For example:



     Good evening, today is late Sunday evening March 30th, 2009.

     This is the third part of the Valentine's Day lecture on the
subject of The Proof.

     First we need to summarize where we have been so far and to refresh
our memories of what we are talking about.

     So very quickly let's start at the beginning.


     Objects are states or events in space and time.

     We usually think of events as changes in state, but a single point
in space time IS an event, a 'happening'.  Thus space time is a fabric
of events, or objects, each one of which has a quality set including its
location in space and time.

     Objects have quality sets which describe them.

     Anything that has qualities is an object, and anything that is an
object has a quality set with qualities in it.

     Except of course the Nothing which has an empty quality set!

     I can hear a bright little Goober ask "But isn't it then a quality
of the Nothing that it has no qualities?"

     We will avoid that Godel jail by asking you to apply understanding
rather than rigor.

     Godel jails are philosophical black holes that one falls into by
being a little too bright.

     They are also the place we send people who are a little too dumb,
and who suffer from proffering logical absurdities as wisdom.

     For example the statement 'All generalizations are false' leads to
a Godel Jail for any mind that tries to determine if it is true or
     Since the statement IS a generalization, if we assume the statement
is false, then the statement is true, if we assume the statement is
false, then the state is true.
     Around and around we go.  This arises because the statement is a
self denying statement, and thus forms the basis of a Godel Jail for the
bright mind that can't figure its way out of the logical whirlpool.

     But we also send people to Godel Jail who try to make the statement
into a working philosophy.

     Godel Jails are filled with the bones of fools and charlatans.


     Two different objects have two different quality sets, and any
objects with two different quality sets are two different objects.

     Since where and when an object exists is part of it's quality set,
a change in position in space or time indicates a new different object.

     The parts of you that move in time are a new you from moment to
moment.  The parts of you that do not move in time are the same you, as
for them there IS no moment to moment.

     Just because everything IN consciousness is made of apparitions of
space and time, doesn't mean that consciousness itself is made of space
and time.

     In this case, the TV set (consciousness) is not made of what is
displayed in the TV set screen (space and time, parts and mechanics).


     A symbol is any object that is used to refer back to another

     A referent is any object referred to by a symbol.

     Referent and symbol are two different objects with two different
qualities sets.

     The symbol of final authority is the last symbol in the causal
chain actually used by the observer to learn about the referent.  The
symbol of final authority IS that observer and the changes that take
place in him due to the causal wave reaching and impinging on him from
the referent.

     The RENDITION ZONE is the area in the observer that changes state
due to the causal wave, usually that observer's consciousness, and the
RENDITION is the changes that take place in the observer's rendition

     The referent is the rendered, the symbol is the rendition.

     Ontology is the study of being or existing.

     Ontological status is the status of the existingness of an object.

     Either something exists or it doesn't.

     Thus ontology is a pretty simple science of what is and what ain't.
     Since referent and symbol are both objects which ARE, both have
equal ontological status, they have a parity of (equal) existingness
with each other.

     Something might be heavier than another, but something can not
exist more than another.

     There is no gradient scale of TO BE or TO EXIST.

     Thus it is not true that the referent exists or is more actual than
the symbol.  Both exist and both are actual.

     Both referent and symbol have their own distinct quality sets, both
of which contain 'exists'.

     If the symbol did not exist, it would be impossible to get the idea
that the referent existed by studying the symbol.

     Thus claiming that the physical universe exists but that our
consciousness doesn't really exist, is ludicrous.

     We like to think that the original referent out there in
space and time is SOMETHING, you know, heavy made of mass,
objective, you can 'prove' it exists etc. (Actually you can't).

     But our conscious experience of that referent, the symbol
of final authority for learning about the referent, has no mass,
isn't heavy and therefore probably isn't real.

     How heavy is a conscious experience of heaviness?

     Thus it is tempting to say the referent exists but the symbol, our
conscious experience, eh, well who knows....

     However it is the very glaring existence of our consciousness that
gives us the idea that the physical universe exists also, as we are
using our consciousness to symbolize the alleged physical universe.

     Our consciousness, the SYMBOL, certainly exists, so we conclude
rightly or wrongly that the physical universe, the REFERENT, must exist
at least as much as the symbol does.

     Existence of the symbol does not imply existence of the referent,
as you could be dreaming, hallucinating or imagining.

     Most perceptions in consciousness are a symbol of the alleged
physical universe.  When studied as themselves though, conscious
experiences are self symbolizing, self luminous.  You don't see them by
looking at SOMETHING ELSE.
     One learns about conscious experiences by direct perception, by
looking at them directly, not by looking at something later that was the
effect of them earlier.

     One USES one's conscious experiences to learn about the alleged
physical universe through indirect perception, because one is learning
about the physical universe by looking at one's conscious experiences,
and not the physical universe directly.  Also the alleged event in the
physical universe exists prior to the event in consciousness, and no
longer exists at the moment the conscious symbol arises.

     We say alleged, because the event in the physical universe is a
THEORY to explain the perfectly certain existence of the conscious


     Some qualities in the symbol, MAP back to qualities in the
referent, so one can glean something about the referent by looking at
the symbol.

     For example a map of city streets will show the street pattern on
the map which pretty well matches that actual pattern of streets in the

     Symbols however will have other qualities that do not map back to
the referent, for example, the map is made of paper, the city isn't.

     And the referent will have qualities that are not represented in
some particular symbol, for example Ithaca (the city) has poisonous air
from buses and cars, enough to supply a needy concentration camp for the
length of a war, and the map doesn't.


     Collapsing referent and symbol means to look at a symbol and
consider it IS the referent.

     Referents and symbols are two different objects with two different
quality sets.

     However those quality sets may overlap in some areas where certain
qualities are common to both.

     Both referent and symbol 'exist' for example.

     Both referent and symbol may be 'square', we call this geometricity
between referent and symbol, or geometric similarity.

     There are also a subset of qualities in the symbol that are mapped
back to OTHER very different qualities in the referent because of a
causal connection between them.

     Thus visual color in our consciousness is mapped back to various
frequencies of light in the referent physical universe.

     Except in the case of geometricity, mapped qualities are NOT
necessarily, and usually are NOT, common qualities of both referent and

     Conscious experiences have color but do not have frequency.

     Photons have frequency but do not have color.

     Nonetheless conscious color is mapped back to alleged photon

     Consider a light in the physical universe that emits 5000 Angstroms
of light.  In our consciousness we perceive it as red light, but in the
physical universe there is no red, just frequency and wave length.

     Color in the conscious symbol maps back to frequency in the
physical referent.

     The mapping between color and frequency is arbitrary but
nonetheless (allegedly) causally related.


     Collapsing symbol and referent leads to three errors, all of which
are forms of insanity.  If a machine were to do any one of these things,
you would throw it out.


     First, when qualities in the symbol map back to qualities in the
referent, one gets the idea that the referent has the exact same quality
because the symbol has it.

     In the case where conscious color is being used to map back to
physical frequency, when we collapse symbol and referent we consider
that photons are 'red'.

     This is a domain error, as redness is not a quality of photons and
CAN NOT be a quality of photons.  Photons are outside of the domain of
redness, of red things.

     Photons do not belong to the domain of objects which can have
redness as part of their quality sets.

     If you ask 'What objects can be red?', photons can never be part of
that group, but conscious experiences can be.

     A domain error is when a quality is applied to an inappropriate
object that can not have that quality.

     For example asking "what is the square root of a dog?" is a domain

     Dogs do not have square roots and photons do not have color.

     Consider the case of a color coded image (symbol) of x-ray
emissions of the sun (referent).  In this case 'color' in the symbol is
mapped to 'frequency' in the x-ray range rather than the visible light

     When referent and symbol are collapsed, one gets the idea that low
frequency x-rays are 'red' and high frequency x-rays are 'violet'.  when
in truth the symbolic image has 'red' and 'violet', and the referent
x-rays don't, they have frequency.

     Further the exact mapping between color and frequency can change
depending on the situation.  A human uses 'red' to mean 5000 Angstroms
of wave length, an X ray telescope uses red to mean much smaller
wavelengths.  Birds use red for a range similar to humans but not the

     Confusion between conscious color and photon frequency is a common
result of referent and symbol collapsation and is a form of insanity.

     Second, when there are qualities in the symbol that DO NOT map back
to the referent, one gets the idea that the referent has those qualities
anyhow because the symbol has them, when in truth the referent may not.

     Because the conscious experience of 'red' is self luminous, we then
conclude that photons are self luminous too.

     Self luminous means not lit by anything else.  Table lamps in a
dream do not light the other objects in the dream.

     Symbols are objects in their own sovereign right, and often have
whole ranges of qualities that have nothing to do with the referent that
they are being used to symbolize, at all.
     Thus considering that the referent has a quality because the symbol
has the quality, is a second form of insanity.

     A worst case of this is when someone is hallucinating conscious
experiences of little green martians on the street.  In this case the
referent doesn't exist at all, although the symbol does.  Thus ALL of
the symbol's qualities are considered to map back to the referent when
they don't.

     Another classic example is when one considers that because one is
capable of perfect certainty of the symbol (conscious picture), one
thinks one is perfectly certain of the referent (physical universe).

     Thus people think they are certain the physical universe exists,
when it doesn't.

     He is perfectly certain his conscious experience of the physical
universe exists, therefore he assumes the physical universe exists too.

     This goes lower south into an inversion where the being thinks he
is certain of the physical universe, but isn't sure he exists as a
conscious unit.

     Sanity is recognizing that the symbol is certain and the referent
is not.

     Insanity is thinking the referent is certain and the symbol doesn't
exist, meaning thinking you are seeing the referent distant from you.


     The third kind of insanity is when the referent has qualities that
the symbol does not have, and thus one gets the idea that the referent
does not have them either because the symbol doesn't have them.

     Collapsing referent and symbol is always a form of insanity when it
is out of volitional control, because it puts one permanently out of
contact with actuality as it truly is.


     The three kinds of insanity arise from collapsing referent and
symbol into one and the same object, because referent and symbol are two
different objects with two different quality sets, yet collapsation
considers they are one and the same object with only one quality set
between them.

     The three kinds of insanity are:

     1.) considering that because two different qualities in a referent
and symbol are mapped to each other, that they are instead one and the
same quality.  Thus 'frequency' (referent) *IS* 'red' (symbol).

     The insanity then would be considering that red = frequency = red.

     2.) considering the referent has qualities that rightly belong only
to the symbol.  Thus self luminousness in consciousness (symbol) means
self luminousness in the physical universe (referent).

     The insanity then would be to attribute self luminous certainty to
the physical universe just and only because one is self luminously
certain of one's own conscious image of the physical universe.

     In fact self luminosity CAN NOT exist in the physical universe
because it is a form of learning by looking at cause directly rather
than the effect, and that is impossible across a distance.

     3.) Considering the referent does not have qualities only because
the symbol does not have them.  We can't see x-rays (symbol), therefore
there are no x-rays (referent).  Our inability to be conscious of
radioactivity, the way we can of visible light, can be very dangerous to
us when traveling through a radioactive field.

     Another example would be a belief that the city does not have cars
and buses, because the map doesn't show them.


     There is FOLLOWINGNESS.

     That means event B followed event A at least once.

     There is DEPENDABLE followingness.

     That means B always follows A every time we have observed A.

     There is NECESSARY dependable followingness.

     That means B MUST follow A because A causes B.

     Causation is DEFINED as necessary dependable followingness.

     Defining causation as necessity may seem weak, as there may be more
to causation than mere necessity, but necessity is both necessary and
sufficient to causation.

     Thus if there is cause, there must be necessity, and if there is
necessity there must be cause.

     That alone is enough to allow us to get away with claiming


     There is causation if and only if there is necessity.

     There is necessity if and only if there is causation.

     Notice the following relationships.

     Necessary dependable followingness implies dependable

     Dependable followingness does not imply necessary dependable


     Necessity implies dependability.

     Dependability does not imply necessity.


     Cause implies dependability.

     Dependability does not imply cause.

     In the popular voice we say 'Correlation does not imply causation.'

     Dependability of followingness between two events is 'correlation'.


     The scientific method is the process of science, of coming to know
about the universe around us.

     Because some of the alleged universe around us is a universe of
separations in space and time, the physical universe, all that can be
known of the physical universe are qualities of causal relation via
learning by being an effect.

     That's a big statement, dig it and don't leave it.
     All we can know of the physical universe IS HOW IT AFFECTS US AS
CONSCIOUS OBSERVER.  We never see the physical universe directly, only
its rendition in our conscious rendition zone.

     Any quality in a physical universe object OR ANY OTHER KIND OF
OBJECT, that does not have a cause and effect relation to us can not be
known by us, as we can only learn by looking directly at cause (self
luminosity of consciousness ) or indirectly by looking at effect.

     Thus ALL we can know about things distant from us are cause and
effect, and none of what we can know about those things can ever be more
than a theory because distance implies learning by looking only at the
effect and effect does not prove cause.


     The valuable final product of science are models of cause and
effect to account for evidence, i.e.  conscious observations which are
data gleaned from symbols about referents which are 'things out there'.

     The observations (conscious symbols) are perfectly certain, the
theories about the alleged referents, created to account for the
observations, are never perfectly certain, only workable or not.

     Claiming perfect certainty about a theory of cause is a DOMAIN

     Perfect certainty can not be part of the quality set of any theory
of cause.

     Theories of cause gleaned indirectly by looking at effects can only
be workable or unworkable.  We say the theory is wrong, but we mean

     Statements of fact gleaned directly by looking at cause can only be
true or false.

     Evidence is always observation of dependable followingness.

     Theory is model of necessary dependable followingness.

     Thus all models are models of cause and effect.

     If something is not cause and effect, science has no interest in


     Theories consist of model and evidence.

     Evidence is data born of observations.

     Observations are data gleaned from symbols about referents, via
learning by being an effect.

     Thus the scientific method consists of the following:

     Observations -> evidence -> models -> predictions -> observations.

     Notice the above process is circular, the end feeds back into the
beginning.  New observations lead to corrections of the model, which
lead to new predictions which lead to new observations, which are new
evidence, and around and around we go.

     This process refines the model into a complete theory ball.

     A complete (round) theory ball obtains when all evidence is modeled
(explained), and all predictions are evidenced (observed).


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

     "The house is red' is a statement of fact, whether right or wrong.

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

     Having now observed the house, the knower is now certain of the
truth or falsity of the statement that the house is red or at least his
conscious rendition of it is :) He could be dreaming, imagining or

     Statements of fact are always of the form

     'Quality belongs to object' (The house is red)


     'Object belongs to class.' (Joey my pet is a dog.)


     'Class belongs to bigger Class.' (All dogs are animals.)

     Truth is a quality of relation between the statement and the
actualities it refers to.

     Certainty is another quality of relation between the conscious unit
and the truth value of the statement under scrutiny.

     Thus we have in order:

     'The house is red' which is a statement.

     'It is true that the house is red' which is the statement's
asserted truth value.
     'I am certain it is true that the house is red.' which is my
conscious relationship to the asserted truth value of the statement.


     There are two kinds of theories, existential theories or
specifications, and universal theories, or generalizations.


     'Daisies exist' is an existential theory or specification.

     Science can prove it true by having a clear specification of what a
daisy is, and then finding one instance of a daisy, namely an object
that meets that specification.  A specification is essentially a
delineation of the quality set of the object.

     Science can never prove the above theory false, for the absence of
evidence for a daisy is not proof of its non existence.

     In the popular voice we say 'Absence of evidence is not evidence of

     This is because science can not observe all space and time looking
for a daisy.  The best science can say is 'Right here and right now,
there is not a daisy.'

     Thus the absence of evidence for unicorns, does not prove that
unicorns do not exist, never have existed, nor never will exist.

     'All daisies are white' is a universal theory or generalization.

     Science can prove it false by finding one non white (black) daisy.

     Science can never prove it true, because the presence of one or a
billion white daisies is not proof that all daisies are white.

     Again in the popular voice we say 'Absence of evidence is not
evidence of absence (of the black daisey)'.

     This is because science can not observe all space and time looking
for a non white daisy.  The best science can say is 'Right here and
right now, there is a white daisy'.

     Causal models attempt to explain DEPENDABLE followingness, which
means for all space and time A will always be followed by B, and B is
always preceded by A.  Thus causation is a universal theory.

     The very statement that B ALWAYS follows A is a universal theory, a
generalization, and thus fits into the category of theories that can
never be proven right, but can be proven wrong (unworkable) with one
counter example.

     Theories may 'stand the test of time', but in the end, everything
that lives inside of time, is dust in the wind.

     Science is interested in what will happen, but can only observe
what did happen.

     What did happen does not imply what will happen, thus science is at
a disadvantage.

     The reason that science can never prove a causal theory true is
because all such theories are theories of cause and effect, theories of
NECESSITY, and science can never directly observe a necessity, but can
only observe a dependability.

     In other words science can observe A and then B following, but
never observe the necessity that they do so.  This is because the EVENTS
are observable but never the CAUSE between them.

     So dependability of followingness does not imply necessity of

     Thus science can never prove a causal theory true (permanently

     But science CAN observe an UNdependability, which would immediately
imply a lack of necessity and thus imply that the theory of necessity
was false (unworkable).

     Thus science can prove a causal theory false with one observation
that denies a dependability.

     Science can only observe the weaker (right hand) side of the

     Necessity implies Dependability.

     In the presence of dependability there may be necessity (cause),
but this remains forever a theory.

     However in the absence of dependability there certainly is no
cause.  At least as it was modeled in the theory.

     Thus if one observes a dependability there MAY BE cause.

     But if one observes an undependability, there CERTAINLY is no

     Since all causal theories are theories of cause and effect, which
model evidential dependability via theoretical necessity, science can
only prove a causal theory false and never prove it true, depending on
whether it observes an UNdependability or not.

     Necessity is an anthropomorphization of directly perceived self
luminous causal agency within the conscious unit.

     "I DO AND I KNOW IT."

     Science can not observe cause in the external space time universe,
because science is limited to the indirect observation of cause only via
the followingness between two different events, but consciousness can
perceive cause directly within itself.

     The miraculousness of that statement will be left for another time.

     Direct perception of cause, and in fact direct perception of
anything, is what the proof and consciousness is all about.

     Anthropomorphization is assigning qualities that rightly belong
only to consciousness, to the physical universe.  It is insanity number
two: because the symbol has the quality, we believe the alleged referent
must have the quality also.

     As such there may in fact be no necessity in the outward physical
universe at all.  Just because we see causal agency within our conscious
unit, doesn't mean there is any causal agency between any two different
objects out in the alleged physical universe.

     It is possible that what the conscious unit perceives as cause
between things in the physical universe, is actually the cause of the
conscious unit itself being projected out on to the things displayed IN
consciousness (apparitions of space and time) in order to make it look
like there is cause between them directly out there in the physical

     We call this the THIRD PARTY LAW and will get into it later in

     As absurd as the above may sound to sophomoric minds, there is no
*SCIENTIFIC* ground to reject the possibility out of hand, AND CAN NEVER
BE, as



     People tend to see the world through theory colored glasses.

     If they have a theory that says consciousness is a process in a
machine (a brain), and a theorem that says machines can't be certain of
anything, they will conclude that consciousness can't be certain of
CERTAINTIES ALL DAY LONG (any two conscious colors around them, notice
the perfect certainty of their difference and their existence.)

     Thus theory, in the hands of incompetent proponents, can obscure
observation and corrupt interpretation.


     Objects communicate with each other via cause and effect.

     That means that some quality in one object causes a change in state
in the quality set of another object.

     A CAUSAL PATHWAY is a series of cause and effect events that
propagate out through space and time from an original source.

     More broadly we DEFINE referent and symbol as any two objects that
have a causal pathway between them, meaning the symbol's state is a
function of the prior referent's state.

     Therefore there has to be a causal pathway between any referent and
any of its later symbols.

     Any two objects which are related to each other by cause and
effect, are referent and symbol to each other.

     Any two objects which are referent and symbol to each other, are
related by a causal pathway between them.

     If A and B are referent and symbol, then there is a causal pathway
from A to B.

     If there is a causal pathway from A to B, then A and B are referent
and symbol.


     The procession of changes in state emanating from an original
referent along a causal pathway out into space and time is called a
causal messenger wave.

     It is called a WAVE because it moves continuously out into space
and time like a wave, at the speed of cause.

     Different kinds of causes can travel at different speeds, but the
maximum speed of cause in the physical universe, is apparently the speed
of light in a vacuum.

     Light is one kind of causal messenger wave.

     It is called a MESSENGER wave because the wave of changes that
occur carry data about the nature of the various referents that
originally emanated it, and the other referents the wave later
encountered and passed through.

     It is called a CAUSAL messenger wave, because it is a wave of
causation traveling through the universe and the data it carries is data
solely about the causal relations between the referents and symbols that
it encounters along the way.


     Because the causal messenger wave travels along its causal pathway
in a continuous manner, every point in space time along that path
becomes first a symbol to prior referents, and then a referent to later

     Thus we say that the causal messenger wave creates a referent and
symbol continuum as it propagates through space and time.

     Quantum mechanics will want to argue about just how continuous this
continuum really is.

     So noted.

     We are not arguing against quantum mechanics here, but neither are
we bringing quantum mechanics into the discussion.


     The original referent is DEFINED as the event we wish to learn

     The symbol of final authority is DEFINED as the event we will study
to learn about the original referent.

     Thus a causal pathway is a series of referents and symbols
following each other in space and time starting at the original
referent, and ending at the symbol of final authority.

     The original referent is probably not the first referent in the
causal pathway, because in this universe anyhow every change HAS to come
from some thing else.  Changes don't just happen with out something else
changing first, even atomic decay.  At the very least time is changing
before the decay.

     The symbol of final authority is not necessarily the last symbol in
the causal pathway, most of which never end; it is however the chosen
symbol under scrutiny to learn about the original referent by studying
the state of the symbol.

     Any point in a referent and symbol continuum can be assigned as the
original referent we want to know about, or the symbol of final
authority we are going to use to learn about earlier referents from.

     Probably the first original referent is at the beginning of time,
and the last symbol of final authority will be at the end of time.  Thus
note that the 'original referent' under study is rarely the first
referent in the chain, just as the symbol of final authority is never
the last symbol in the chain (unless the universe has ended.)

     However note that the original referent under study is ALWAYS in
the past, and the symbol of final authority is in the NOW.

     Thus learning can take place between any two points in the referent
and symbol continuum, the earlier point is the original referent and the
later point is the symbol of final authority.

     Thus causal messenger waves pass THROUGH original referents and
symbols of final authority, and eventually referent and symbol both
become part of the causal messenger wave's wake as it moves on into the
future, leaving them behind.  And as each new symbol is created, a data
imprint is left on it about the causal nature of all the referents
behind it.


     Tracking means a symbol is under the continuous causal influence of
the referent at all times so that the symbol's state is an ongoing
function of the referent's state albeit delayed in time by the speed of
cause and the distance between referent and symbol.

     Tracking ends when the symbol's state is no longer a causal
function of the referent's state.

     In this case we say the state of the symbol is no longer tracking
the state of the referent.

     There is a subtle but important change in definition here that
needs to be kept track of lest it lead to confusions.

     Take a light bulb and a light meter on the other side of the room.

     A referent is an object in ONE moment of space and time, because in
the next moment its a whole new object.  So when we talk about the light
bulb, technically we have to ask which light bulb, meaning where and

     So the light bulb at 12 noon emits a photon which travels to the
light meter and the meter dial reads.

     That is a single causal pathway between light bulb and meter.

     The meter for that one event 'tracked' the light bulb.

     But then a second later, the NEW light bulb emits a NEW photon that
heads over to the NEW light meter, and again it reads.  Thus the new
meter is tracking the new light bulb.

     If we consider that the succession of events in time called light
bulb is in fact one single light bulb moving through time, and the same
for the meter, we can then say that the meter is tracking the light bulb
across time, because the meter's state is a function of the light bulb's
state minus the travel time distance between them.

     Notice that although we may claim it is one light bulb moving
through time and one meter moving through time, the photons being
emitted by the light bulb at each moment of time are CLEARLY new photons
with each one emitted.

     Thus we can get get sloppy and consider that the same old light
bulb is emitting different new photons at the same old meter, and thus
the meter is tracking the light bulb from moment to moment.

     Conveniences of conversation are ok as long as we keep track of
them, otherwise confusions will arise, as in fact the light bulb is a
brand new light bulb every new moment of time and so is the meter.


     A symbol can have many qualities that do not causally map back to
the referent.

     DATA is the subset of qualities in the symbol that do causally map
back to the referent and thus represent qualities in the referent.

     A symbol can have either high DATA CONTENT or low DATA CONTENT.

     A causal pathway is the means by which data propagates from it's
original referent through space and time to an endless series of

     Each symbol in turn becomes its own referent as it passes on the
causal messenger wave to the next symbol in line.  Thus the next symbol
in line is affected by both the many symbols before it and the original


     Data integrity is the conformance of the data contained in the
symbol to the original referent.  The longer the causal pathway between
referent and symbol, i.e.  the greater the number of referent to symbol
'hops', the lower the data integrity.


     A data imprint is the changes in state incurred in a symbol by
virtue of a causal wave originating from a referent.

     A data imprint is a rendering in the rendition zone of a symbol, a
rendition of the causal nature of the original referent.

     Since every symbol along the way between original referent and the
symbol of final authority adds its own causal influence into the
traveling causal messenger wave, the data imprint on the final symbol
contains data about ALL of the symbols back to the original referent and
even before.

     Separating out the data from a given symbol and knowing which prior
referent to apply it to can be daunting.


     The FORM of a symbol's data content can have either high GEOMETRIC

     Geometric congruency means that the symbol 'looks similar to' the
referent.  There is a one to one space and time correspondence between
the referent and the symbol.

     Purists will complain that we really want to call this geometric
similarity, as congruency demands absolute equality of geometric form.

     So noted.  So ignored :)

     However for the purposes of this lecture, geometric congruency,
similarity, conformance, and commensurateness mean the same thing.

     Notice that data conformance, how well the symbol is tracking the
referent, and geometric conformance, how much the symbol 'looks like'
the referent are related but not quite the same thing.  Data conformance
can be very high, but geometric congruency very low, as we shall see.

     In general we will call data conformance simply data content.

     For example the word COW refers back to a particular kind of
animal.  Therefore 'COW' is a symbol.

     But the symbol itself has very little data in its structure to give
us a hint as to what it is referring back to.  Thus we say it's DATA
CONTENT (conformance) is low.

     And yes the word cow doesn't look at all like a cow so its
geometric congruency is also low.

     Notice there must have been a causal pathway between some cow
somewhere and the being who first created the symbol 'cow' or the word
would never have been invented, so 'cow' remains a proper symbol to the
animal in question even if very indirectly causally related to any cow.

     On the other hand a picture of a cow taken by a camera is also a
symbol for the cow, but this symbol has a high degree of data content,
so we can tell much about the referent by looking at the symbol.

     The picture of a cow also 'looks like' a cow, thus the data content
contained in the symbol has a high degree of GEOMETRIC CONGRUENCY with
the original referent.

     However if we scan the picture into an encrypted data stream of 1's
and 0's, that data stream still has high data content about the cow, but
very low geometric congruency indeed.

     High data content does not necessarily mean RECOVERABLE data
content.  It is possible to have a symbol with high data content, but
non recoverable.


     The unix cleartext password is the referent and the encrypted
password is the symbol.  It is generally not possible to determine the
original password from the encrypted symbol.  The data content of the
symbol remains high, uniquely rendering the referent, but the
recoverability from symbol back to referent, remains zero, as intended.
That means you can't learn about the referent from the symbol at all
even though the data is there!

     The way passwords work, is the user types in his referent password,
and it is RE ENCRYPTED, and if the new symbol matches the old symbol,
then its a pass.

     Thus although one can not learn about the referent via the symbol,
one can learn about two referents from their two symbols.  If the
symbols are the same, the referents must have been the same, but what
the referent was forever is lost.

     The reason passwords work, is if you re encrypt the same password,
you will get the same symbol.  If there were no data content left in the
symbol, this would not happen.


     A symbol can contain data that matches the nature of the referent,
but not BECAUSE the referent causally impinged on the symbol and
imprinted or rendered that data there.

     If there is no causal pathway between referent and symbol, any
'data' in the symbol about the referent is unrelated to a causal
connection between them and thus is coincidental.

     Thus the symbol's state accidentally describes the referent.

     Accidental data conformance between uncausally related objects, can
not be counted upon to provide dependable results, and in fact must not
be called LEARNING at all.

     In fact if there is no causal pathway between the two objects, they
can't be called referent and symbol either!

     Thus we say that learning implies learning by being an effect of a
cause, or by looking at cause directly (self luminous direct
perception).  In the absence of cause there can be no learning even if
the symbol is 'right' about the referent.

     With the above caveat in mind about accidental data conformance, in
general geometric congruency IS one form of data content.

     In the popular voice we call geometric congruency HIGH PICTURENESS,
or high picture content.  Hieroglyphs of birds that look like birds or
are similar to birds have a high data content and high geometric

     Thus, ignoring instances of accidental data conformance, we can

     High geometric congruency implies high data content.

     Low data content implies low geometric congruency.


     High data content does not necessarily imply high geometric

     Low geometric congruency does not necessarily imply low data


     Some will tell you that your conscious experience is your brain's
interpretation of the physical universe.

     That is ass backwards with emphasis on the word ass.

     Your consciousness is your brain's RENDITION of the physical
universe, and the physical universe is your interpretation of the
rendition you see in your consciousness.

     Let's get this straight.

     The physical universe is the referent.

     Your conscious experience is the symbol.

     Interpretation is the process of extracting data about a referent
from a symbol.


     Rendition is the process of encoding data about a referent into a

     Rendition means encode.

     Interpretation means decode.

     Referent -> rendition -> symbol.

     Referent <- interpretation <- symbol.

     From the referent state one renders a symbol state.

     From the symbol state, one interprets the referent state.

     In mathematical terms consider rendition (to render), and
interpretation (to interpret) to be functions over a domain like f(x).


     Symbol = rendition(referent).

     Referent = interpretation(symbol).

     The domain of rendition are referents and the range of
renditions are symbols.

     The domain of interpretation are symbols, and the range
of interpretations are referents.

     Your conscious experience is a symbol for the physical
universe referent, therefore your conscious experience is a

     The alleged physical universe is the referent for your conscious
experience symbol, thus the physical universe is an interpretation of
your conscious experience.


     Hell doesn't care and will not help you disentangle your


     If you look up interpretation in a dictionary it will say

     If you look up rendition it will say interpretation.

     Considering that

     interpretation = rendition

     is the same as considering that

     referent = symbol.

     This is all three forms of insanity rolled into one.

     Those three insanities ARE the fabric of Hell.

     There are a lot of dictionaries in hell.

     One in the hands of every Medusa running around turning people to

     Fire and Brim Stone.

     Omni good work, and Omni Amen.

     Some would say these words are inappropriate.

     Let me apologize by saying that neither religion nor science are
worthy to breath the ashes of this work.

     Let them read and suffer until they have done penance for the
damage they have wrought upon mankind over the millenia.

     And when they have lived through hell and returned to tell the
tale, then perhaps they may criticize our approach and delivery.

     But I assure you, when they return from the sticky dark bottom of
the abyss, they WILL know the difference between interpretation and
rendition, because that is the only way out.

     And they will also know how to confuse the hell out of the two,
because that is the way in.

     Studied expertise on how to come in is the way out.

     That's because trying to come in, puts you out, as you can't come
in unless you ARE out.

     Learning by being an effect is the process of gleaning data about
the nature of an original referent by BEING a symbol of final authority.

     Notice we say BEING.

     If the symbol of final authority is not you yourself, then it is
separate from you, and you can never know about it at all without
looking at a later symbol, thus you need to find a later symbol closer
to you to study.

     But 'closer' is never enough, the only way you can ever know
anything by being an effect, is TO BE THE EFFECT!  Thus *YOU* become the
symbol of final authority and the changes in your own state become the
data by which you judge the referent.

     Thus consciousness, as the symbol of final authority, becomes the
final collapser of quantum wave functions.  But that is for another


     The dependability of learning by being an effect depends on the
dependability of tracking between alleged referent and symbol.

     In the absence of dependable tracking, in the absence of a
dependable causal pathway between referent and symbol, there can be no
confidence in the data gleaned from the symbol about the referent as the
two will be causally unrelated (and thus are not actually referent and
symbol to each other any more).

     Thus learning by being an effect depends upon a dependable causal
pathway between referent and symbol.

     Dependable causal pathways leads to dependable tracking.


     Verification is the verification of tracking, the verification of
the causal pathway between referent and symbol.

     However cause is not sufficient to witness cause.  (Jane's law.)


     Witnessing effects is not sufficient to witness or prove cause.

     One can perhaps witness dependability, but never necessity between
events in the physical universe.

     Dependability and necessity are not the same thing.

     Only by witnessing necessity between events could one truly verify
a casual pathway.

     Therefore verification of causal pathways can not be done by using
causal pathways.

     Just because the meter is reading, does that mean the light is on?

     What other meter are you going to use to measure the causal pathway
between the light bulb and the first meter?  How do you know your second
meter is working as theorized?




     Thus an object that is limited to learning by being an effect, that
is by looking at symbols to determine the nature of referents, can never
be certain of its results, neither certain of the nature of the
referent, nor certain that the referent even exists.

     Thus we have the third line of The Proof:


     So now we are in a position to draw a partial conclusion from lines
2.) and 3.) of The Proof:



     from this we can conclude:


     Or to make it easier:


     OK, let's take a break.


Homer Wilson Smith     The Paths of Lovers    Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF        Cross            Internet Access, Ithaca NY    In the Line of Duty
Wed Apr  1 00:55:59 EDT 2009