CONSIDERATIONS ON THE IMMORTALITY OF SELF

                        1/16/1975

                Copyright (C) Homer Wilson Smith
     Redistribution Rights granted for non commercial purposes.


     The proof that the Self is immortal depends on the proof that
Self as an entity has no spatial dimension, or in other words that
Self is no larger than an absolute mathematical point.

     ((By absolute mathematical point is meant an object with no
dimensions whatsoever.  A 3 dimensional object with 0 by 0 by 0
extension in each direction is not the same thing as a 0 dimensional
object with 0 directions in which to have any extensions.  Both are
points in some sense, the first is a 3 dimensional or cubic point, the
latter is a 0 dimensional or scalar point.  To even describe such a
thing as a 'point' begs for confusion with what normal people consider
to be a point, namely a 3 dimensional point in 3 dimensional space.
This is not what is meant by 'absolute mathematical point' in this
article, but the latter 0 dimensional scalar.))

     Obviously something can't come from nothing, nor can something go
into nothing.  This means that the only things that can be "created"
or "destroyed" are complexities of parts by putting them together or
busting them apart of course.

     ((A "part" is a divisible or indivisible (fundamental)
constituent of a greater whole.  A complexity of parts is defined as
any system of parts interacting via cause and effect across a space
time/distance.  The opposite of a complexity is a simplicity which
would consist of one part that was not itself made of further inner
parts.  Thus a simplicity would also be an irreducible fundamental
part.))

     But a complexity of parts must have spatial dimension, for a true
point can hardly be said to contain more than one part.

     ((This is easy to see in that in order to have more than one
part, there must be space between them.  If there is no space at all
to the object, there can't be more than one part.))

     Therefore if it can be proven that Self is no larger than an
absolute mathematical point, it is proven that Self is not itself a
complexity of parts, although it might still be a part amongst other
parts.

     If it can be proven that Self is not a complexity of parts, in
other words that Self is a true simplicity, it is proven that Self is
immortal, as only complexities of parts can be "created" or
"destroyed".

     It might be suggested here that even if Self were a true
simplicity, i.e.  not a complexity of parts, it might have been
something other than Self at one time which later changed into Self.
But this can not be.

     Self is Self because of very specific qualities that make Self
Self.  and if this simplicity at one time was not Self, then these
qualities must have been absent.  For this simplicity to suddenly turn
into Self would necessitate the appearance of these qualities ((that
make Self Self)), where before they did not exist.

     But this is the equivalent of something from nothing, so
impossible.

     So if Self is a simplicity, it has always been Self and will
always be Self ((as these qualities that make Self Self can't go into
nothing either.))

     So to prove that Self is immortal, one need only prove that Self
is a true ((0 dimensional scalar)) simplicity, and not a complexity of
parts.

     ((Please do not confuse the word 'simplicity' here with its usual
connotations of simpleness.  The Self is a very multi faceted entity,
hardly simple in its function, purpose or even ultimate make up.  By
simplicity all that is meant here is 'not itself made of a complexity
of parts interacting via cause and effect across a space time
distance.' It is admitted that a simplicity, as a fundamental part of
existence, may be in relation with many other fundamental parts of
existence and thus itself be PART OF a larger complexity, while itself
is not a complexity part of parts.))

     Self may look larger than a point to itself, but looks can be
deceiving.  ((The illusion of dimensionality is strong, thus this
proof has been missing from the well known works of man until now.))

     So this is the crux of the problem, how to prove that Self is no
larger than an absolute mathematical point ((zero dimensional scalar
object)).

     This can be done by proving that CERTAINTY OVER A DISTANCE is
impossible or in other words that if two objects A and B are separated
by absolutely real ((actual)) distance, then A by any method
whatsoever can never learn with absolute certainty any of the
qualities of object B including its existence.

     Obviously Self can learn with absolute certainty many of the
qualities including existence of itself and its conscious pictures ((
color forms of red, green and blue etc)), which is what you are
looking at now.

     This is not being written for those who are certain they can't be
certain of anything, or for those who are uncertain if they are
uncertain of something.  ((They aren't conscious, as all
consciousness-of is perfect certainty-of.))

     Since Self can be certain of itself and its conscious pictures,
if it can be proven that certainty over a distance is impossible, then
it is proven that there is no distance between Self and Self nor
between Self and its conscious pictures.

     In other words, proving that certainty over a distance is
impossible proves that Self and its conscious pictures are totally
contained on a true ((absolute mathematical)) point.

     The following is a proof that certainty over a distance is
impossible.

     1.) Learning biconditionally implies Learning with Certainty or
Learning with Not Certainty.

     ((Biconditionally means the left implies the right and the
right implies the left.))

     This is logically trivial and needs no further explanation.  Just
be careful not to confuse Learning with Not Certainty and
Not Learning with Certainty.  -LC implies (LNC or -L), whereas LNC
implies L.

     ((L means Learning, C means Certainty and - or N means Not.

     -LC means Not Learning with Certainty.

     LNC means Learning with Not Certainty,

     -LC -> LNC or -L.

     Not Learning with Certainty means either Learning with Not
Certainty or Not Learning at all.  Learning with Not Certainty,
implies Learning, albeit without Certainty.))

     2.) Distance and Learning implies Learning by Having Changed
State.

     This simply means that if object A is separated by real
((actual)) distance from object B, then the only way object A can
learn any qualities at all about object B is to be effected by it
((B)) and hence to change state ((as a result of B's causal affect on
A)).  If object A has not changed state then no learning has taken
place.  If object A has changed state because it has been effected by
object B, then its ((A's)) change in state *IS* its learning about
object B.  ((No matter how much effect object A has on object B, if
object B has no effect on object A, then A can never learning anything
at all about object B, not even whether object B exists or not.))

     3.) Learning by Having Changed State implies Not Learning with
Certainty.  To conclude *ANYTHING* from a change in state about the
supposed effector involves the a priori assumption that there are no
causeless changes and that *IF* the change *WAS* caused, that the
cause originated *OUTSIDE* the point where the change in state
occurred.

     Since *ALL* conclusions derived from Learning by Having Changed
State involves these two a priori assumptions, the assumptions
themselves are uncheckable by Learning by Having Changed State.  This
means that all conclusions drawn from Learning by Having Changed State
involve an element of absolute trust, namely trust in these a priori
assumptions.

     But absolute trust is not absolute certainty, hence Learning by
Having Changed State implies Not Learning with Certainty.

     ((Put more simply, a machine that can only learn by being the
effect of a cause, can never prove the effect was caused, hence can
never attain certainty the causes even exists.))

     4.) Learning with Certainty exists.  The certainty that the Self
has of itself and its conscious pictures involves no trust at all
((and is obviously a form of learning.  Open your eyes, what colors do
you see?  That is learning with certainty)).

     So, since Self can Learn with Certainty, it is not Learning by
Having Changed State.  However Learning by Having Changed State is the
*ONLY* way one can learn over a distance.  So there is no distance
between Self and what Self is certain of, namely itself and its
conscious pictures.

     What this all boils down to is that the mechanism of learning
that Self uses to learn with certainty is not Learning by Having
Changed State, but it something new and maybe unfathomable.

     ((Learning by Having Changed State is the equivalent of Learning
by Looking at Effects (in self).  Its opposite is Learning by Looking
at Cause.  That would result in certainty of cause.  But Learning by
Looking at Cause can not take place across a space/time distance,
which limits one to Learning by Looking at Effects.))

     But Learning by Having Changed State is the only kind of Learning
that can happen over a distance and Learning by Having Changed State
can not give certainty because of the necessary element of trust in at
least two assumptions, ((namely that all effects are caused)), which
assumptions are themselves uncheckable ((unverifiable, unprovable))
with certainty via Learning by Having Changed State.

     1-16-1975

     HWSmith

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith     The Paths of Lovers    Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF        Cross            Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com    In the Line of Duty    http://www.lightlink.com

Tue Oct 25 15:57:48 EDT 2005