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

     OPENING DEFINITIONS

     Disclaimer: Words are not the objects they represent.  Words may
be defined in any way that the author may choose in order to maximize
usefullness to the subject at hand, as long as the definitions remain
logically consistent.
 
     Logic is the ethics of language.
 
     Anything that violates the laws of logic is not only invalid but
useless, and even criminal to the degree that an argument pretends to
logical validity all the while knowing it falls short.
 
     On the other hand anything that does not violate the laws of
logic is acceptable and useful only to the degree that it matches some
part of actuality that it is describing.
 
     For example in this work we DEFINE actuality as that which is
true, and REALITY as that which people think is true, that which is
real to them.
 
     Many people believe that their reality = actuality, especially
in a well designed virtual  reality where the person forgets he is
dreaming.

     But the wise person is always on the lookout for a higher reality
which more closely resembles actuality.  We call this lucidity, or
awareness that we are dreaming or that reality does not equal
actuality.
 
     Sometimes words are defined down to the level of reality of the
person using them.  For example many people consider only 'physical'
things to be real or actual, and even while they may talk about
consciousness or spirit or non physical phenomemon, they feel these
things have no right to the terms 'exist' or 'real' or 'actual'.

     Thus for them physical reality is the only reality, and thus they
have defined out of existence anything that is real or actual which is
not physical.
 
     The correct term for physical by the way is dimensional.  People
are very used to perceiving three dimensional objects, so only three
dimensional objects are real to them.
 
     Certainly they have never seen any two dimensional or one
dimensional objects, so the idea that a zero dimensional object might
exist or be actual also exceeds them.

     Thus the world's reality that zero dimensional objects do not
exist, violates the actuality that zero dimensional objects may exist
and may in fact be more important than multi dimensional objects.
 
     For the purposes of this discourse, the following terms are
defined.  The careful reader will maintain awareness of the subtle
change in definitions of reality and actuality from the common usage
to the usage laid out below.

     Reality is what people think exists.
 
     Actuality is what actually exists.

     To exist means to IS (to BE).

     To not exist means to IS NOT (to not BE).

     There are three kinds of existence.

     There is hypothetical existence, in which things are merely
considered in the mind, given qualities, and studied.  Unicorns may
have hypothetical existence for a given person considering unicorns.

     There is also actual existence, in which things actually are.

     There are also "truths in heaven," which are true whether or not
anything exists at all.

     The phrase truths in heaven should not be taken to imply any
religious significance or that these truths are subservient to some
possible God, as these truths are true whether or not ANYTHING exists
at all, including God, thus even God, if such exists, is subservient
to these truths and must conform to them.

     An example of such a truth is:

     An object is either a something or a nothing.

     This statement is true whether or not something exists or nothing
exists.
 
     As such the statement is true independent of any particular
existing thing.

     The value of PI is another such truth in heaven.
 
     A "word matrix" is any constellation of words whose definitions
have been finely honed to work with each other on a particular subject
at hand.  Such definitions may be slightly or majorly different than
their normal English usage.  As long as those definitions are clearly
stated before their first use, and as long as their use does not
violate logical laws of consistency, then there is no problem with
using specialized matrices of words with specialized definitions.

     Any word matrix will have areas of fuzziness and self referencing
possibilities, that may lead to Godel jails.  Such areas may be noted
in passing for enjoyment's sake, but will be of no further concern.

     A Godel jail is an area of discourse where a word matrix leads to
contradictory results or incomplete results, meaning the truth of a
statement is logically contradictory or undecidable.

     Godel jail is also where we send people who try to foist off
philosophical systems that are mostly contradictory or incomplete, but
delivered in the pretense that they aren't.  If you have ever met
someone who claimed that 'All generalizations are false," "There are
no absolutes", or "Everyone's opinion is as good as everyone else's",
you have had the honor of doing discourse with an inmate of Godel
jail.
 
     *ALL* word matrices of any worth may contain areas of Godel
jails, this does not in any way lessen their usefulness or
applicability in the areas which do not lead to Godel jails.
 
     Just because one can create contradictory or undecidable
propositions in logic for example, does not in any way invalidate the
validity of the rest of logic that is both not contradictory and
decidable.
 
     RUSSELL'S PARADOX

     Bertrand Russell spent the better part of a summer looking at a
blank piece of paper trying to figure his way out of a now world
famous Godel Jail.

     Russell was a mathematician working with numbers and sets of
numbers.

     He noticed that there are 'large sets' of numbers, sets that had
more than 100 or more numbers in them say, and 'small sets' of
numbers, sets that had less than 100 numbers in them.  (I pick the
number 100 arbitrarily).
 
     A large set would be for example all the numbers from 1 to 1000.
Another large set would be all the numbers from 1001 to 2000.

     Clearly there are an infinite number of different large sets.

     A small set might be all the numbers from 1 to 10, and another
small set would be all the numbers from 10000 to 10020.

     Clearly there are an infinite number of different small sets.
 
     He saw that there are an infinite number of different large sets
thus the set of all large sets was a large set and thus was a member
of itself.

     He saw that there were also an infinite number of different small
sets, and thus the set of all small sets was also a LARGE set, and
thus was NOT a member of itself.

     Thus he discovered the fact that some sets are members of
themselves and some are not.
 
     Woe be the day.

     The set of large sets is a member of itself, but the set of small
sets is not, and there are many other sets which are members of
themselves and others which are not.

     Thus he conceived of the set of "all sets which are members of
themselves" and the sets of "all sets which are not members of
themselves."

     It was a happy summer to that point.

     He then asked if the set of "all sets which are members of
themselves" is a member of itself?
 
     The answer is undecidable, if you assume yes, then no
contradiction arises, and if you assume no, no contradiction arises.
 
     This means one can freely choose to consider the answer yes or no
according to your needs at the moment and it will have no influence on
anything else you might be studying that is in fact decidable.
 
     But then he asked if the set of "all sets which are NOT members
of themselves" is a member of itself?
 
     If you assume yes, then you get no.  If you assume no, you get
yes.

     Thus we have a contradiction.
 
     In the absence of the ability to directly determine the truth of
a proposition one can use reductio ad absurdem, meaning to reduce to
an absurdity.

     One assumes the answer is yes and if that leads to an absurdity,
then the answer must have been no.
 
     This was used extensively by Euclid to prove that various
geometrical propositions are true or false.
 
     The problem comes in when assuming the answer is no ALSO leads to
an absurdity, then you have a contradiction.  Which is it, yes or no?

     The answer is neither.
 
     This means that one can not consider the answer to be either true
or false, which bothered him greatly, but again indicated that its
truth value in the end had no affect on the truth value of anything
else under study that was decidable or well behaved.
 
     One might be tempted to claim that finally logic has found a
statement that is indeed both true and false, or neither true nor
false.  However all such statements to date have been shown to be
degenerate, meaning self referencing or otherwise not well formed
formulas, or WFFs, pronouned "woofs".
 
     We call statements that are degenerate or not well formed
formulas UNWFFs, pronounced "unwoofs".
 
     For example the reader is invited to study the following
degenerate statements and determine if they are true, false,
contradictory or undecideable.
 
     This statement is true.
     This statement is false.
     This statement is uncertain.
     This statement is provable.
     This statement is unprovable.
     This statement is undecidable.

     We represent these solutions with logic diagrams like so:

     This statement is true.
     T -> T         If you assume it is true, then it is true.
     F -> F         If you assume it is false, then it is false.

     This statement is false.
     T -> F
     F -> T
     Double Contradiction and meaningless.
 
     This statement is uncertain.
     T -> F  (if it is true, it isn't uncertain!)
     F -> F  (If it is false, it also isn't uncertain!)
     Thus this statement is always false.
 
     We will leave the remaining three for the reader to solve.
 
     Godel had a lot of fun with this stuff, and finally proved his
two famous incompleteness theorems which said:

     Theorem 1: Any consistent formal system S, within which a certain
amount of elementary arithmetic can be carried out, is incomplete in
that statements can be made in S which are undecidable.

     Theorem 2: In the same formal system S, the consistency of S can
not be proven in S alone.
 
     One might wonder why one would study such a thing so hard and so
long, but the problems with the perfection of logic greatly troubled
great minds because for a while it threw doubt on the validity of the
valid parts of logic.

     Eventually people saw that just because one can create a
degenerate statement within a word matrix, does not mean the word
matrix is not perfect where it is not degenerate of self referencing.
 
     A perfect example of a Godel jail in the following material is
the definition of a nothing as an object with an empty quality set,
and a something as an object with a non empty quality set.

     It could be argued that having a quality set, whether empty or
not, IS a quality of the object and thus belongs in the quality set,
and thus all objects have non empty quality sets and thus there are no
nothings.

     That's fine, but the failure to distinguish between objects whose
only quality is that they have a quality set and those objects who
actually have other qualities in their quality sets, leads to
catestrophic failure later on to be able to discuss the ramifications
of nothings and somethings.

     Some day you will run into someone who will try to counter a
valid logical arguement with "Well Russell proved that logic was
illogical and thus you can't trust any logic at all".

     Again you are talking to a lifer in Godel Jail.  
 
     In the same wing are the guys who are certain they can't be
certain of anything, and the guys down the hall who doubt that they
doubt everything and claim at least they are being consistent in
doubting everything including their own doubt, of which consistency
they are perfectly certain, don't you see?

     Thus doubting everything -> perfectly certain we doubt
everything, or -> perfectly certain we are being consistent in
doubting everything including our doubt and our consistency -> hole in
the head with much wind between the ears.
 
     Idiot: "I doubt everything and am certain of nothing"

     Menttor: "Are you certain of that?"

     Idiot: "No."

     Mentor: "Well that means maybe you don't doubt everything."

     Idiot: "No, that may be logical but I doubt logic too, at least I
am being consistent?"

     Mentor: "Are you sure or do you doubt you are being consistent?"

     Idiot: "I doubt I am being consistent and I am being consistent."

     Mentor: "Ah I see."

     Lesson learned: EVERY statement begins with "I am certain it is
true that..." or else why say it?

     Example: I do not know your middle name, means I am certain it is
true that I don't know your middle name.

     It is impossible to be unsure you are unsure.  You can only be
sure you are unsure.

     Idiot: "Well maybe I know your middle name but have fogotten it,
I am unsure if I know your middle name"

     Mentor: Well right NOW you can't remember it and are not sure if
you ever knew it, and of that YOU ARE CERTAIN.

     No mercy for the professionally illogical.
 
     Homer

     ca. Earth, 21st century
 
#-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
     The alert reader will once again notice that some of the
definitions below are not the usual common language definitions, and
therefore care must be taken to keep the below definitions in mind when
pursuing the rest of this manuscript.

     OPENING DEFINITIONS
 
     QUALITIES, OBJECTS AND CLASSES

     There are Qualities, Objects and Classes.

     Objects are collections of qualities.

     Classes are collections of objects.

     The set of all qualities that define an object is called the
Object Quality Set.

     The set of all qualities that define a class is called the Class
Quality set, or 'Pertinent' quality set.
 
     All objects have an Object Quality Set, and anything that has an
Object Quality Set is an object.

     The pertinent quality set of any class are the qualities that are
pertinent to the meaning of the class, they are both common and unique
to it.

     Common qualities are those qualities which are common to every
member of the class, that is every member has those qualities.

     Unique means that every object in the universe that has those
qualities (as a group) is a member of that class.

     Words act as labels to qualities, objects and classes.
 
     Brown is a quality label.

     Joey, my dog is an object label.

     Dog is a class label.

     Quality, object and class are class labels.

 
     QUALITIES OF BEING AND QUALITIES OF RELATION

     There are qualities of Being and qualities of Relation.

     Qualities of being are qualities that an object has alone,
unrelated to any other object in the universe.

     Qualities of relation are qualities that an object has by virtue
of its relation to other objects.

     An object's quality set contains all of the object's qualities of
being and qualities of relation to other objects.
 
     Existence is a quality of being.

     Mass is also a quality of being, as a physical object may have
mass without respect to other objects.

     Weight is a quality of relation as weight depends on the
relationship between the object and another object, for example the
Earth's gravitational field.

 
     SPATIAL, TEMPORAL, MATERIAL, ENGERGETIC and CAUSAL RELATIONS

     There are 5 broad kinds of qualities of relation.

     Qualities of material relation: heavier than, denser than, etc.
 
     Qualities of energtic relation: faster than, more powerful than,
hotter than, etc.
 
     Qualities of spatial relation: next to, on top of, under, bigger
than, etc.

     Qualities of temporal relation: before, after, coincident with
etc.

     Qualities of causal relation, is the cause of, is the effect of,
is the father of, etc.

 
     DETERMINING QUALITIES OF RELATION

     Qualities of relation are equally true of both objects which are
in relation.

     It is true of the ball  that the ball is on top of the table.
     It is true of the table that the ball is on top of the table.

     Both ball and table have the identical quality of relation in
their object quality sets, namely 'the ball is on top of the table'.

     Qualities of relation can also usually be expressed by an opposite.

     It is true of the ball  that the table is under the ball.
     It is true of the table that the table is under the ball.

     Thus the same quality of relation can be expressed in two
opposite ways.
 
     It is true of the spoon that the spoon is to the right of the fork.
     It is true of the fork  that the spoon is to the right of the fork.
 
     It is true of the spoon that the fork is to the left of the spoon.
     It is true of the fork  that the fork is to the left of the spoon.

     On top of and under are spatial qualities of relation.
 
     So are to the right of and to the left of.
 
     Sometimes these relationships can be hidden by the language in
use at the time.  The weight of a mass is usually expressed in terms
of a quality of being, but it is really a quality of relation.

     It is true of the Earth that the Earth pulls the ball.
     It is true of the ball  that the Earth pulls the ball.
 
     It is true of the Earth that the ball is pulled by the Earth.
     It is true of the ball  that the ball is pulled by the Earth.

     Pulls and is pulled by are causal relations.

     It is true of WW I  that WW I came before WW II.
     It is true of WW II that WW I came before WW II

     It is true of WW I  that WW II came after WW I.
     It is true of WW II that WW II came after WW I.

     Came before and came after are qualities of temporal relation.

     We belabor the point because it is critical to know whether
a quality is a quality of being or quality of relation, and in normal
language, many qualities of relation are expressed as qualities
of being.

     For example 'The ball is red' is a complete mess.  Redness
of course is a quality of being but is a quality of the conscious
experience of the ball, not the ball itself.

     What the statement really means to say is that the ball
reflects photons of 5000 Angstroms, which is a causal relation!

     Thus we see a quick example of where qualities of being
in consciousness are used to symbolize qualities of causal
relation in the phyiscal universe.

 
     RELATION IMPLIES BEING

     An object can not have a quality of relation without having at
least one quality of being, namely existence, in both objects.

     Existence can be physical, mental, emotional, or spiritual, or
any other kind of existence that is not nothing, that one might care
to contemplate, including hypothetical, imaginatory, hallucinatory, or
even Plato's truths in heaven.

 
     ALONE AND UNALONE

     Aloneness is a quality of being.

     Unaloneness is a quality of relation.

     The AllThatIs is alone as there is nothing outside the AllThatIs
to which it could be in relation.

     Any part of the AllThatIs is unalone.
 

     SOMETHING AND NOTHING

     A nothing is an object with an empty object quality set, that is
there are NO qualities in its quality set.

     A something is an object with a non empty quality set, that is
there are SOME qualities in its quality set.

     Start of Godel Jail:
 
     The fact that a nothing has an empty quality set IS a quality of
a nothing and thus belongs in the quality set.  But this means the
quality set is no longer empty as it now has one quality in it, namely
that the quality set is supposed to be empty, which makes the quality
set non empty, which means the nothing is really a something.

     If Goober then used this argument to prove that therefore there
always had to be a something, as there couldn't ever be a nothing, as
all nothings are somethings anyhow, he would be doing time in Godel
Jail, along with the rest of his nut case friends in philosophy.
 
     End of Godel Jail.
 
     There can be only one nothing.  If there were two different
nothings, then they would have to have two different object quality
sets that differentiated them.  However if two object quality sets are
different, then at least one or both of them are not empty, and thus
not a nothing.

     You can have two different object quality sets, but if their
contents are identical, they refer to the same single object.
 
     Two different empty quality sets have indentical contents, so
must refer to the same object, in this case a nothing.  Thus there is
only one nothing, as there is nothing to differentiate two different
nothings.
 
     When we say "Something exists in general", we are claiming that
the quality set of the AllThatIs is non empty.

     When we say nothing exists, we are claiming that the quality set
that describes the AllThatIs is empty.

     By 'nothing exists' we mean more accurately 'no something
exists'.
 
     A something can not come from nothing.  If an object has the
potential ability to change into a something then its object quality
set is not empty and thus it can not be a nothing.

     Thus if something exists now, something must have always existed.

     A something can not go into a nothing.  (We leave the proof to
the reader).

     Thus if something exists now, something will always exist.

     Something exists now.

     Therefore something has always existed, and something will always
exist.
 
 
     SYMBOLS AND REFERENTS

     A symbol is an object that is used to refer to a referent.

     A referent is an object that is referred to by a symbol.

     Symbols and referents are TWO DIFFERENT OBJECTS.

     Symbols and referents each have their own independent object
quality sets.

     Some of the qualities of the symbol are mapped to qualities of
the referent.

     Symbols can have picture form and data content.  Picture form
means geometric congruency or similarity with the referent.  Data
content means data about the referent is encoded in the symbol.
Picture form is one kind of data content.

     The astute reader will notice the next paragraph to be new and
unusal.
 
     Any two events that are causally related to each other are symbol
and referent to each other, later to earlier.  Thus if event A causes
event B, then B is a symbol for A where A is the referent.

     Symbols and referents always have a causal pathway between them,
or else the symbol would never have come to be used as a symbol for
the referent.

     Data content is conserved along the causal pathway but
degenerates according to causal distance between referent and symbol
of final authority.

     A symbol of final authority is the symbol used to 'learn' about
the original referent by an observer.

     The only data that can be passed on from referent to symbol along
the causal pathway are qualities of causal relation, namely how the
referent caused the symbol to change state.

     Thus the only data that can be learned about the referent by
looking at the symbol are the referent's qualities of causal relation.
Any other qualities of relation or qualities of being can be gleaned
by inference only from received qualities of causal relation.
 
     Indirect perception means learning about a referent by looking
at a symbol for the referent.  Learning about A by looking at B.

     Indirect perception means learning about a cause by looking
at one of its effects.

     One can not learn with perfect certainty about a referent by
looking at a symbol which is a different object than the referent.
You can't learn with perfect certainty about A by looking at B, even
if B was allegedly caused by A.

     Data is the nature of objects in the AllThatIs, their quality sets.

     Data flows through the phyiscal universe from referent to symbol,
via causal pathways between referent and symbol.

     Mechanical learning in the physical universe is the process of
learning about referents by looking at symbols.  The intervention of
space and time between referent and symbol guarantee that they are two
different objects and thus this process can not provide certainty.

     The most accurate symbol for a referent is the referent itself.

     Direct perception is the process of learning about a referent by
looking at the referent.  Learning about a cause by looking directly
at the cause itself.

     Self luminous consciousness is a self symbolizing event.  
 
     This means that we see our own conscious pictures (referent)
by looking at them directly, thus the referent is the symbol.  There
is no further separate symbol later in the chain by which we see
our own conscious pictures.
 
     However in this case learner and learned-about are one and the
same object.  Only in this way can perfect certainty arise.
 
     When you are looking at conscious redness, you are looking
directly at cause.  That's why you can see it!  Indirect perception
can't see anything, as it is always seeking a later symbol to learn
about an earlier referent.  Since the chain of symbols never ends, one
never ends up looking at anything directly.

     In a machine which can only learn by indirect perception,
perception follows through to action without ever actually being seen
by anything!
 
     Direct perception can only be used when an object is learning
about itself.

     Where ever there are two different objects in space or time, they
are limited to learning about each other by indirect perception via
the causal pathway between them.  One learns about A by studying A's
alleged data imprint on B.

     Indirect perception provides evidence, model and theory, but
never provides perfect certainty.

     Direct perception only provides perfect certainty.

 
     TRUTH

     Statements of fact are statements of the form QUALITY BELONGS TO
OBJECT, or OBJECT BELONGS TO CLASS.

     Statements of fact are not always true.

     Truth is a quality of relation between a statement of fact and a
given specified actuality.

     "This house is square" is of the form 'Squareness belongs to this
house'.

     'Squareness' is the quality, and 'this house' is the object.

     This statement of fact is true only relative to a given specified
house.

     Certain statements can be true even though nothing exists at all.

     "The first 6 digits of PI are 3.14159" regardless of whether
anything exists at all or anyone exists to know it.  In this sense
there can be absolute truths, statements which are true whether
anything exists or not.

 
     FOUR KINDS OF STATEMENTS

     There are 4 kinds of statements of fact, and thus 4 kinds of
truths.

     DEFINITIONAL TRUTHS are true by definition of the words within
them.  "A circle is the locus of points equidistant from a given
single point."

     OBSERVATIONAL TRUTHS are true by observation.  "I see two or more
different colors when I look at the world around me."

     LOGICAL TRUTHS are logically true.  "Joey is either a dog or not
a dog." "If all dogs are mammals, and Joey is a dog, then Joey is a
mammal." "Either something exists or nothing exists."

     INTUITIVE TRUTHS Something can't come from nothing, and something
can't go into nothing.
 

     CERTAINTY

     Certainty is a quality of relation between a knower of statements
of fact and the alleged truth value of a given specified statement of
fact.

     Being certain you can't be certain of anything, is absurd.

     Certainly.

     Therefore certainty exists.

     Uncertainty exists.

     To doubt this is to prove it.

     Certainty is different from Uncertainty.

     To doubt this is to assert that everyone is both certain and
uncertain of everything all of the time.

     There are no degrees of certainty.  Either one is certain,
or one is uncertain.


     CAUSALITY

     There is,

     FOLLOWINGNESS

     DEPENDABLE FOLLOWINGNESS

     NECESSARY DEPENDABLE FOLLOWINGNESS

     Followingness means event B followed event A.

     Dependable followingness means that as observed to date, event B
always follows even A.

     Necessary dependable followingness means that event B MUST follow
event A, and thus always has and always will follow A.

     All causation implies necessary dependable followingness, and all
necessary dependable followingness implies causation.

     Although event B may be observed to follow event A, there is no
observation of the NECESSARINESS of that followingness, thus no
observation of causation, thus no assurance that event B will always
follow event A because it must.

     Dependable followingness does not prove necessary dependable
followingness.

     Corellation is dependable followingness.

     Correlation does not prove causation.

     Effect does not prove cause.

     Causation is not sufficient to witness causation.

     Necessariness is not observable in the physical universe because
there is nothing in event A or B that indicates that B MUST follow
from event A or even that it did.

     Thus causation between event A and B remains forever a theory as
long as one can only observe the beginning and end points of
causation, events A and B.

     Causation in the physical universe is an anthropomorphization of
our direct perception of personal agency within our own consciousness.

     Anthropomorphization (To anthropom) means to assign qualities of
zero dimensional consciousness to the physical universe.

     "Consciousness feels pain, so my wounded robot over here needs
anesthetics."

     Reverse anthropomorphization (To reverse anthropom) means to assign qualities of the
physical universe to consciousness.

     "Matter and energy move through time, so the conscious unit is
moving through time also."

     For example, does time move forward because two electrons repell
each other locally, or do two electrons repell because time moves
forward globally?
 
     Are there two causes, one is time moving forward globally, and
the other is two electrons pushing on each other locally?

     Which then is cause of action, local force between electrons or
global time moving forward?  
 
     Is there local cause at all in the physical universe?  Or is the
concept of local cause in the dimensional world an anthropom of the
directly perceived local cause we see in our scalar selves through
personal agency.
 
     Is space and time a quality of an electron, or is 'electronness'
a quality of some points in space, i.e. is an electron just another
kind of space?

     When an electron moves, is it the same electron in the
next moment of time, or is it a whole new recreation?

     When an image 'moves' across an LCD screen like in a video game,
is any part of the LCD screen moving?  Or is the position of
polarization changing?  
 
     Is an electron merely a different polarization of space time?

     If so, what possible local cause could there be between them?

     Do two different images on an LCD screen have any local
cause between them?
 
     PROBABILISTIC CAUSE
 
     It is generally considered that if event A causes event B, then
event A must ALWAYS cause event B.  It is argued that if sometimes
event A doesn't give rise to event B, then either event A is not cause
of event B, or else event A isn't always exactly the same event A, in
other words its not event A at all when B doesn't happen.
 
     It is granted that there may be probabilistic cause, in the sense
that identical events A may give rise to event B 25 percent of the
time and to event C 75 percent of the time.

     Notice however it is not a far step from there to claiming that
identical events A may give rise to an infinite number of different
events 0 through N, one infinitieth of the time.
 
     STATE DETERMINED

     State determined means that what happens next in time is
a function of the present state in time.

     There can be strict state determinedness, such that A always
gives rise to be.

     There can be probabilistic state determinedness, such that A
always gives rise to a random selection of B and C etc, with various
probabilities assigned or not to each outcome.
 
     GLOBAL AND LOCAL CAUSE

     It is considered that time moving forward results from an
underlying timeless global cause.  It is global in that it affects
everything everywhere in space at the "same time," whether or not
anything exists IN that space or not.  The meaning of 'same time' is
tempered by special relativity which indicates that there is no one
true same time for all observers.

     Local cause is the apparency of forces between matter and energy
that cause changes in state within the phyiscal universe, for example,
electrons repelling each other, or planets going around the sun.
 
     If one wishes to use Occam's razor to cut one's throat, one might
presume that having two causes, one global and one local is one too
many, and so postulate the possibility that the global cause not only
moves everything forward in time one frame at a time, but also causes
everything to move relative to each other in space AS IF there were
local cause between them.

     Thus 'state determinedness' would be an illusion based on the
whim of global cause, which could just as easily cause planets to go
around each other in square orbits if it wanted to.

     Thus if a global cause could create and control an entire space
time continuum, and also virtualize local causation correctly down to
the last quark, it could create the apparency of a fully state
determined system.  However it could also originate or inject changes
into that system at any time that were not a function of the present
state or any state in the past.
 
     A system that was truely caused only by local causes, could not
do such a thing, as the local causation would be a fundamental part of
the nature of the objects that were interacting, and thus there is no
virtualization of cause that could be violated at whim.
 
 
     STATE AND CHANGE IN STATE

     An object is any event in space time described by its related
quality set.
 
     The state of an object is the state or contents of its quality
set at the time.

     An object that has moved to a new unit of time is a new different
object as its quality set is not identical to the object at the prior
moment of time.  They at least differ by time stamp.

     A process is a change in state in an object, a movement of an
object to the next object in space and time, with a new quality set
thereby.

     A process chain is a chain of changes in state in a series of
objects (space time events) that form a causal pathway.

     Remember that an object 'moving through time' is really the
recreation of a series of objects similar to each other, pretending to
be one single object whose only change is to have 'move through time.'
 
     A casual pathway is a chain of events that are causally related
to each other, one to the next.

     A causal chain produces a chain of objects which are referent and
symbol to each other.  Each object later in time is a symbol for each
object which is a referent earlier in time.

     Each symbol later in time records data in its changed, state about
the nature of the referent that caused it to change state.

     We call this data transfer a causal imprint.

     State does not prove prior state.

     There is no data in any object's present state that provides
perfect certainty that it was ever in any other prior state, including
earlier in time.
 
     Thus state does not prove change in state.
 
     One can not tell with perfect certainty if an object has changed
state merely by looking at its present state.

     This is a major assertion, please do not go by it without
understanding it.

     Thus looking at the state of a symbol does not prove that the
symbol has changed state, and thus does not prove that the symbol
received an effect of causal relation from the referent, and thus does
not prove anything at all about the referent.

     Thus learning about referents by looking at symbols does not
produce certainty.

     The only way a machine can learn about anything is to BE a symbol
in the causal pathway originating from the referent.  Since symbol
does not prove referent, i.e.  effect does not prove cause, a machine
can not be certain of anything.

 
     DIMENSION and EXTENSION

     The word 'physical' means dimensional.

     Dimensional actualities are a subset of all actualities, as there
can be zero dimensional or non dimensional actualities.  Zero and non
dimensional mean the same thing.
 
     The dimensionality of an object is its shape, denoted by {a,b,c}
where a, b, and c are the extensions in each dimension.

     Thus an object with shape {2,3,4} is 3 dimensional with
extensions 2, 3 and 4 in each dimension respectively.  This might
correspond to a 2 x 3 x 4 piece of gold, or 24 cubic units of gold.

     A scalar object has zero dimensions.  It has no dimensions in
which to have extension.  It's shape is {}, the empty set.

     A vector object has 1 dimension and zero or more extension in
that 1 dimension.  It's shape is {a}, where a is the extension in its
one dimensions.  a may be zero, in which case one has a zero length 1
dimensional object.  This is not a total nothing because it still has
shape but it is a physical nothing, because its extension is zero.

     A matrix object has 2 dimensions and zero or more extension in
those 2 dimensions.  The shape of a matrix is {a,b}.
 
     A cubic object has 3 dimensions and zero or more extension in
those 3 dimensions.  The shape of a cube is {a,b,c}.
 
     If an object has any dimensions, it must have non zero extension
in all dimensions in order to not be a physical nothing, in order to
be a physical something.

     For example a cube of shape {0, 2, 3} is 0 cubic units in size
(0x2x3) and thus a physical nothing, but because it still has 3
dimensions and specific shape, it can not be called a total nothing.
 
     Since a scalar object does not have any dimensions, it does not
need to have non zero extension to be a something, as it has no
dimensins in which to have extension.  Scalar objects are always a
something by default.  They are not however a physical something.
They may however exist in the exact same sense as a physical something
exists.

     In the end, the distinction between physical objects as
dimensional, and non physical objects as non dimensional may be
useless.
 
     A {2 x 2 x 2} gold object is 6 cubic units of 3 dimensional gold
and is a physical something.

     A {0 x 2 x 2} gold object is 0 cubic units of 3 dimensional gold
and is a physical nothing.

     A {2 x 2} gold object is 4 square units of 2 dimensional gold and
is a physical something.

     A {0 x 2} gold object is 0 square units of 2 dimensional gold and
is a physical nothing.

     A {2} gold object is 2 linear units of 1 dimensional gold and is
a physical something.

     A {0} gold object is 0 linear units of 1 dimensional gold and is
a physical nothing.

     A {} gold object is a 0 dimensional object of gold and is a non
physical something.
 
     If God created space and time, then God itself must have no space
and time, and must therefore be a scalar actuality.
 
     It is also possible that holographic illusions of space and time
exist in a scalar substrate.  In this case the illusions of space and
time do not themselves take up any space or time.

     No two objects in dimensional space time can ever be certain of
each other's existence or qualities, because the only way two
different objects can learn about each other is through indirect
perception, learning about cause in the first object by looking at
effects in the second object.
 
     Only 'two objects' in a zero dimensional scalar object can be
certain of each other, because all objects are one object.  In such a
case the object is certain of itself.  We call this self luminousity.
 
     A scalar can create the illusion of two, but a non scalar
can not create the illusion of one.

     Homer Wilson Smith