homer at homer at
Tue May 8 03:06:03 EDT 2012

Hash: SHA1



     If A can not influence B, and A can not influence anything that
can influence B, then any changes that B undergoes are irrelevant to
the nature of A, and thus can provide B no learning about A.


     Learning by being an effect means to learn about A by looking
at B (usually ourselves).

     If A and B are separated by an actual space time 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 A is for B to be the effect of A.

     Why are we learning about A by looking at B?

     Because B's state is a function of A, but only if there is a
causal pathway between them.


     Learning is a change in state that is causally connected to the
learned about.

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

     In the presence of a change in state, there may still be no
learning unless the change in state was caused by the learned about.

     In the absence of cause there is no learning.

     In the presence of learning, there must be cause between learner
and learned about.

     It is not enough to just be right accidentally.


     Because present state does not prove prior state, and thus does
not prove change in state.

     After B has changed state allegedly because of A, B has no proof
that B in fact changed state.  In the absence of a change in state,
there is no learning, in the absence of proof of change in state,
there is no proof of learning.

     Even if one were to assume that B could know it changed state,
the third party law forbids B from knowing if its changes were truely
caused by A.


     If A changes state and then B changes state, it is possible that
A's change in state caused B to change state, or it is posible that a
third party C caused both A and B to change state in such a way as to
make it look like A's change in state caused B to change state.

     It is not possible to determine if a third party is operating
merely by looking at A and B.

     If one finds a C that seems to change state before A and B do,
then either C is causing A and B to change state as a third party to
them, or there is another third party D that is causing both C and A
and B to change state to make it look like C caused A and B to change

     Thus it is always impossible to prove whether or not there is a
third party operating between any two events.

     Thus there is no certainty that changes in B's state are actually
a function of the nature of A as they could be merely C's offering to
B about A.  Or D's offering to B and A about C.  A doesn't even have
to exist for B to change state, if the causal pathway between them is
being impostered by a third party.


     Lastly there is no absolute certainty that all effects are
caused.  In particular one can not prove that any effects are caused
merely by being an effect.  The effect does not contain proof that
there was a cause, because the change in state does not contain proof
that it even changed state, but even if it did, the change in state
contains no proof that it was caused by another change in state
somewhere else.

     Thus it is impossible to build a machine that learns by being an
effect that can prove with certainty that cause exists at all.

     Thus the fact that B changes state proves nothing at all about
the nature of anything except B, and then only that it is in the state
it is in.


     The conscious learner can be certain that it sees differences in
color because it is looking at the color directly.  A machine can not
do this because a machine can only look at effects in it self
allegedly caused by the color.

     The relationship between the conscious looker and its conscious
looked-ats, is not the same as the relation between a machine being
impinged upon by an alleged photon from the outside.

     The conscious learner can be certain of personal agency between
the desire to move its arm and the movement of the arm.  The machine
can only report a correlation between effects.

     Since changes in state in the machine do not prove the existence
of cause, either between an external impingement and the machine, or
between two correlated impingments and each other, causation is
insufficient to witness causation.  Thus a machine is forever blind to
personal agency or external agency.

     Agency forever remains a theory to a machine.

     The conscious learner can tell that it is changing state and is
aware of time.  A machine can not tell if it has changed state, and
thus can not be aware of time nor prove that time exists.

     The conscious unit can learn that it exists with certainty and
can continuously reverify this fact as time goes on.  A machine can
not prove its own existence because it can not verify that any symbol
(machine state) it might contain claiming that the machine exists is
there BECAUSE the machine exists.

     The conscious unit can be certain of these things with no
possibility of error.  A machine can only theorize about these things.

     Thus conscoiusness is not a machine.


     A machine is a system of parts interacting via cause and effect
across a space time distance.

     Machines are dimensional entites.


     If an object has a dimension, it must have non zero extension
along that dimension in order to not be a nothing.

     A 2 x 3 x 0 chunck of gold is no gold.

     Extension allows for two different objects in that dimension, as
each point of the extension is a different point from every other.

     Thus learning across an extension, means learning between two
different objects, which means one point learning by being an effect
of the other point which means no certainty of learning.

     A machine, being a dimensional object, therefore can not learn
anything with certainty, including its own existence or the existence
of cause.

     Since consciousness can learn with certainty these very same
things, consciousness must not be learning across a space time
distance about itself and its desires and personal agency and color
forms.  Thus consciousness must not be a dimensional object.  In other
words consciousness is scalar, zero dimensions.


     The shape of a 3 dimensional object lists its extensions in each
dimension.  For example a 2x3x4 piece of gold has a shape of {2,3,4},
and the shape of its shape, called its dimensionality, is {3}, as
there are 3 elements in its shape.

     Notice that a piece of gold with shape {2,3,0} is no gold.

     Notice that a piece of gold with shape {2,3} is some gold
although only two dimensional.

     {2,3,0} is a 3 dimensional nothing.

     {2,3} is a 2 dimensional something.

     The shape of a zero dimensional scalar consciousness is the empty
set {}, as it has no dimensions at all in which to have extension.
The shape of the shape is {0}, as there are 0 elements in the shape.


     Just because we see space and time, doesn't mean there is space
and time.

     Reality is what we think is true.

     Actuality is what is true.

     The AllThatIs consists of a zero dimensional operating actuality,
whose purpose is to project multi dimensional virtual realities.

     The conscious unit is the virtual reality helmet.

     Thus for most people the shape of reality is {x,y,z,t} and the
shape of the shape is {4}.

     The truth is that the shape of actuality is {}, and the shape of
the shape is {0}.

     If we define the greek letter p (RHO), to be the mathematical
symbol for the shape of the object to the right of it, we can write
the above as follows:

     {x,y,z,t} = pREALITY     {4} = ppREALITY
            {} = pACTUALITY   {0} = ppACTUALITY


     In space time, cause and effect are two different objects, two
different events.

     In a scalar actuality, cause and effect are one and the same
event.  as there is no dimensional extensionality to separate them.

     Thus learning with certainty can take place because the learner
is looking directly at the learned about, because learner and learned
about are one and the same event.


     The AllThatIs is a Church of brick.

     Souls are the bricks, the Many.

     God is the mortar, the One that binds the Many and allows them to
communicate and co create with each other.

     The bricks are not made by the mortar, and the mortar is not made
by the bricks.

     Without the Brick God would be nothing, and without the
Mortal the Soul would be alone.

     Both are forever co eternal in the structure of the Church.

     The bricks are conscious and are cause.

     The mortar is beyond words.


     Either you are learning or you are not learning.

     If you are learning, then either you are learning with certainty
or learning with not certainty.

     If you are learning across a distance, then you are learning by
being an effect because distance between learner and learned about
implies they are two different objects, and the only way two different
objects can learn about each other is for one to affect the other.

     If you are learning by being an effect, then there can be no
certainty because you are learning about A by looking at B.

     Thus if you are learning with certainty, you can't be learning by
being an effect across a space time distance.


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

Thu Nov 16 15:18:28 EST 2006

================ ====================
Tue May  8 03:06:02 EDT 2012
Send mail to archive at saying help

Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)


More information about the Homerwsmith-l mailing list