Total topics: 2
I am currently working on a working/testable theorem that I would love to have falsified (if it can be, it needs to be anyways). It predicts a:
"belief"-in-and-of-itself / "knowledge"-in-and-itself
primordial antithetical dichotomous dipole singularity
as in: a primordial yang and yin.
I find it absolutely equivalent to the two so-called "Edenic" trees of life, and of knowledge of good and evil (explained later herein).
I derived it via beginning with the thought experiment thus:
Start with nothingness.Let there be a universe (if so willing it can be this one) and designate this universe as 'that I am'.Let there be a being "I am" in/of 'that I am'.Let 'that I am' be absolutely unknown: god, no god, satan, no satan, flying spaghetti monster etc. absolutely 'unknown'.Is it possible to infer 'that I am' if "I am" is also 'unknown' unto *itself*?
This gave rise to a component to the theorem: The Relative Infra-Inference Problem-Postulate (TRIIPP)
which begs that there be a reconsideration of:
All knowing is belief, but not all belief is knowing.
to:
All knowing is (by way of) indefinitely trying belief, but
not all belief is (by way of) indefinitely trying to know all.
rendering the former absolutely absurd.
It omits that knowing any/all *not* to "believe" by way of *falsification* is (as) a kind of knowledge-in-and-of-itself, and is essential to (con)science(s). For example, the negation of any "belief"-based assertion(s) otherwise taken to hold (ie. as generally true) may be tried (indefinitely, if needed) for ignorance(s) that may exist *unknowingly* and subsequently falsified, thus not to be "believed" in, which is a knowledge *as distinct from* belief. This demands a conscious knowledge of ignorance argument rendered thus:
CONSCIOUS KNOWLEDGE OF IGNORANCE ARGUMENT (CKOIA)P1. Knowledge (ie. 'knowing') is certainly made attainable and/or practical by way of use of the (con)science(s) (ie. inquiry).P2. Knowing (how) to consciously falsify (ie. try/test) belief(s) for ignorance(s) (ie. to consciously 'know' *if not* to believe) certainly exists and is definitely a (kind of) knowledge-in-and-of-itself.P3. Any/all 'belief'-based ignorance(s) exist(s) in, as, of and/or by way of belief-in-and-of-itself.C1. All-knowing is definitely approached by: indefinitely trying to consciously falsify any/all "belief(s)" indefinitely (ad infinitum).
This later gave rise to LORI: Laws of Relative Inference:
which predicts a bi-directional eye of a dipole:
2 (any/all)
1 KNOW (equivalent: Tree of Life)
0 I am willing to... ^v
4 BELIEVE (equivalent: Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil)
3 *not to* (negation/falsification)
wherein:
0-1-2-3-4 = I am willing to KNOW, (any/all) *not to* BELIEVE...(ad infinitum)
(tends towards knowledge of any/all "belief"-based ignorance(s) otherwise "believed" in by the unknowing / all-knowing god)
0-4-3-2-1 = I am willing to BELIEVE, *not to* KNOW (any/all)...(ad infinitum)
(tends towards "belief"-based ignorance(s) lacking knowledge that would otherwise negate "belief" in/of them / all-believing satan)
which allows the rendering of the following dichotomous statement:
What (the presence of) "belief"-based ignorance is to *the absence of* knowledge,(the presence of) knowledge is to *the absence of* "belief"-based ignorance.
And this all lead naturally to the dipole presented:
(+)knowledge/negation/ignorance(-).
Thus:
as ignorance increases(for lacking knowledge *not* to believe),suffering/death increases accordinglyto how one "eats".
and
as knowledge increases(for lacking "belief"-based ignorance)suffering/death decreases accordinglyto how one "eats".
This finally discovers:
All knowing is belief, but not all belief is knowing.
to be further begging of a modification of belief:
All belief is ignorance, but not all ignorance is belief.
And this would certainly collapse any/all "belief"-based ideologies as being necessarily ignorant. Which finally brings me to ask:
Is there any way to falsify any of this?
Anything to be improved upon?
Does the CKOIA hold?
Thanks for reading and consideration.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Philosophy
RE: "BELIEF"
Usage:
---
belief - as containing one or more degrees of uncertainty (ie. unknown)
knowledge - the sum immediate conscientiousness of any body (as attained to) concerning any/all matters
*not* to be wholly "believed" (in) on the basis of such to be 'known' (ie. as a body of 'knowledge') to
certainly contain some degree(s) of (relative) uncertainty and/or 'known' falsity;
as well as, any/all conscientiousness of (the existence of) fixed principles
(as attained to, in pursuit of the same 'knowledge') immediately serving (ie: temperance of) the same body.
*not* to be wholly "believed" (in) on the basis of such to be 'known' (ie. as a body of 'knowledge') to
certainly contain some degree(s) of (relative) uncertainty and/or 'known' falsity;
as well as, any/all conscientiousness of (the existence of) fixed principles
(as attained to, in pursuit of the same 'knowledge') immediately serving (ie: temperance of) the same body.
negation - to know to a certainty that any tried/tested belief-based assertion(s) is not true
---
Does so-called Satan not explicitly *require* belief-in-and-of-itself, in order that any believer "believe" Satan is God (ie. confusion)?
Does it not take any "believer" to "believe" evil is good? ( ie. conflation, whatever they may be...)
How does one ultimately know any/all *not* to "believe"? (to avoid Satan/evil...?)
...what "belief"-in-and-of-itself is to Satan,
"knowing"-in-and-of-itself is to God (...who is all-knowing?)
Of...?
...any/all *NOT* to "BELIEVE"...?
Would an all-knowing god not "know" any/all *not* to "believe"?
If so, read 0-1-2-3-4 then 0-4-3-2-1
2 (any/all)
1 KNOW(ledge)
0- (I am willing to...)
4 BELIEVE(-based ignorance)
3 *NOT* to
trending towards all-knowing god: 0-1-2-3-4
I am willing to KNOW, (any/all) *NOT* to BELIEVE = TREE OF LIFE
(Truth by Way of Negation of any/all "Belief"-based ignorance)
trending towards all-believing satan: 0-4-3-2-1
I am willing to BELIEVE, *NOT* to KNOW (any/all) = TREE OF KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL
("Belief"-based ignorance due to good vs. evil / us vs. them / believer vs. unbeliever dualism etc. hundreds of millions dead)
Genesis 2:17 (KJV)But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Truth by Way of Negation leaves only the Truth of the Way of the Living (whatever is true can not be falsified).
Some Q.
Who are so willing to calling themselves BELIEVERS and what are they willing to BELIEVE?
Are they attempting to consciously try/test their "belief" for ignorance(s) in pursuit of more knowledge?
Are they aware (ie. conscious of) of their own ignorance and/or do they acknowledge it?
Who "believes" to be in possession of a god-book?
Who "believes" in a male central figure "mercy upon mankind" idol for any/all of humanity?
Who "believes" to be fighting in a cause of a "belief"-based god?
What would any all-knowing god need with "belief" if god is knowing satan requires it?
Why would any all-knowing god use the same currency (ie. belief) as satan?
Who would want "believers" to "believe" that "belief"-in-and-of-itself is a virtue?
All-knowing is by way of endlessly trying belief, butnot all belief is by way of endlessly trying to know all.All belief is ignorance, but not all ignorance is belief.
Willing to debate against any/all "belief"-based (mono)theism as necessarily ignorant.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion