The certainty of the proof comes from the fact that the proof is
about certainty, and thus the proof is a certainty about certainty.

      If certainty itself were not the subject of the proof, then
attaining certainty on it would be much less certain :)

      The proof, other wise known as the machine certainty theorm, is
very simple:

      Learning with certainty across a space time distance is impossible.

      In order words a machine can't be certain of anything.

      "There is only one Proof.

      Learn it, love it, teach it, master it.

      All can, but for some it may be a very long time between now and
then, for you can't move your house around town if you have locked
yourself inside it.

      In Excelsis Deo." - Adore

      ((Jane has asked me to explain what the reference to moving your
hour around town means.

      BEING can create, change and destroy BECOMINGNESS which is a
created identity in space time.

      BECOMINGNESS is your 'house', what you are and live in as you play
the games of life.

      If you get too stuck in your BECOMINGNESS, you won't be able to
reascend to BEING in order to create, change or destroy your existing
BECOMINGNESS, i.e.  to "move your house around town."

      The last line means 'In the most high is God', namely that the
being is God in carnation and if that a being has chosen to lock himself
in his own house and throw away the key, there is not much you can do
about it, as sovereign all knowing rights have been exercised, for a

      You can ask can it be forever?

      We ask back would a sovereign being choose to destroy itself
forever, or risk itself forever, in or out of time?

      So, don't worry, be happy.))


      Understanding the proof involves knowing what we mean by learning,
certainty and space time distance.

      For example although it might seem obvious what certainty is, one
really needs to consult an example of certainty in order to really come
to know it.

      In the absence of any examples of certainty, it would probably be
quite hard to tell what a certainty was.

      Having a standard of certainty then allows one to easily reject the
many false pretenses of certainty in the world.

      At this point we ask the reader to engage in a thought experiment,
the kind made famous by Albert Einstein.

      Consider for the moment, as you sit there reading this posting,
that you are in fact quite asleep in bed and dreaming, that everything
you see around you including this posting, is a conscious color form
with no actual physical referent on the other side of it.  In a few
minutes you will wake up to the actual world, and remember this dream in
its entirety including every word of this posting.

      Just by way of reminder, in a dream the conscious color form
experiences are actual, but the implied physical referents are not.

      In the dream you may see an apple out there, but there isn't a
corresponding physical apple that the physical body can eat.

      Now, while considering yourself asleep and dreaming, we enjoin you
to look around you and spot any object with at least two different
colors in it.

      Before you saw the object, did you know for sure it had at least
two colors?

      Are you sure you see two different colors?

      Would you bet your eternity in hell you see two different colors?

      Would you bet everyone else's eternity in hell that you see two
different colors?


      That's a certainty, a certainty that there are (at least) two
different colors and you see them.

      Notice that certainty of difference implies certainty of existence,
as a color can't BE DIFFERENT from another color without BEing in the
first place.

      Thus not only have we defined certainty by direct observation of it
in operation, but also existence.

      In fact since the two colors have an implied viewpoint, you should
be able to spot with certainty where you are looking at the colors from,
and spot the looker looking at the colors.  The looker is as actual as
the colors that are being looked at, although the looker has no color.

      The 'color' of the looker is agency, self awareness and "I AM!".

      So now that we know what a certainty is, if someone asks you to say
something with certainty about the nature of certainty you can always
say "Well learning with certainty across a distance is impossible,
certainly!" We haven't proven that yet, but its true none the less.

      That means by the way that there is no distance between you and the
two different colors you are looking at and know are different with
certainty, even though the illusion of distance between you and the
colors is very strong.

      In fact not only is there no distance between you and the colors,
you in fact ARE the colors, looker and looked at are one and the same
object and event.

      This is a very big deal.

      On the order of discovering special relativity, the cure for
cancer, or finding God under your pillow.

      So be aware in this matter that you know something of import.

      Don't just throw it in the same bin along with all your other

      If God is perfect, then looking upon a perfect certainty is
possibly looking upon a functional part of God.

      Some have even gone so far to say that consciousness IS God Light.


      Again we enjoin the reader to notice that before looking at the
above object with two different colors, the reader did not in fact know
how many colors the object had, one or more.

      But after looking at the object in question, the reader was able to
determine with certainty that the object had at least two or more

      That is learning, a coming to know, in this case with perfect

      Thus we have fully defined Learning with Certainty.


      Space and time are both conscious experiences, but we
anthropomorphize them into allegedly actual phenomenon in the alleged
physical universe.

      We like to think that because we SEE space and time, that therefore
there IS space and time OUT THERE.

      By the way, long time ago, Godel wrote a paper claiming that
Einstein's theory of special relativity proved that time didn't exist at
all.  No one took him seriously, they considered him a loon.  But to
complete the lunacy, space doesn't exist either, so in truth spacetime,
both space and time, are illusions.

      THE ILLUSION IS ACTUAL, but the implied external referent is not.

      The picture of the car chase at the movies is actual, but the car
chase represented by the movie picture is not actual at that time.

      Both space and time are dimensions, meaning collections of things
which are identical to each other in their nature, but different in fact
from each other.  Like having two pennies, each one a perfect copy of
the other, but each none the less distinct.

      Just so, points in space extending out from anywhere to anywhere
form a line of identical 'points in space', but each one is in a
different place relative to the end points of the line.  Thus, in
conception anyway, we have a continuum of 'points of space' from one end
to the other, each identical to the other, but each one its own point in
space.  Thus the only difference between two points in space is where
they are, and thus 'where they are' forms a dimension of otherwise
identical entities.

      Same for moments of time forming a time line.

      Now we run into a problem with distance because distance is a
consideration of how many points of space there are between two other
points forming the end points of the line segment.

      We have learned in school that there are an infinite number of
points between any two points, no matter how close the two end points
are together, so we can't use 'how many points' as a measure of

      Worse we have been taught that there is no distance at all between
any two 'adjacent' points on a line, yet the line has length.  This is
problematic because if you have a million points with no distance
between them, that adds up to no distance!  One million times zero =

      Unfortunately, even if you had an infinite number of points with
zero distance between them, there would still be zero distance between
the first and last.

      Zero rules, because zero times infinity is still zero.

      And infinity thought it was so big.

      So distance is a difficult concept, particularly if we try to
measure it in points between, but we don't need to deal with the
difficulties in order to understand the proof.

      All we need to understand is TWO DIFFERENT POINTS which are not on
the same point.

      In physics we have learned that a point in space and time defines
an event or object.  Even if there is nothing there at that moment in
space or time, the space time point was there, and that is an event or
object enough to call it so.

      If a photon or other material object passes through a space time
point, then that adds to the description of the event at that space time
point.  Rather than just being a moment of space and time, it now also
consists of a photon passing through it at a given angle, speed and

      If a ball is just hanging out in space time, then at its position
in space AND time, we have an event consisting of a point in space and
time plus a ball.

      Notice that can never change, that position of space AND time
will always have that ball in it.

      When the ball moves in time, it may stay in the same point in
space, or it may move to a new position in space along with the
change in position in time.

      Change implies time, and time implies change.

      Thus changes are comparisons across two different space time

      Now here we have a weird one, that might take a moment to see the
sense of it.

      An event is one point in space time and everything going on
in it.

      A space time point itself is not changing and can not change, so an
event is not a change.

      A change is a comparison between two different space time points.

      A transition between two different space time points may
involve a change in time only as one space point moves through time.

      Or a transition between two different space time points may
involve both a change in time AND a change in space.

      In otherwords an event at (x,t) = (0,0) is a different event
and a different space time point than (x,t) = (0,1), even though
the space part of it didn't change, only the time part did.

      An event at (x,t) = (0,0) is also a different event and a different
space time point than (x,t) = (1,1), because both the space part and the
time part changed.

      If the space time points of two events are not different, then they
aren't two different events, the two events are actually one and the
same event.  Get it?

      We may have a more complex event because two events are embedded
into one space time point, but we consider there is only one event and
not two.

      For example let's take a theoretical piece of 8 x 11 paper and mark
two points on it with a pencil at different locations.

      Then let us fold the paper over on itself so those two marked space
points overlay each other exactly.

      Then any event that happens at one of those two points will
instantaneously happen at the other, not because the transfer of event
is infinitely fast, but because they are the same point in space time


      The word distance therefore can be defined as that which puts
difference between two points in space or time or both.

      That's deep, for now we can't say that two points that have zero
distance between them are two different points.

      We don't care about how many points there are between any two
different points, we only care that they are two different points.

      This is very important because the proof says that learning with
certainty across a distance is impossible.

      What this means is:

      Learning with Certainty across two different space time points is
impossible.  That means one point can't learn about the other point with

      The above is true regardless of whether there is something or
nothing in those space time points or between them.

      This is not an issue about the kind of stuff that might occupy
those space time points, but an issue strictly about the two space time
points being two DIFFERENT space time points.

      Thus it does not matter what the world is made of, what kind of
'stuff' exists or is created INSIDE that space time continuum, learning
with certainty across a difference in space or time remains impossible.
This fact has nothing to do with the nature of the stuff within that
space time.

      Thus we can conclude that if A and B are two different objects,
either because they are separated by two different points in space or
time, *OR FOR ANY OTHER REASON*, then A and B can never learn about the
other with certainty.


      Because A is not B.

      A can only be A.

      B can change state BECAUSE of A, but even then B remains B.  How
does B know the change was caused by A?  A remains forever a theory to

      All learning across a difference in space time involves one point
in space time receiving an impingement from another point in space time,
a certain amount of time LATER.

      The speed of cause traveling from one space time point to another
is finite, namely c, the speed of light.

      C is the speed of light because c is the speed of cause in this
universe, so light of course travels at that speed as light is a form of
cause moving through space and time.

      Say we are sitting there, just being a point in space time, and
siting there, and sitting there, and suddenly we are also a photon for a
moment, then another moment later we are just a point in space time

      So a photon passed through us, causing us to change state from
'photonless' to photonfull'.

      But does that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the photon came
from the next point over from us before it hit us?

      We certainly could theorize so, its called the theory of
electromagnetism, first clearly elucidated by James Clerk Maxwell, but
why couldn't God have just fabricated the photon where we were for a
moment and vanished it?  Why did it HAVE to come from somewhere else

      This is called the Third Party Law.

      The Third Party Law states that in the absence of the ability to
directly see the NECESSITY between two different events A and B that
follow each other, then it is imposible to determimne whether A caused B
to change state, or whether some third event C caused both A and B to
change state in such a way that it LOOKED LIKE A caused B to change
state directly.

      Since necessity between two different events can not ever been seen
directly across a distance it is impossible to determine with perfect
certainty the causal relation between the two events.

      For any two events that follow each other, there may always be a
third or fourth or fifth party, unsuspected but present and operating.
causing the first two events to follow each other as if they were
causing it themselves.

      IN other words the apparency is always that B follows A and
that A caused B.

      We diagram this like so:

      A -> B

      This shows the direction of the flow of cause and of time.

      The Third Party however is drawn like this>

      C ---\
       \    \
        A -> B

      That means C causes A and then a while later C causes B,
such that, for one who can't see C directly, it looks like A caused B.

      That there isn't a third party remains always and forever a theory.

      Because nec5A5A5C CAN be seen directly between conscious looker and
looked at, we know there must be no distance between them.

      Causation is necessity between two events.

      Certainty IS necessity.  Necessity of truth born of directly
observed necessity of causation.

      Look at the two different colors.  Can you observe them *CAUSING*
you to know that they are different without possibility of error?

      When the looker sees the two different colors and knows they are
in fact two different colors without possibility of error, that is
necessity of truth and causation operating, which results in perfect
continuously reverfiable certainty.

      Certainty of necessity between two different events means certainty
of no possible intervening third party, for example between the fact of
there being two different colors and you learning there are two
different colors by direct perception.

      That also means there is no TIME between the event of there being
two different colors and you seeing them as different, as the seeing of
the colors IS the existence of the colors.

      Necessity of correctness can not operate across a difference or
distance and thus never across a dimension or space time.

      A machine can only learn about A by looking at B, and thus
has no direct perception of A nor any necessity between A and B.


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

Sun Feb 25 23:53:04 EST 2007

================ ====================
Sun Sep 13 12:06:01 EDT 2015
Send mail to saying help in body
=========== ===============
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning,
but not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.

Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)

Wed Sep 16 01:41:28 EDT 2015