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