The Unavoidability of Belief within Reason

[Eodnhoj7]

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.

Both belief and knowledge drives change. Knowledge as dynamically progressing necessitates change. Belief, as the beginning point of knowledge where a phenomenon is assumed, acts as a catalyst for change. For example one may believe attaching wings may cause one to fly. Wings are built, but the person does not fly. Materials are changed and as such the beleif acts as a catalyst for change.

[Sculptor]

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.

Both belief and knowledge drives change. Knowledge as dynamically progressing necessitates change. Belief, as the beginning point of knowledge where a phenomenon is assumed, acts as a catalyst for change. For example one may believe attaching wings may cause one to fly. Wings are built, but the person does not fly. Materials are changed and as such the beleif acts as a catalyst for change.

Belief is useless.

[Eodnhoj7]

Its knowledge that drives change though. NOT belief.

Both belief and knowledge drives change. Knowledge as dynamically progressing necessitates change. Belief, as the beginning point of knowledge where a phenomenon is assumed, acts as a catalyst for change. For example one may believe attaching wings may cause one to fly. Wings are built, but the person does not fly. Materials are changed and as such the beleif acts as a catalyst for change.

Belief is useless.

Belief is use. People believe they need bigger houses, thus they take something as useless as clay, mold it into a brick and use the brick as part of the house's extension.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Being 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.

You insistence to veer off topic is exposing you as more stupid.

[Eodnhoj7]

Being 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.

You insistence to veer off topic is exposing you as more stupid.

Any measurement requires a series of variables which are unobserved thus necessitating all measurements as statements of belief.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

You insistence to veer off topic is exposing you as more stupid.

Any measurement requires a series of variables which are unobserved thus necessitating all measurements as statements of belief.

Stupid!

IF I state in general,
.. when you suddenly jump-in and stand on the same rail track of a fast oncoming train, you will die.

Instead of agreeing to the above in general,
I anticipate you will respond;

• Eodnhoj7: "Any measurement requires a series of variables which are unobserved thus necessitating all measurements as statements of belief."
  
  Eodnhoj7: "The rail could have misaligned due to heat and the train derailed a distance from where I am standing."

Stupid!!

[Sculptor]

Both belief and knowledge drives change. Knowledge as dynamically progressing necessitates change. Belief, as the beginning point of knowledge where a phenomenon is assumed, acts as a catalyst for change. For example one may believe attaching wings may cause one to fly. Wings are built, but the person does not fly. Materials are changed and as such the beleif acts as a catalyst for change.

Belief is useless.

Belief is use. People believe they need bigger houses, thus they take something as useless as clay, mold it into a brick and use the brick as part of the house's extension.

Belief is the death of reason. A completely empty state of thought. You are mistaking belief with aspiration.

[Skepdick]

Belief is the death of reason. A completely empty state of thought. You are mistaking belief with aspiration.

If reason was never born how could it ever die? Do you believe you are reasonable? How do you know?

[nothing]

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

It is the reader's responsibility to read the writing clear, not obscure.

Both have an equal obligation: not one more than the other.

Your accusations are being drawn from your own nature, not mine:
rather than confronting the very same deficiency of your own,
you attempt to scapegoat the same fault onto others.

That you are doing it to me is not my concern: I understand this phenomena
as it relates directly to what my own endeavor concerns:
just not here (anymore). I took the work to a place with people
who are not so "loopy".

So you admit to accusing.

No. However I do admit to re-directing the substance of your own accusation, made by yourself,
back to exactly where it both originates and originated, thus belongs: yourself.

Thus I don't even need to make a (new) accusation: you provided all.

There goes the accusations.

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

Thus not a "regress" being it never changes hence "infinite regress".
A continuous "now" is a counter-balance of the "regress" of gravity
and a "progression" as seen in/as the expansion of the observable universe.

Photons do not have a velocity in relation to the progression: they are carried by it.
Hence: light does not have a "speed", it has a rate of induction due to the spin of the photon.
We are each our own birotation that satisfies the same birotation of the photon:
we thus may "progress" with knowledge and/or we may "regress" with belief-based ignorance(s)
until death, should the latter apply. Time is a measure of belief-based ignorance just as it is
a measure of all physical phenomena that is not in the progression (ie. "displaced", not at unity/photon).

The birotation captures all universal progression(s) and all universal gravitation(s).
The equation which describes the progression (ie. the photon) is the same as Einstein's:

E = MC²
16 = Φπ²
I call it the "Equation of D'Light"
(because no displacement, thus "pre-fall" in light of the Edenic Garden of Delight)

This equation will be found in an up-and-coming 'theory of everything' that directly addresses
and explains (not describes) the root of any/all manner and form of human suffering.

BELIEF

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

True knowledge is never approximate: space and time are measurably discrete units,
human beings possess discretion, hence alpha+/-omega satisfying any/all binaries
given any space/time construct.

Truth transcends space and time such to be space/time-invariant
hence the "timelessness" of truth: can never not be true.

Whatever truth is, it can never not have been true to/from now.

[commonsense]

Both belief and knowledge drives change. Knowledge as dynamically progressing necessitates change. Belief, as the beginning point of knowledge where a phenomenon is assumed, acts as a catalyst for change. For example one may believe attaching wings may cause one to fly. Wings are built, but the person does not fly. Materials are changed and as such the beleif acts as a catalyst for change.

Belief is useless.

Belief is use. People believe they need bigger houses, thus they take something as useless as clay, mold it into a brick and use the brick as part of the house's extension.

This isn’t belief. This isn’t need. This is desire.

[commonsense]

Belief is the death of reason. A completely empty state of thought. You are mistaking belief with aspiration.

If reason was never born how could it ever die? Do you believe you are reasonable? How do you know?

Reason has always been. Belief smothers, extinguishes and kills reason.

I think I am a person of reason. Logically there is evidence of this.

[Eodnhoj7]

You insistence to veer off topic is exposing you as more stupid.

Any measurement requires a series of variables which are unobserved thus necessitating all measurements as statements of belief.

Stupid!

IF I state in general,
.. when you suddenly jump-in and stand on the same rail track of a fast oncoming train, you will die.

Instead of agreeing to the above in general,
I anticipate you will respond;

• Eodnhoj7: "Any measurement requires a series of variables which are unobserved thus necessitating all measurements as statements of belief."
  
  Eodnhoj7: "The rail could have misaligned due to heat and the train derailed a distance from where I am standing."

Stupid!!

Actually I agree to the above, yet the premise is a general statement. The devil is in the details. If I stand in front of the train I will die. If I stand in front of the train, and attempt to move out of the way the last minute, I may either die or not die dependent upon the movement. Or I may stand in front of the train, in a dream or movie, and the train crashes into me yet I live.


The generals always change in light of further particulars. All scenarios are subject to a series of particulars which change the context of the example provided.

[Eodnhoj7]

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

It is the reader's responsibility to read the writing clear, not obscure.

It is both the reader's and writers responsibility.


Both have an equal obligation: not one more than the other.

True.

Your accusations are being drawn from your own nature, not mine:
rather than confronting the very same deficiency of your own,
you attempt to scapegoat the same fault onto others.

False, the examples do not make sense at times. For example, in one statement you make you compare being as rooted in two arms and two legs when this is clearly not the case.

That you are doing it to me is not my concern: I understand this phenomena
as it relates directly to what my own endeavor concerns:
just not here (anymore). I took the work to a place with people
who are not so "loopy".

And what is this place?

So you admit to accusing.

No. However I do admit to re-directing the substance of your own accusation, made by yourself,
back to exactly where it both originates and originated, thus belongs: yourself.

Accusations are redirection according to "the accuser is accused".

Thus I don't even need to make a (new) accusation: you provided all.

There goes the accusations.

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

Thus not a "regress" being it never changes hence "infinite regress".
A continuous "now" is a counter-balance of the "regress" of gravity
and a "progression" as seen in/as the expansion of the observable universe.

[color=#FF0000]Regress and progress exist as the fragmentation of now into multiple nows. All future and past scenarios are observed through a continuous now that breaks into a myriad of entities.

/color]




Photons do not have a velocity in relation to the progression: they are carried by it.
Hence: light does not have a "speed", it has a rate of induction due to the spin of the photon.
The measurement of light is relative to another light.



We are each our own birotation that satisfies the same birotation of the photon:
we thus may "progress" with knowledge and/or we may "regress" with belief-based ignorance(s)
until death, should the latter apply. Time is a measure of belief-based ignorance just as it is
a measure of all physical phenomena that is not in the progression (ie. "displaced", not at unity/photon).

The birotation captures all universal progression(s) and all universal gravitation(s).
The equation which describes the progression (ie. the photon) is the same as Einstein's:

E = MC²
16 = Φπ²
I call it the "Equation of D'Light"
(because no displacement, thus "pre-fall" in light of the Edenic Garden of Delight)

This equation will be found in an up-and-coming 'theory of everything' that directly addresses
and explains (not describes) the root of any/all manner and form of human suffering.

BELIEF

The root of suffering as belief is in itself a belief as suffering cannot be proven or disproven as it is subject to personal experience. We know suffering strictly as axiomatic, but one person cannot fully observe another's suffering as that requires a full blown experience of another person being completely share by another individual. Suffering is subjective and we only can observe it in parts. For example I may grimace when chewing on a broken tooth, and another person may understand I suffer due to the grimace and having had a similar experience, but they do not know the other's suffering entirely (ie experience the same suffering exactly). Suffering is thus rooted in a knowledge which is not universal thus necessitating certain aspects of knowledge as not above time and space but existing through them.

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

True knowledge is never approximate: space and time are measurably discrete units,
human beings possess discretion, hence alpha+/-omega satisfying any/all binaries
given any space/time construct.



Truth transcends space and time such to be space/time-invariant
hence the "timelessness" of truth: can never not be true.

Truth exists through time and space as an approximation of an ultimate truth.
This necessitates not all variables being observed as these variables are approximated through time and space. The premises with which we observe a phenomenon are the beliefs through which knowledge originates. This is considering there is no strict rule how to begin any premise through which we acquire knowledge.

Whatever truth is, it can never not have been true to/from now.

[Eodnhoj7]

Belief is useless.

Belief is use. People believe they need bigger houses, thus they take something as useless as clay, mold it into a brick and use the brick as part of the house's extension.

This isn’t belief. This isn’t need. This is desire.

False, people believe they need something in which they do not. As belief is connected to knowledge so is it connected to other aspects of the human condition such as desire. They may believe the bigger house will make them happier when in reality is may not.

[nothing]

Truth exists through time and space as an approximation of an ultimate truth.

Approximation of truth is not truth, at best it is an approximation.

Take the approximation of π: 3.14159... it is an approximation of π, not actually π.
An actual π is 4/√Φ which is not an approximation, but rather precise.

This necessitates not all variables being observed as these variables are approximated through time and space.

Space and time are measurably discrete units, thus not even space and time are "approximate".
Further: space and time are reciprocal aspects of motion, thus are not separate from one another.
Again: premises can be either belief- and/or knowledge-based. Premise alone says nothing
on the dichotomy of knowledge and belief.

The premises with which we observe a phenomenon are the beliefs through which knowledge originates. This is considering there is no strict rule how to begin any premise through which we acquire knowledge.

"The premises with which we acknowledge a phenomenon are a product of the conscience from which the inquiry originates."
-fixed

Seek and ye shall find means if you inspire/inquire and ask the right question,
the (right) answer to that question will be inside of the (right) question itself.

The premise of any true knowledge is to first acknowledge one knows not, such to ever-inquire further. <-dynamic
It would take a "believer" to believe they already have the answer, such to never inquire further. <-static