safety of their
petty dogmas.

The Pope told Hawkings that it was permissible to study the
universe back to the Big Bang, but not before, for that was God's
province.

The implied idea is that SCIENCE AND RELIGION CAN NOT TOUCH EACH
OTHER and therefore one shouldn't try, it is immoral to try.

God will damn you if you do try.

God created science to test your faith.

Someone is trying to hide something, you see?

THEY know better, but they hope you don't.

Both religion and science on Earth add up to a whole hell of a lot
of 'must not inquire', or engage in only politically correct modes of
these areas of study.

THE SINS OF SCIENCE AND RELIGION

Chandrasekhar was born in India and became a world famous
astrophysicist when he was taken under the wing of the ever so prim and
proper Sir Eddington, adjunct to the Royal Astronomer of England.

Chandra worked out much of what we know today about white dwarf
stars, but at the time his conclusions flew in the face of the accepted
theories, especially those held by Eddington.

Eddington would allow Chandra to speak first at lectures, then tear
him apart when Eddington spoke himself.  Everyone saw this, and everyone
was quiet.

Then one day Eddington died, and suddenly all of Chandra's peers
came out of the wood work and shook his hand saying what a genius he was
and how they believed him all the time, but none of them had dared say a
word before, because Eddington held all their careers in his hand.

This is science at it's best.

Science at it's worst is when Giordano Bruno said that the stars
are suns with planets and people around them, and the Church promptly
burned him at the stake on February 17 1600.

Of course it didn't help that Bruno also insisted that the Church
was generally full of it.

But a plurality of worlds was a serious doctrinal no-no at the
time, and remains so to this day.  (See discussion of SETI below).

The problem with most religions is these guys fabricate doctrine
out of thin air in order to scare little children into not just
obedience, but total slavery.

*THIS IS A SERIOUS CRIME, PROBABLY MORE SERIOUS THAN MURDER.*

On Earth we have Death Row, well in Hell they have Pope's Row.

When science or religion are held captive to the prejudices and
pinheadedness of a few men of power and prestige, the world suffers a
dark age until they die.

This is the history of both science and religion.

And its good story telling, because the forces of good have had to
fight overwhelming odds to make any headway at all against the theses
(degrees) hanging on chair's walls.

It is amazing what a formidable enemy a piece of paper can be.

Back in the early days, mathematics was developed by a kind of top
secret cult, the knowledge of math was not meant for the masses, and the
doctrine of the day was that all numbers were rational, i.e could be
expressed as the ratio of two integers.

When much to their lo and behold, they discovered that the square
root of 2 was irrational, it sent a wave of disturbance through the
intellectual community that threatened to undermine an almost religious
world view built on rational numbers.

They threatened to KILL anyone who divulged to the world that the
square root of 2 was irrational, as if that would some how ameliorate
their problem of saving face, when at best it gave them time to
formulate their apologies, and re position themselves as people in the
know.

An awful lot of "I don't want to know" and "I have a right to not
know and we have a right to make sure you don't know either,"
crystalized around that one.

So much for knowledge in the hands of those who would push the
party line.

A party line is that fixed idea, pet theory, or other philosophical
vanity, that when confronted by evidence or reason that it is wrong,
over rules that evidence or reason.

Pushers of the party line are like drug pushers, they profit from
the addiction to lies and small minded world views that they proffer to
others who will do anything to hide behind them.

There are no innocent victims in the market for party lines.

A world run by party lines is doomed.

The search for extra terrestrial life is another example in point,
many of a religious bent do not wish to find life on other worlds as it
would wreck havoc with their tiny and small minded view of the Cosmic
All.

For one, it might throw doubt on their own personal salvation.

They believe the world is 10,000 years old because that is about
the limit they can tolerate thinking that their all powerful, all
loving, all present, all knowing creator left them alone for in a meat
grinder.

12 billion years?  Oh no, that gives them the willies.  He's still
thinking about us after all that time?

Thus they make believe that God created the world 10,000 years ago
to LOOK LIKE it was created 12 billion years ago, photons already en
route from distant stars, and the Grand Canyon is only 6000 years old,

And when asked about life on other planets, the more crude will
tell you

"I don't believe in no Ni**ers from outer space!"

Such wonderful people.

It's not that they think aliens are black, it's more they think
their Messiah came to Earth for the sins of red blooded American white
people, real humans you know, God's chosen, and not to save the morally
inferior, irredeemable sorry asses of snake people made of silicon and
sulphuric acid on other planets.

Christ, imagine having to learn to play harps with these guys in
heaven?

You would have to change the strings every 10 minutes.

Some people have a plan to divide heaven up into partitions, so if
the wrong kinds of people happen to get in, they can keep them
segregated to the back rooms.

You know, the Pearly Gates for some, and the Obsidian gates for the
others.

Some people worry there might actually BE other life forms out
there but we shouldn't be signaling them to let them know where we are
because 'We already got enough illegal aliens trying to come here...'

Public funding for the SETI project was killed many years ago by
various Congress vermin of this strain.

They said "there is no social benefit to finding out we are not
alone in the universe."

Other than wiping out pinheaded views of the Cosmic All that is.

Namely theirs.

They are always just trying to be so 'helpful'...

If you ask me, finding intelligent life on other planets might
alter the course of Armageddon itself, which is presently right on
schedule as far as I can see, with everyone lining up to push the button
because they can't stand their 9 to 5 job and they want to be the first
to get to Heaven dying for a heavenly cause.

If God is going to send the majority of the planet to hell forever
anyhow, why not help Him out and hurry it along.

They don't care if they leave the Earth growing green or glowing
green.

Waiting and hoping for Armageddon is so annoying...

So which is it going to be, green grass, or green glass?

What a choice.

This is the first time in history we HAVE the button to push, in
the form of chemical, biological, atomic, genetic and cyber warfare, so
the rush is on.

And if the button is cooled by these little computer fans, when one
of these fans stops and overheats, it will probably push itself.

On the other hand finding aliens might help push Armageddon along,
so it's a hard call.

Some have argued that if the aliens were advanced enough to get off
their planet, they would be advanced enough to treat other forms of
consciousness with respect and not as fodder for their dreams of glory
and power.

Alas I think maybe not, material intelligence does not seem to be
related to spiritual intelligence.

There is a particularly rabid form of religious psychosis going
around.  It goes like this.

The person believes in "God's Will."

He fears God like a child fears a drunken father.

He fears he will be punished if he doesn't follow God's Will.

Further if he doesn't assure that OTHERS also follow God's Will, he
fears he will be punished for not trying hard enough to be his brother's
keeper.

All of this would be fine if God's Will were that man be happy,
healthy and wise.  But no, this poor bloke believes that God's Will is
that man destroy himself or be destroyed in the great tribulation.

Thus when some danger arises such as a plague or incoming asteroid
that might actually destroy mankind, this psycho considers it is God's
Will finally come to fruition, AND HE WILL OPPOSE ANYONE WHO TRIES TO
SAVE MANKIND OR AVERT THE DANGER, lest they interfere with the Will of
God.

They believe that other men can interfere with God's Will, and that
God needs the psycho to make sure this doesn't happen.

They are about as safe to have around as an asp viper.

The most dangerous thing about them, is how they come to work for
you towards your own demise, and their total devotion to that work.

The most dangerous thing about any enterprise are the few people in
the enterprise covertly opposing the enterprise, and these psychos are
among them.

You can sometimes spot one hard at work.  Just ask them what they
are up to and they will say "Oh just doing the will of God, brother (big
smile)."

Anyone who claims to know what the will of God is, has long ago
started to doesy-doe with the Devil.

That's because YOU are God in carnation, and you haven't a clue
what you are up to, now do you.

The good news is there aren't too many of these covert psychopaths
in the world.

The bad news is most of them have been quarantined in Congress.

Anyhow, hopefully God reserves a special place in hell for the High
Priests of both science and religion.

Only for a while though, until they are just toasty well done, and
ready to be civil again.

At least until those theses are ashes on the floor.

So I am going to go through the Proof here really quick to give a
simple overview of the subject, one that can be easily remembered and
communicated to others.

The Proof is the Sword of Excalibur which you can use to cut
through the party lines and bullsh*t 'knowledge' that others try to bury
you under.

"I doubt everything including that I doubt everything.  At least I
am being consistent. "

You're certain of that?

But first let's take a break, go get some donuts and coffee.

THE BEGINNINGS OF THE PROOF

OK, we are back.  I am sorry I took so long with the first part of
this lecture, I didn't realize I was so steamed up inside about these
things.

I should open up a dry cleaning shop.

We start with the top level 'catechism' on the philosophy of
thought, words, ideas and logic.

The proof is a rock solid theorem in information theory, meaning
its about who or what can or can not learn about things around them, and
whether that learning is perfectly certain or not.

Remember the term 'perfectly certain' means CAN NOT BE WRONG.

As such there is a significant amount of language that surrounds
the proof, and these words and ideas need to be defined clearly and
become crystal sharp in order to deal with the problems involved in this
area.

Since we are trying to build a bridge between science and religion,
no one will mind if I start off a scientific lecture with the term
catechism.

CATECHISM

QUALITIES, OBJECTS AND CLASSES

There are Qualities, Objects and Classes.

Qualities belong to Objects, and Objects belong to Classes.

An object is anything that has qualities, and qualities
are anything that describe an object.

An object is any event, existence or state of things in space time
or anywhere else.

A class is any group of objects.

A class is a grouping of objects usually according to similar
qualities.

QUALITY SETS

Objects are fully described by an Object Quality Set or OQS.

The object quality set contains all the qualities that describe the
object, both alone and in relation to all other objects.

Classes are groups of objects.

Classes are fully defined by a Pertinent Quality Set or PQS.

The pertinent quality set of a class is generally a subset of the
all the various qualities of the many objects in the class.

COMMON AND UNIQUE

The qualities in a pertinent quality set are both common and unique
(as a set) to all the objects in a class.

Common means every object in the class has that set of qualities.

Unique means every object that has that set of qualities is in the
class.

Consider the class of dogs.  The word dog is a CLASS LABEL and
refers to a group of objects that are in the class, namely dogs.  :)

Commonness is easy to understand, all dogs have the quality set
of 'doggishness'.

Unique means every object that has doggishness is a member of the
class of dogs.

Thus all dogs have doggishness and ONLY dogs have doggishness.

For a more detailed analysis of the above see:

http://www.clearing.org/cgi/archive.cgi?/val/pqs.txt

LABELS

Qualities, objects and classes have labels.

Joey, my dog, is brown.

'Brown' is a quality label and belongs to the quality set of the
object named Joey.

'Joey' is an object label, which belongs to the class of dogs.

'Dog' is a class label, and is defined by the pertinent quality set
of doggishness that is both common and unique to dogs.

Notice that the object quality set of Joey has many more qualities
than the pertinent quality set of doggishness.

For example brown may be a quality of Joey as an object, but brown
is neither a quality common nor unique to dogs.

Notice also that 'dog' is a class label, and 'my dog' is an object
label.

STATEMENT OF FACT

Statements of fact are of the form:

Quality belongs to Object, or

Object belongs to Class.

"Brown belongs to Joey", means Joey is brown.

Joey belongs to Dogs, means Joey is a Dog.

Statements of fact can be true or false, they don't have to be
true!

Joey was in fact black.

QUALITIES OF BEING AND QUALITIES OF RELATION

There are two kinds of qualities, qualities of being and qualities
of relation.

Qualities of being are qualities that an object has alone.

Qualities of relation are qualities an object has by virtue of it's
unaloneness, it's relation to other objects.

Existence is a quality of being, so is inertial mass.

An object alone can have inertial mass.  It may take force pushing
on it to MEASURE that inertial mass, but even without the force, the
inertial mass is still there.

Being next to, is a quality of relation, so is gravitational mass.

The "fork is next to the knife" is a quality of relation that is
true of both the fork and the knife.

It takes two objects to have gravitational mass between them.

You may be big and fat and have a lot of inertial mass around your
belly, but you won't weigh (gravitational mass) anything in outer space.
You would still be hard to push around (inertial mass).

Being the cause of, or being affected by, are also qualities of
relation of great importance.

Qualities of relation come in many different kinds, spatial,
temporal, material, energetic, and causal are the main ones.

Next to, before, heavier than, faster than, father of, are
examples.

The AllThatIs is alone.  Aloneness is a quality of being.

Unaloneness is a quality of relation.

SOMETHING AND NOTHING

A nothing is an object with an empty quality set, it has NO
qualities in its quality set.

A something is an object with a non empty quality set, it has SOME
qualities in its quality set.

Notice that a physical something made of matter, energy, space and
time, is a subset of all possible somethings, there may be somethings
which are not physical.

ONLY ONE NOTHING

There can only be one nothing.

If there were two different nothings, then their quality sets would
have to be different and thus not empty.

SOMETHING FROM NOTHING

Something can not come from nothing, for if an object had the
potential to give rise to a something, it's object quality set would not

Something can not go into nothing, for if an object had the
potential to be given rise to by a something, it's object quality set
would not be empty at the end.

((The fact that object A is now a nothing, but was a something,
indicates that A came from a something.  This 'coming from a something'
is a quality of relation that relates what A is now to what A was in the
past, and is thus a continuing quality of relation in A's present object
quality set, even though it is otherwise presently empty.  Thus A's
object quality set is NOT empty and thus A which came from something,
can't be a true nothing.

In other words if a nothing came from a something, that fact is an
existing quality of relation of the present nothing to the prior
something, and that quality of relation is in the present nothing's
quality set, thus it is not a full nothing because its quality set is
not fully empty.))

Something exists now.

Therefore, since something can come from nothing, something has
always existed and will always exist.

THE A's AND THE B's.

'State' is the existing quality set of an object.

If A and B have two different quality sets, then A and B are two
different objects.

IF A and B have identical quality sets, then A and B are two
different names for the same object.

If A and B are objects, and A changes state and B doesn't, then A
and B were and are two DIFFERENT objects.

If A and B are separated by an actual spacetime distance, then A
and B are two different objects.

If A and B are two different objects, then the only way B can learn
about the state of A, is for B to be the effect of A.

If A has no effect on B, then B can not learn anything about A not
even that A exists.

Thus the only way that two objects that are separated by a
spacetime distance can learn about each other, is by being the effect of
each other.

Learning by Being an Effect is an attempt by B to learn about the
qualities of being in A, via qualities of causal relation between A and
B.

FOLLOWINGNESS

Consider that A and B are objects or events.

There is followingness.

That means B followed A at least once.

DEPENDABLE FOLLOWINGNESS

There is dependable followingness.

That means B follows A every time we have ever observed it.

NECESSARY DEPENDABLE FOLLOWINGNESS

There is necessary dependable followingness.

That means B MUST follow A because A CAUSES B to happen.

That means that B necessarily follows A because A is
sufficient to cause B.

We write this as A -> B.

Causation implies necessary followingness, and necessary
followingness implies causation.

There may be MORE to causation than mere necessariness, but
necessariness is necessary for causation to exist.

In other words:

Necessariness = Causation = Necessariness

or

Necessariness implies Causation and Causation implies Necessariness.

or

Necessariness <--> Causation

REFERENTS AND SYMBOLS

Symbols symbolize and refer to referents, and referents are
symbolized and referred to by symbols.

Within the language of the proof, we use the terms referents and
symbols in a possibly new and unique way, in that they are related to
causation between referent and symbol in a broader way than normally
used.

If A causes B, then A is a referent and B is a symbol for A.

After B has been affected by A, B's state contains a data imprint
on it that reflects the nature of A.

In this way we can learn something about A by looking at B, if we
theorize that B's state was affected by A.

Once a referent has caused a symbol to change state, the symbol
then itself becomes a referent of its own and can cause another symbol
to take place later on.

In this way a causal pathway is created which transmits data about
the original referent to many sequential symbols later.

CAUSAL PATHWAYS

A causal pathway is a series of referents and symbols, each the
effect of the referent before it, and the cause of the symbol after it,
propagating through space and time at the speed of cause (light).

The longer the causal pathway, that is the more 'hops' from
original referent to a particular symbol, the more likely the original
data on the nature of the original referent will become degraded and
thus unrecoverable from the later symbol.

SYMBOLS OF FINAL AUTHORITY

The symbol of final authority is the symbol that is studied to
determine the nature of the original referent.  Notice this is not the
last symbol in the chain, as there probably is no such thing, as most
chains go on forever.

TRACKING

Tracking is the fact of the symbol changing state in tandem with
the state of a referent, due to the causal influence of the referent on
the symbol, with a time delay between them due to the speed of cause.

We say that the state of the symbol tracks the state of the
referent.  In the absence of dependable tracking, learning about the
referent by looking at the symbol degenerates.

DATA TRANSMISSION

Data transmission takes place by dependable tracking between
referent and symbol across causal chains (pathways) from source to
destination.

EVIDENCE AND MODEL

If B changes state because of A, we say that B is the evidence and
A is the model that explains the change in B.  Together B and A form a
theory.

Models are neither true nor false, merely workable or not workable.

The purpose of a model is to create the ability to predict
dependable followingness.  This is HOW things work, the apparent rules
of operation, it has nothing to do with why things work, the truth.

DOMAIN ERROR

A Domain Error is when a quality is assigned to an object to which
the quality can not apply,

Asking what is the square root of a dog is a domain error, as dogs
do not and can not have square roots.  Numbers can have square roots,
and dogs are not numbers.

Asking whether a model is true or false is a common domain error,
as models are not descriptions of what is, but descriptions of what
happens.

Any pretense of a model to explain WHY things happen is just that,
a pretense.

THEORY BALLS

A theory ball consists of observations (evidence), theories
(models), and predictions.

When all observations are accounted for by the theory, and all
predictions made by the theory are observed, we say we have a complete
theory ball, or a 'perfectly round theory ball'.

Theory balls are mostly useful for playing croquet, because they
tend to result in a thesis hanging on a wall behind a leather chair, and
smug satisfaction in the purveyor of the thesis, thus they stop further
inquiry.

The purveyors of theory balls like to control the careers of
others to protect the roundness of their theory balls.

The real problem with theory balls, is that with limited access to
the facts, one can create a theory that explains 'everything,' that is
much smaller than the AllThatIs.

As the search for the grand unified theory of everything is a
highly desired prize, theory balls can become very hard to crack open,
mostly due to vested interests in being the winner.

The people who create such round theory balls tend to lose interest
in finding any more facts that might roughen its edges or cause it fall
apart completely.

Thus we seek a nut cracker of magnitude that can crack open any
theory ball, allowing its pieces to fall out, so that perhaps we can put
it all back together again slightly differently, to smooth out some of
its not so round 'roundness.'

The proof is such a nutcracker.

OCCAM'S RAZOR

Occam said

"Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatum."

What he meant to say was, entities should not be multiplied greater
than necessary.

In other words, given all the facts, the simplest theory that
models it all, may be the most workable one and the one that should be
pursued for funding purposes.

By more complex theory, we generally mean a theory that predicts
all the existing facts plus some more.

We eschew the more complex theory because if it were workable, the
extra facts that it would predict should be observable.

In other words, if a theory says that certain facts CAN happen, one
would expect that eventually they WILL happen.

Thus given all the facts, if those extra facts are never seen to
happen, then it is unlikely that the more complex theory is valid even
if it ALSO explains all the facts seen to date as does the simpler
theory.

This philosophical stance results from a tacitly assumed 'lex
parsimoniae', or law of parsimony.

Why would a universe have more complexity if it was never going to
use those abilities that came with that complexity?

We do not imagine that a universe could have cards to play, and
then never ever play them.

Much easier and more useful to assume is that those extra cards
never existed in the first place.

The real problem with Occam's Razor is: who has all the facts?

You will find those that think they do, out on the croquet courts
of life kicking their theory balls around for everyone to see, or
holding chairs at universities with theses in polished frames behind
them.

If you have a theory that accounts for all the facts that YOU have,
it will be a very small theory indeed.

Remember, sophomore means one who thinks he has wisdom.

Sophos (wise) + Moros (moron) = Sophomore.

Apparently many chairs graduated early.

SEEING THE WORLD THROUGH THEORY COLORED GLASSES.

Once a person has a theory in mind that accounts for everything to
him, it becomes almost impossible for him to look at things without the
theory in mind.

So you have a meatball in a white lab coat who is just sure that
consciousness is a process in the brain, and no matter what you say to
him that might throw doubt on his position, he will tap with his pencil
for a moment on his clipboard and then 'explain it away' by telling you
immediately how the brain might accomplish such a thing.

CONFUSCATION THROUGH COMPLEXITY

Their toughest argument to defeat is confuscation through
complexity.  "Oh if you just make it complex enough, it can feel
pain..."

Confuscation is a transgenetic mutation of confuse and obfuscate.

THEY have no idea how complexity will give rise to the phenomenon
in question, and they hope you don't either, but they still want you to
buy their party line.

When it comes to the brain, they don't understand their present
ideas of complexity, so they hope by adding more complexity to it, they
will improve their nonunderstandings of complexity even more.

The underlying party line here is that everything is a multi
dimensional space time machine, and self awareness is a function of
mechanical complexity.

The hell it is.

Zero dimensionality (scalar actuality), and perfect certainty alike
are persona non grata in the halls of wisdom on this planet at this
time.

When you fully understand the Proof, you will finally have a tool
to deal with this kind of institutionalized nitwitism.

SEEING THE WORLD WITHOUT THEORY COLORED GLASSES.

In order to find out anything about the world, and to crack open
those rock hard but small theory balls, you have to be able to throw all
your theories away, along with their underlying party lines, and be able
to look at the world as if you know nothing about it.

Then you might be able to learn something new.

DOWNSIDE OF THEORETICAL KNOWLEDGE

We are proud of what we know and ashamed of what we don't know, so
we constantly try to sell what we know to ourselves.

Therefore knowledge tends to obscure observation, because we try to
fit what we observe into what we think we already know.

This is particularly true of theoretical 'knowledge'.

People with a theory going around in their head can be practically
blind and tend to be owned by it.  They can't think outside of it.

Particularly if, by the force of Godless vanity, they are trying to
push the idea that their theory is practically a perfect certainty.

No theory is ever practically anything but a theory.

I don't care how long a theory has 'stood the test of time', one
counter example and it's gone.

You would be surprised to find out how many of today's accepted
scientific and religious theories are walking dead men.

The theories know this, its the people who hold to the theories
that don't.  Theories just roll their eyes and get so embarrassed by
people who insist on touting them, who ought to know better.

The Proof on the other hand is a perfect certainty about the nature
of perfect certainty.

As such, the Proof can be used as a standard of certainty against
which to judge all the mere theories that pretend to certainty, but will
never be.

THE NUTCRACKER

The Proof is the nutcracker of all theory balls, to crack open
theory balls that pretend to be round but aren't.

A non round theory ball is one where not all observations are
modeled, or not all predictions observed.

All it takes is one new observation to throw a perfectly good
theory ball out of round.

Then they are not even useful for croquet.

LEARNING

Say B is trying to learn about A.

Learning, is a change in state in B, by which B records knowledge
(data) about A, or the rest of the world.

Knowledge is data about the quality set of the referent object A in
question, which is recorded in B's new state after being affected by A.

Thus when we say that B is trying to learn about A, we are saying
that B wants to know what A's quality set contains.

In the absence of a change in state in B, there is no learning in
B.

Thus, learning implies a change in state, and a change in state
implies learning.  The new state in B IS the learning gleaned about A.

More succinctly:

Learning                 implies  a change in state in B
No change in state in B  implies  no learning.

Thus the only way that B can learn about A, is for B to change
state BECAUSE of A.

Thus B has to be an effect of A, and A has to be cause over B.

This is very important because it leads to our first major
assertion called the First Law of Learning.

IF A AND B ARE TWO DIFFERENT OBJECTS, THE ONLY WAY THAT B CAN LEARN
ABOUT A IS IF A CAUSES B TO CHANGE STATE.

If A has no causal agency over B, B can never learn anything at all
about A, including whether or not A even exists.

No matter how much effect B has on A, no matter how much B causes A
to change state, if A has no effect on B whatsoever, then A might as
well not exist for B.

Now notice that the only contact that B has with A is via A's
qualities of causal relation, namely how A affects B, so this leads us
to the second major assertion called the SECOND LAW OF LEARNING.

THE ONLY THING THAT B CAN LEARN ABOUT A BY BEING THE EFFECT OF A,
IS HOW A AFFECTS B, NAMELY THE CAUSAL RELATIONS BETWEEN A AND B.

This is important because if A has qualities of being or relation
that do not in any way affect A's causal relations to B, then B can
never know about them, they too might as well not exist for B.

Thus the only thing you can learn about something by being the
effect of it, is how it affected you.

To sum this up into one statement we can say:

If A and B are two different objects, the only way that B can learn
about A is to be the effect of A's cause, and the only thing that B can
learn about A are the causal relations involved in that cause/effect
relationship.

This leads us directly to the second statement, but first
discovered, of the Proof and the whole point of this lecture.

2.) Learning between two different objects implies learning by
being an effect.

Because any form of space time distance between two objects forces
them to be two DIFFERENT objects, the second line of the proof becomes,

2.) Learning across a distance implies learning by being an effect.

Or:

2.) DISTANCE AND LEARNING IMPLIES LEARNING BY BEING AN EFFECT.

We note in passing that distance means distance in space or time.
or separation along any kind of dimension whatsoever.

OK, we are going to take break here and continue after the break.

Homer

------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Wed Feb 18 21:58:12 EST 2009

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Fri Dec 21 06:06:03 EST 2018