MAIL ME THIS POSTING!
MY E-MAIL ADDRESS:
For example: homer@lightlink.com

     THE A's AND THE B's

     A and B are objects.

     A and B may be two different objects, or one and the same object
with different names, namely A and B.
 
     0.) If A and B have two different quality sets, then A and B are
two different objects.
 
     1.) If A and B are two objects, and A changes state and B
doesn't, then A and B were and are two DIFFERENT objects.

     2.) If A and B are two different objects, then one or both are
not nothings, as there can not be two different nothings.

     3.) If A changes state, then A was or is a something.

     4.) If A and B are separated by a space time distance or
extension in any dimension, then A and B are two different objects.

     This applies even if A and B are MERELY points in space time.
 
     5.) If A and B are two different objects, the only way B can
learn about A, is for B to be the effect of A, that is for A to cause
B to change state.  No matter how much effect B has on A, if A has no
effect on B, then B can not learn anything about A including whether A
exists or not.
 
     Since the only way B can learn about A is to be the effect of A,
the only thing B can learn about A is how A affects B, namely A's
qualities of causal relation to B.
 
     6.) If B and A are two different objects, at no time does B have
direct observation or contact with A.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
     SCHOLIA

     3.) If A changes state, then A is or was a something.

     Proof:

     A nothing can not change state into a nothing, as that is a no
change.

     Thus if A changes state, it either was a nothing and changed into
a something, or it was a something and changed into another something,
or it was a something and changed into a nothing.  QED
 
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

     SCHOLIA CORE THEORM
 
     This is the core theorem of the LCC (Learning, Certainty, and
Causality).  Without it, the whole thing is false.
 
     5.) If A and B are two different objects, the only way B can
learn about A, is if A causes B to change state, that is if A has some
effect on B.  No matter how much effect B has on A, if A has no effect
on B, then B can not learn anything about A including whether A exists
or not.

     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.
 
     In the absence of cause, there is no learning.

     In the presence of cause, the effect caused IS the learning.

     An absence of a change in state indicates an absence of cause.

     Thus in the absence of a change in state in B, there is no
learning by B about anything.

     Since the only way B can learn about A is to be the effect of A,
the only thing B can learn about A is how A affects B, namely A's
qualities of causal relation to B.

     Thus the only qualities that B can learn about A, are qualities
of causal relation, namely how A caused B to change state.  All other
qualities of relation or being about A are inferred as theories from
A's qualities of causal relation.

     Even the qualities of causal relation of A are inferred by B from
changes in B's own state.

     If B does not change state, there can be no learning at all about
A.

     B's change in state IS B's learning about A.

     Since B's state gives no proof that B changed state, B can never
be perfectly certain it learned anything about A even if B did change
state as an effect of A.

     When B is learning about A, A is the referent and B is the
symbol.

     All mechanical learning between two different objects is the
arising of a symbol from a referent along a causal pathway.

     All mechanical learning is by indirect perception, learning about
A by being and looking at B.