The Unavoidability of Belief within Reason

[Skepdick]

False, as all contexts are variations of other contexts under the context of "context". Truth exists as constant, this constant is context, this context is a self referential loop.

Contexts are the things in which you interpret meaning. In fact, you can read the definition of "tautology" as follows if it pleases you:

In logic, a tautology is a formula or assertion that is true in every possible i̶n̶t̶e̶r̶p̶r̶e̶t̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ context.

Actually it isn't entirely considering all truth is defined by a truth undefined beyond it.

Nothing needs to be defined entirely for you to use it. You can't "entirely define" any of the terms you are using, but you are using them.

Yourself as your constructive state will just deconstruct into nothing, much like computation fragmenting one natural cycle into many.

Nah. I am more than the sum of parts.

[nothing]

There is no total knowing within the realm of time and space, thus all knowledge as absent of a total perspective results in belief as necessary. All knowledge is negated in the face of further knowledge. Belief is inseperable from knowledge as belief requires potential unactualized knowledge as actual. For example one cannot know for certain if a workout program will give them results. However through belief the results eventually become actualized. Belief is the evidence of things not yet actualized.

As to the rest it is gibberish.

The accuser is the accused.

Total knowing implies totally knowing the self, at which point time becomes irrelevant.
Time only exists relative to a displaced (from unity) body: one thus has a consequential gravity.
Because time, there is gravity. If no gravity of belief-based ignorance, time has no meaning.
All belief is negated in the face of any knowledge negating.

E = MC² <-energy
16 = Φπ² <-photon
Φ = scalar space constant
π² = scalar time constant
16 = 4x4 axes (alpha/omega/beg/end)

If/when space and time are 1:1 (photon) there is no displacement.
Adam and Eve don't fall unless they eat from the one tree warned against: good/evil.

That leads to "belief" and begets scapegoating/accusing, which is what you attempted to do:
scapegoat your own gibberish as if owing to another.

[Eodnhoj7]

Newton's law of universal gravitation is based on empirical verification and consensus.

The above consensus-based premise assert and imply the big rock [10 kg] you throw above your head will certainly fall back to Earth.
You think this is a fallacy, thus disregard it and do not accept the rock you throw above will not fall down onto your head?

Actually I can throw a rock above my head and it hitting my head is based upon probability.

That is why I noted you are autistic thus is unable to read the mind of others in general terms and in this case, the intended example.

When I state 'above' it is understood to be vertically above your head.

Any height above 7 feet would be above your head.
Thus you can throw the rock 20 feet away above 7 feet, it is still above your head.
How can you be so stupid to go off tangent to probability.

In my example,
when I state 'above' it is understood to be vertically above your head.

"Vertically" is another variable. As the variables change so does the course. My point is there is always another variable that stems beyond the variables observed. Your implicit meaning is not explicit until you directly change the variables presented.

In the rock being tossed into the air and landing on one's head a series of variables are assumed. With the change in variables is a change in the trajectory. However considering there is always a variable unidentified the trajectory of the course is believed. Belief is present in the face of not all variables being identified.

[Eodnhoj7]

Repeat

[Eodnhoj7]

There is no total knowing within the realm of time and space, thus all knowledge as absent of a total perspective results in belief as necessary. All knowledge is negated in the face of further knowledge. Belief is inseperable from knowledge as belief requires potential unactualized knowledge as actual. For example one cannot know for certain if a workout program will give them results. However through belief the results eventually become actualized. Belief is the evidence of things not yet actualized.

As to the rest it is gibberish.

The accuser is the accused.


There is no accusation. If the text is not understandable it is the fault of the writer for not being able to Express the idea coherently.

"The accuser is accused" falls under its own nature as you keep accusing others of making accusations....thus you are the accuser everytime you make the statement.

Your writing makes little to no sense to most people, that is why it fails.







Total knowing implies totally knowing the self, at which point time becomes irrelevant.
The self falls under infinite regress thus is not totally knowable as it is subject to continual negation.


Time only exists relative to a displaced (from unity) body: one thus has a consequential gravity.
Because time, there is gravity. If no gravity of belief-based ignorance, time has no meaning.
All belief is negated in the face of any knowledge negating.

E = MC² <-energy
16 = Φπ² <-photon
Φ = scalar space constant
π² = scalar time constant
16 = 4x4 axes (alpha/omega/beg/end)

And how do you connect gravity to the self?



All knowledge is negated in light of further progress in knowledge, as such knowledge always is incomplete. Knowledge as incomplete necessitates belief.

If/when space and time are 1:1 (photon) there is no displacement.
Adam and Eve don't fall unless they eat from the one tree warned against: good/evil.

But Adam and Eve did fall and we are their children.

That leads to "belief" and begets scapegoating/accusing, which is what you attempted to do:
scapegoat your own gibberish as if owing to another.

False, if the text is not understandable to the general public then by default it is gibberish. Your text is not understandable for the majority of its statements. It is not an accusation but a fact.

[Eodnhoj7]

False, as all contexts are variations of other contexts under the context of "context". Truth exists as constant, this constant is context, this context is a self referential loop.

Contexts are the things in which you interpret meaning. In fact, you can read the definition of "tautology" as follows if it pleases you:

Context is identity, identity is P=P, P=P is circular. Contexts are self referential assertions that are "interpretations" itself not just a means of interpretation.

In logic, a tautology is a formula or assertion that is true in every possible i̶n̶t̶e̶r̶p̶r̶e̶t̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ context.

"In logic" is a context which changes the definition. Outside of logic a tautology is the same thing expressed in a variety of means. Tautologies are not limited to logic and even under logic there is no tautology which is true given every interpretation given the expansion of context.

Actually it isn't entirely considering all truth is defined by a truth undefined beyond it.

Nothing needs to be defined entirely for you to use it. You can't "entirely define" any of the terms you are using, but you are using them.

The terms are defined by their self referential identities and are always incomplete as open to further interpretation.

Yourself as your constructive state will just deconstruct into nothing, much like computation fragmenting one natural cycle into many.

Nah. I am more than the sum of parts.

False context, I never said you are a sum of parts but rather your state deconstructs to nothing.

Give a logical proof which is correct in every context.

[Sculptor]

Belief is the evidence of things hoped for not yet seen where an unactualized state of potential existence is brought about by an act of faith.

Not JUST that though is it. You are simply setting up a strawman to burn.

This faith, a grounding point of actualizing an unactualized reality, is inherent within the processes which form reality. What remains unformed is given form through an inherent process of perspective where things are seen under a given light and brought about through the very nature of observation.

You are going down a silly slide. That's like a slippery slope but is less credible. You are implying that a thing believed can be true because it is believed.

This perspective, or observation, is the root of how we measure, and give form to reality, thus necessitating faith as an instrinsic part of being.

Whoops. "give form to reality"??? I think not.

Without belief, or faith, being is never brought about in an actualized form and thus left in a potential state.

Wrong. And not even close to a conclusion of the above flim-flam.
Belief is not even a potential state, and no amount of it can effect a change in reality to actualise anything. Belief is a thing wished for. It takes hard work to make aspirations real. It requires nuts and bolts, and effort. Sometimes what you image can never come to pass. But wishes are empty

Faith is a part of the measurement process in a such a way that the given premises used to observe reality are brought about in a dynamic state as the act of measurement itself. This act of measurement is the act of being itself consdering the manner in which the world is formed is grounded on the set of assumptions used to justify its existence.

You all ready said this lie. Repeating yourself does not make it less false.

Given knowledge as a dynamic process, the necessity of belief lies within the premises which ground it. The premises are unactualized except for some future event. Belief is thus a statement of knowledge through time, where what is known is a state of future events not fully actualized yet grounded in the seeds of the premises which give root to any future actuality.

Word salad.

Belief is an act of dynamic change within the process of measurement thus unavoidable within the nature of perspective as a whole.

Belief changes nothing, except deluded brain cells.

[Eodnhoj7]

Belief is the evidence of things hoped for not yet seen where an unactualized state of potential existence is brought about by an act of faith.

Not JUST that though is it. You are simply setting up a strawman to burn.

Considering the nature of knowledge is always incomplete, belief is inevitable in the course of knowledge. For example I may gather all knowledge through the senses alone, but this requires a belief of my senses.




This faith, a grounding point of actualizing an unactualized reality, is inherent within the processes which form reality. What remains unformed is given form through an inherent process of perspective where things are seen under a given light and brought about through the very nature of observation.

You are going down a silly slide. That's like a slippery slope but is less credible. You are implying that a thing believed can be true because it is believed.

All knowledge begins with premises which are believed. The belief is justified by its alignment to further experiences.

This perspective, or observation, is the root of how we measure, and give form to reality, thus necessitating faith as an instrinsic part of being.

Whoops. "give form to reality"??? I think not.

Perspective gives form to reality. For example industry is a perspective of the world in which value is derived from "use". This "use" gives form to reality. For example a stone remains a stone until it is percieved as having use as a house, in which case it is changed through a whole series of industrial mechanisms created in order to transform it.


Without belief, or faith, being is never brought about in an actualized form and thus left in a potential state.

Wrong. And not even close to a conclusion of the above flim-flam.
Belief is not even a potential state, and no amount of it can effect a change in reality to actualise anything. Belief is a thing wished for. It takes hard work to make aspirations real. It requires nuts and bolts, and effort. Sometimes what you image can never come to pass. But wishes are empty

False, a belief is the actualization of the unactual. A belief which never amounts to a form still results in change. For example I may believe attaching wings to my arms may help me fly, find out it is false, but this does not change the fact wings where formed from surrounding materials. A belief caused certain forms (wings) to take shape from surrounding materials.



Faith is a part of the measurement process in a such a way that the given premises used to observe reality are brought about in a dynamic state as the act of measurement itself. This act of measurement is the act of being itself consdering the manner in which the world is formed is grounded on the set of assumptions used to justify its existence.

You all ready said this lie. Repeating yourself does not make it less false.

Belief is the means of change. I may believe a workout program will transform my body and as such I mold how I view the world through exercise and start a workout program which transforms me. The belief acts as a mode of conduct through which change occurs.

Given knowledge as a dynamic process, the necessity of belief lies within the premises which ground it. The premises are unactualized except for some future event. Belief is thus a statement of knowledge through time, where what is known is a state of future events not fully actualized yet grounded in the seeds of the premises which give root to any future actuality.

Word salad.

Knowledge is always changing in light of further knowledge, thus knowledge is dynamic. The premises used for knowledge, as assumed, are a system of beliefs the said knowledge is built upon. The premises are justified through further knowledge where what we perceive changes through time. A set of premises are justified by further knowledge, thus what we deem as knowing is grounded upon beliefs morphed through time. I may believe one thing at one time, and with the change in time, I may believe something different in light of new knowledge or experience.

Belief is an act of dynamic change within the process of measurement thus unavoidable within the nature of perspective as a whole.

Belief changes nothing, except deluded brain cells.

Belief is a means of change as it is the grounding the premises through which we perceive reality. I may believe all people as thieves, thus I always create a secure position for my belongings. One set of beliefs results in a set of corresponding actions.

[nothing]

There is no accusation.

There was:

As to the rest it is gibberish.

Which was preceded by actual gibberish.

If the text is not understandable it is the fault of the writer for not being able to Express the idea coherently.

That is actually not the only condition: the one reading could themselves be ignorant.

"The accuser is accused" falls under its own nature as you keep accusing others of making accusations....thus you are the accuser everytime you make the statement.

If someone makes an accusation against me and/or anything I write,
I always try the same accusation against them such to see
if they are actually drawing from their own nature.

It usually only happens if/when a person is reduced into ad hominem, such as:

Your writing makes little to no sense to most people, that is why it fails.

The accuser is the accused.

You are drawing from your own nature again and projecting it
in the form of an accusation against another. All I do is appropriate
the substance of the accusation to where it belongs: where it came from.

The self falls under infinite regress thus is not totally knowable as it is subject to continual negation.

There is no such thing as infinite regress in nature.

And how do you connect gravity to the self?

Gravity of (belief-based) ignorance.
If no belief-based ignorance, time has no effect
and (fear of) death ceases to exist, given
death no longer exists as there is nothing to die to
except ones own self viz. the gravity of their own ignorance.

All knowledge is negated in light of further progress in knowledge, as such knowledge always is incomplete. Knowledge as incomplete necessitates belief.

Knowledge is not negated: it transcends space and time.
Knowledge negates belief-based ignorance(s) acting out as a function of s/t.
This is why knowing the properties of the photon is important as
photons are not displaced (ie. have no independent motion except spin).

But Adam and Eve did fall and we are their children.

If even taking metaphorically: the point is to know how and why.
From Adam's own rib is derived Eve.
From Φ's own rib is derived π.
Adam "believed" Eve was responsible for his own conduct
such to BLAME her. She followed his example and BLAMED
the serpent. Their first progeny grew enmity and desire
to spill blood: drawing from his own nature (tiller of the soil).

If one knows the displacement factor(s) concerning unity,
they can reverse it at will. If one knows not, they are bound
to suffer in time, according to the "gravity" of their own ignorance
just as any body has a gravity according to its own constituency.

As above, so below.

False, if the text is not understandable to the general public then by default it is gibberish. Your text is not understandable for the majority of its statements. It is not an accusation but a fact.

It's actually another accusation rooted in a belief-based ignorance, not a fact.

The general public is not an arbiter of coherence.

[Eodnhoj7]

There is no accusation.

There was:

As to the rest it is gibberish.

Which was preceded by actual gibberish.

If the text is not understandable it is the fault of the writer for not being able to Express the idea coherently.

That is actually not the only condition: the one reading could themselves be ignorant.

It is the writer's responsibility to make the writing clear, not obscure.

"The accuser is accused" falls under its own nature as you keep accusing others of making accusations....thus you are the accuser everytime you make the statement.

If someone makes an accusation against me and/or anything I write,
I always try the same accusation against them such to see
if they are actually drawing from their own nature.


So you admit to accusing.



It usually only happens if/when a person is reduced into ad hominem, such as:

Your writing makes little to no sense to most people, that is why it fails.

The accuser is the accused.

You are drawing from your own nature again and projecting it
in the form of an accusation against another. All I do is appropriate
the substance of the accusation to where it belongs: where it came from.

There goes the accusations.

The self falls under infinite regress thus is not totally knowable as it is subject to continual negation.

There is no such thing as infinite regress in nature.

Actually there is through a continuous "now" which always changes.

And how do you connect gravity to the self?

Gravity of (belief-based) ignorance.
If no belief-based ignorance, time has no effect
and (fear of) death ceases to exist, given
death no longer exists as there is nothing to die to
except ones own self viz. the gravity of their own ignorance.

All knowledge is negated in light of further progress in knowledge, as such knowledge always is incomplete. Knowledge as incomplete necessitates belief.

Knowledge is not negated: it transcends space and time.

Knowledge exists through space and time as an approximation of absolute truth.


Knowledge negates belief-based ignorance(s) acting out as a function of s/t.
This is why knowing the properties of the photon is important as
photons are not displaced (ie. have no independent motion except spin).

But Adam and Eve did fall and we are their children.

If even taking metaphorically: the point is to know how and why.
From Adam's own rib is derived Eve.
From Φ's own rib is derived π.
Adam "believed" Eve was responsible for his own conduct
such to BLAME her. She followed his example and BLAMED
the serpent. Their first progeny grew enmity and desire
to spill blood: drawing from his own nature (tiller of the soil).

If one knows the displacement factor(s) concerning unity,
they can reverse it at will. If one knows not, they are bound
to suffer in time, according to the "gravity" of their own ignorance
just as any body has a gravity according to its own constituency.

As above, so below.

False, if the text is not understandable to the general public then by default it is gibberish. Your text is not understandable for the majority of its statements. It is not an accusation but a fact.

It's actually another accusation rooted in a belief-based ignorance, not a fact.

The general public is not an arbiter of coherence.

[/color]

[Veritas Aequitas]

Actually I can throw a rock above my head and it hitting my head is based upon probability.

That is why I noted you are autistic thus is unable to read the mind of others in general terms and in this case, the intended example.

When I state 'above' it is understood to be vertically above your head.

Any height above 7 feet would be above your head.
Thus you can throw the rock 20 feet away above 7 feet, it is still above your head.
How can you be so stupid to go off tangent to probability.

In my example,
when I state 'above' it is understood to be vertically above your head.

"Vertically" is another variable. As the variables change so does the course. My point is there is always another variable that stems beyond the variables observed. Your implicit meaning is not explicit until you directly change the variables presented.

In the rock being tossed into the air and landing on one's head a series of variables are assumed. With the change in variables is a change in the trajectory. However considering there is always a variable unidentified the trajectory of the course is believed. Belief is present in the face of not all variables being identified.

You are autistic, thus as usual talking oranges while the topic is apples.
You just don't have the capacity to understand what others are trying to say from given examples.

What I had presented earlier is a thought example.
The intention is that the rock will definitely fall on one head in that circumstances, i.e. to represent if one understand the principles of gravity one will not throw a rock above one's head, thus zero possibility of being killed by the rock.

[Sculptor]

Belief is the evidence of things hoped for not yet seen where an unactualized state of potential existence is brought about by an act of faith.

Not JUST that though is it. You are simply setting up a strawman to burn.

Considering the nature of knowledge is always incomplete, belief is inevitable in the course of knowledge. For example I may gather all knowledge through the senses alone, but this requires a belief of my senses.




This faith, a grounding point of actualizing an unactualized reality, is inherent within the processes which form reality. What remains unformed is given form through an inherent process of perspective where things are seen under a given light and brought about through the very nature of observation.

You are going down a silly slide. That's like a slippery slope but is less credible. You are implying that a thing believed can be true because it is believed.

All knowledge begins with premises which are believed. The belief is justified by its alignment to further experiences.

This perspective, or observation, is the root of how we measure, and give form to reality, thus necessitating faith as an instrinsic part of being.

Whoops. "give form to reality"??? I think not.

Perspective gives form to reality. For example industry is a perspective of the world in which value is derived from "use". This "use" gives form to reality. For example a stone remains a stone until it is percieved as having use as a house, in which case it is changed through a whole series of industrial mechanisms created in order to transform it.


Without belief, or faith, being is never brought about in an actualized form and thus left in a potential state.

Wrong. And not even close to a conclusion of the above flim-flam.
Belief is not even a potential state, and no amount of it can effect a change in reality to actualise anything. Belief is a thing wished for. It takes hard work to make aspirations real. It requires nuts and bolts, and effort. Sometimes what you image can never come to pass. But wishes are empty

False, a belief is the actualization of the unactual. A belief which never amounts to a form still results in change. For example I may believe attaching wings to my arms may help me fly, find out it is false, but this does not change the fact wings where formed from surrounding materials. A belief caused certain forms (wings) to take shape from surrounding materials.



Faith is a part of the measurement process in a such a way that the given premises used to observe reality are brought about in a dynamic state as the act of measurement itself. This act of measurement is the act of being itself consdering the manner in which the world is formed is grounded on the set of assumptions used to justify its existence.

You all ready said this lie. Repeating yourself does not make it less false.

Belief is the means of change. I may believe a workout program will transform my body and as such I mold how I view the world through exercise and start a workout program which transforms me. The belief acts as a mode of conduct through which change occurs.

Given knowledge as a dynamic process, the necessity of belief lies within the premises which ground it. The premises are unactualized except for some future event. Belief is thus a statement of knowledge through time, where what is known is a state of future events not fully actualized yet grounded in the seeds of the premises which give root to any future actuality.

Word salad.

Knowledge is always changing in light of further knowledge, thus knowledge is dynamic. The premises used for knowledge, as assumed, are a system of beliefs the said knowledge is built upon. The premises are justified through further knowledge where what we perceive changes through time. A set of premises are justified by further knowledge, thus what we deem as knowing is grounded upon beliefs morphed through time. I may believe one thing at one time, and with the change in time, I may believe something different in light of new knowledge or experience.

Belief is an act of dynamic change within the process of measurement thus unavoidable within the nature of perspective as a whole.

Belief changes nothing, except deluded brain cells.

Belief is a means of change as it is the grounding the premises through which we perceive reality. I may believe all people as thieves, thus I always create a secure position for my belongings. One set of beliefs results in a set of corresponding actions.

More word salad and an inability to use the quote function.

[Eodnhoj7]

That is why I noted you are autistic thus is unable to read the mind of others in general terms and in this case, the intended example.

When I state 'above' it is understood to be vertically above your head.

Any height above 7 feet would be above your head.
Thus you can throw the rock 20 feet away above 7 feet, it is still above your head.
How can you be so stupid to go off tangent to probability.

In my example,
when I state 'above' it is understood to be vertically above your head.

"Vertically" is another variable. As the variables change so does the course. My point is there is always another variable that stems beyond the variables observed. Your implicit meaning is not explicit until you directly change the variables presented.

In the rock being tossed into the air and landing on one's head a series of variables are assumed. With the change in variables is a change in the trajectory. However considering there is always a variable unidentified the trajectory of the course is believed. Belief is present in the face of not all variables being identified.

You are autistic, thus as usual talking oranges while the topic is apples.
You just don't have the capacity to understand what others are trying to say from given examples.

What I had presented earlier is a thought example.
The intention is that the rock will definitely fall on one head in that circumstances, i.e. to represent if one understand the principles of gravity one will not throw a rock above one's head, thus zero possibility of being killed by the rock.

There is always a set of variables beyond the ones measured. These unknown variables always results in an unpredictability of any experiment measure. This unpredictability results in all experiments being probabilisitic.

[Eodnhoj7]

Not JUST that though is it. You are simply setting up a strawman to burn.

You are going down a silly slide. That's like a slippery slope but is less credible. You are implying that a thing believed can be true because it is believed.

All knowledge begins with premises which are believed. The belief is justified by its alignment to further experiences.

Whoops. "give form to reality"??? I think not.

Wrong. And not even close to a conclusion of the above flim-flam.
Belief is not even a potential state, and no amount of it can effect a change in reality to actualise anything. Belief is a thing wished for. It takes hard work to make aspirations real. It requires nuts and bolts, and effort. Sometimes what you image can never come to pass. But wishes are empty

You all ready said this lie. Repeating yourself does not make it less false.

Word salad.


Belief changes nothing, except deluded brain cells.

Belief is a means of change as it is the grounding the premises through which we perceive reality. I may believe all people as thieves, thus I always create a secure position for my belongings. One set of beliefs results in a set of corresponding actions.

More word salad and an inability to use the quote function.

Knowledge requires observing all variables. Not all variables are present in any observation. Thus what is observed is probabilistic and as probabilistic necessitates a degree of belief.

[Sculptor]

More word salad and an inability to use the quote function.

Knowledge requires observing all variables. Not all variables are present in any observation. Thus what is observed is probabilistic and as probabilistic necessitates a degree of belief.

Its knowledge that drives change though. NOT belief.