Conscious Knowledge of Ignorance

[nothing]

Hello, greetings.

First and forever foremost: let there be peace. This is my first post thus as a forewarning: please forgive the unorthodox style owing to the author having absolutely none.

I am currently working on a theorem that I would like to have falsified (if it can be, so it must be). It predicts a:

"belief"-in-and-of-itself / "knowledge"-in-and-itself
primordial antithetical dichotomous dipole singularity-sort-of-thingy (?)
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 (later herein).

I derived it via thought experiment thus:

Start with nothing.
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. just absolutely 'unknown'.
Query: 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)
that serves as a principle for LORI: Law of Relative Inference

It is impossible to infer an unknown by way of another unknown.

which begs that there be a serious reconsideration of:

All knowing is belief, but not all belief is knowing.

to:

All knowing is by way of indefinitely trying all belief, but
not all belief is by way of indefinitely trying to know all.

rendering the former absolutely absurd beyond belief. It catastrophically 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 falsified, thus not to be "believed" in, which is a knowledge *as distinct from* belief. This demands a conscious knowledge of ignorance argument I 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. to inquire).
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.
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).

________
P1 establishes acknowledgement as a viable knowledge (ie. to acknowledge a "belief"-based assertion) absent belief
P2 establishes there being a conscious justification process that can be used to try/test/falsify (ie. discover) unknown ignorance(s) (ie. learn)
P3 establishes "belief"-in-and-of-itself as a requirement of any/all "belief"-based ignorance(s)
C establishes a precedent for the conscious knowledge of ignorance: perpetually try any/all belief

This later gave rise to LORI: Laws of Relative Inference:

https://ibb.co/090gbJ2

which predicts a bi-directional "eye" of a primordial dipole:

+2 (any/all) <-*creation
-1 KNOW equivalent: Tree of Life
0 (+/-) I am (willing to...)
+1 BELIEVE equivalent: Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil
-2 *not to* <-*annihilation (negation/falsification)
__________________________________________________________
wherein:
0-1+2-2+1 = tends towards knowledge of any/all "belief"-based ignorance(s) otherwise "believed" in by the unknowing
0+1-2+2-1 = tends towards "belief"-based ignorance(s) lacking knowledge that would otherwise negate "belief" in/of them
(inversion)

which allows rendering of the following dichotomous statement:

What the absence of knowledge is to *the presence of* "belief"-based ignorance,
the absence of "belief"-based ignorance is to *the presence of* knowledge.

As a proof of concept of this theorem, it seems to completely undermine any/all "belief"-based theology/ideology as ignorant-in-and-of-itself thus:

0. Try so called satan which is "believed" to exist in some potent way.

What fixed qualities/characteristics might so-called satan have that can be used to infer its inverse to try for any possible god?
What does it take for a "believer" to "believe" evil is good and/or good is evil (without the need to define them at all)?

(viz. the answer is in the question itself).
Belief.

1 - Try the inverse of "belief".

...(absence of) belief? To *not* believe? Unbelief? Disbelief?
If so-called satan requires *belief* in order that any/all "believe" evil is good
(without the need to define them),
how does one know what *not* to believe?

(viz. the answer is in the question itself).
Knowledge.

2/3 - Try (not) knowing any/all *not* to "believe".

Would any all-knowing god knowingly know so-called satan *requires* belief-in-and-of-itself would that any/all "believers" "believe":
i. "BELIEF" is in-and-of-itself to be a VIRTUE (it may not necessarily be..?)
ii. evil is good / good is evil (whatever they may or may not be) (ie. confusion)
iii. satan is god / god is satan (whatever they may or may not be) (ie. conflation)

Is knowing any/all *not* to "believe" a kind of knowledge-in-and-of-itself?
If so-called satan *requires* belief-in-and-of-itself for potency, can it not be said that any/all negation of (need for) "belief" would render so-called satan absolutely impotent?

(viz. the answer is in the question itself)
Belief-in-and-of-itself.

4. Try (to infer) so-called god with an inverse of "belief"-in-and-of-itself as "knowledge"-in-and-of-itself.
What could comprise a knowledge-in-and-of-itself? A body of knowledge of any/all *not* to "believe"?
How might any/all all-knowing god(s) *require* knowledge-in-and-of-itself for potency?
Can it be inferred that what satan is to any/all "belief", any all-knowing (god) is to knowing any/all *not* to "believe"?
Does it thus require a "believer" to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil such to confuse them?
Would *not* ever "believing" to know good/evil be equivalent to *not* ever eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?
Would this make *not* eating from the tree a knowledge-in-and-of-itself?

And this all lead naturally to the dipole presented:
(-)knowledge/negation/ignorance(+).

their mutual annihilation occurring at a single point (I coin!) the negatron singularity, which I predict is the observable universe at any given time by any given person *P according to their own knowledge/of/ignorance and/or ignorance/of/knowledge. It predicts that each being is a body of knowledge/ignorance wherein the latter gives rise to the former accordingly.

P =/= P
P = -P or +P
P=*P
__________
*variable: can be (+) or (-)

Thus:
as ignorance increases
(for lacking knowledge *not* to believe),
suffering/death increases.

and

as knowledge increases
(for lacking need of any/all belief)
suffering/death decreases.

Which derives two tentative definitions:

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) immutable (ie. fixed) principles
(attained to in pursuit of the same 'knowledge') immediately serving (as in: temperance) the same body.

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? Can it be improved/re-written?

Thank you to any/all for your considerations,
and lastly but forever foremost: let there be peace.
I believe that world peace is possible because
I know it is certainly possible with such a model
that calls "belief"-in-and-of-itself into question
indefinitely trying it for ignorance, leaving only truth
(whatever it may be - god or no god, satan or no satan,
there is certainly more knowledge to be had).

**EDIT: I made a new graphic that demonstrates the two Edenic trees.

https://ibb.co/G2x5BV6

[commonsense]

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.

This should be obvious to anyone who understands what knowing is and what believing is.

Most would express the following, in their own words, to explain knowing and believing:

Knowing is the acceptance of something as true based on evidence.

Believing is the acceptance of something as true based on nothing.

The CKOIA is indisputably correct but trivial as well.

[Eodnhoj7]

Hello, greetings.

First and forever foremost: let there be peace. This is my first post thus as a forewarning: please forgive the unorthodox style owing to the author having absolutely none.

I am currently working on a theorem that I would love to have falsified (if it can be, it must be). It predicts a:

"belief"-in-and-of-itself / "knowledge"-in-and-itself
primordial antithetical dichotomous dipole singularity-sort-of-thingy (?)
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 (later herein).

I derived it via 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'.
Let there be a being "I" in/of 'that'.
Let 'that' be absolutely unknown: god, no god, satan, no satan, flying spaghetti monster etc. absolutely 'unknown'.
Query: is it possible to infer 'that' if "I" 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 beyond belief-in-and-of-itself. 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 falsified, thus not to be "believed" in, which is a knowledge *as distinct from* belief. This demands a conscious knowledge of ignorance argument I 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).

________
P1 establishes acknowledgement as a viable knowledge (ie. to acknowledge a "belief"-based assertion)
P2 establishes there being a conscious justification process that can be used to try/test/falsify (ie. discover) unknown ignorance(s) (ie. learn)
P3 establishes "belief"-in-and-of-itself as a requirement of any/all "belief"-based ignorance(s)
C establishes a precedent for the conscious knowledge of ignorance: perpetually try any/all belief

This later gave rise to LORI: Laws of Relative Inference:

https://ibb.co/090gbJ2

which predicts a bi-directional eye of a dipole:

2 (any/all)
1 KNOW equivalent: Tree of Life
0 will ^v
4 BELIEVE equivalent: Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil
3 *not to* (negation/falsification)

wherein:

0-1-2-3-4 = tends towards knowledge of any/all "belief"-based ignorance(s) otherwise "believed" in by the unknowing
0-4-3-2-1 = tends towards "belief"-based ignorance(s) lacking knowledge that would otherwise negate "belief" in/of them

which allows me to render the following dichotomous statement:

What the absence of knowledge is to *the presence of* "belief"-based ignorance,
the absence of "belief"-based ignorance is to *the presence of* knowledge.

As a proof of concept of this theorem, it seems to completely undermine any/all "belief"-based theology/ideology as ignorant-in-and-of-itself thus:

0. Try so called satan which is "believed" to exist in some potent way.

What fixed qualities/characteristics might so-called satan have that can be used to infer its inverse to try for a god?
What does it take for a "believer" to "believe" evil is good and/or good is evil (without the need to define them at all)?

(viz. the answer is in the question itself).
Belief.

1. Try the inverse of "belief".

...(absence of) belief? To *not* believe? Unbelief? Disbelief?
If so-called satan requires *belief* would that any/all "believe" evil is good, how does one know what *not* to believe?

(viz. the answer is in the question itself).
Knowledge.

2/3. Try (inv/not) knowing any/all *not* to "believe".

Would any all-knowing god knowingly know so-called satan *requires* belief-in-and-of-itself would that any/all "believers" "believe":
i. evil is good / good is evil (whatever they may or may not be) (ie. confusion)
ii. satan is god / god is satan (whatever they may or may not be) (ie. conflation)
iii. "BELIEF" is in-and-of-itself to be a VIRTUE (it may not necessarily be..?)

Is knowing any/all *not* to "believe" a kind of knowledge-in-and-of-itself?
If so-called satan *requires* belief-in-and-of-itself for potency, can it not be said that any/all negation of (need for) "belief" would render so-called satan absolutely impotent?

(viz. the answer is in the question itself)
belief-in-and-of-itself.

4. Try (to infer) so-called god with an inverse of "belief"-in-and-of-itself as "knowledge"-in-and-of-itself.
What could comprise a knowledge-in-and-of-itself? A body of knowledge of any/all *not* to "believe"?
How might any/all all-knowing god(s) *require* knowledge-in-and-of-itself for potency?
Can it be inferred that what satan is to any/all "belief", any all-knowing (god) is to knowing any/all *not* to "believe"?
Does it take a "believer" to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil such to confuse them?
Would *not* ever "believing" to know good/evil be equivalent to *not* ever eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?
Would this make *not* eating from the tree a knowledge-in-and-of-itself?

And this all lead naturally to the dipole presented:
(+)knowledge/negation/ignorance(-).

their mutual annihilation occurring at a single point (I coin!) the negatron singularity, which I predict is the observable universe at any given time by any given person according to their own knowledge/of/ignorance and/or ignorance/of/knowledge. It predicts that each being is a body if knowledge/ignorance wherein the latter gives rise to the former accordingly.

Thus:
as ignorance increases
(for lacking knowledge *not* to believe),
suffering/death increases.

and

as knowledge increases
(for lacking need of any/all belief)
suffering/death decreases.

Which derives two tentative definitions:

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) immutable (ie. fixed) principles
(attained to in pursuit of the same 'knowledge') immediately serving (as in: temperance) the same body.

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? Can it be improved/re-written?

Thank you to any/all for your considerations,
and lastly but forever foremost: let there be peace.
I believe that world peace is possible because
I know it is certainly possible with such a model
that calls "belief"-in-and-of-itself into question
indefinitely trying it for ignorance, leaving only truth
(whatever it may be - god or no god, satan or no satan,
there is certainly more knowledge to be had).

**EDIT: I made a new graphic that demonstrates the two Edenic trees.

https://ibb.co/hXLknn8

Nothing is nothing, thus it negates itself into being.

Being is perpetual as nothing negates itself as it is beyond being.

Nothing negates being, but being is perpetually generated, thus being turns from one state to many.

There is thus unified being. And non unified being.

[nothing]

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.

This should be obvious to anyone who understands what knowing is and what believing is.

Most would express the following, in their own words, to explain knowing and believing:

Knowing is the acceptance of something as true based on evidence.

Believing is the acceptance of something as true based on nothing.

The CKOIA is indisputably correct but trivial as well.

Thank you - any way to strengthen the argument and/or indicate the triviality of it?

Nothing is nothing, thus it negates itself into being.

Being is perpetual as nothing negates itself as it is beyond being.

Nothing negates being, but being is perpetually generated, thus being turns from one state to many.

There is thus unified being. And non unified being.

Does this in some way falsify the contents of the OP? The somethingness experienced can be whatever a being has "believed" (ie. adopted) of themselves (as a "belief"-based ignorance) such that it plays out over time as "something" that would otherwise be nothing if not for the ignorance.

In this way the problem of "how does something come from nothing" can be addressed metaphysically: any/all "belief"-based ignorance is just that - something out of nothing that plays itself out over "time". This is more or less predicted by the theorem.

[Eodnhoj7]

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.

This should be obvious to anyone who understands what knowing is and what believing is.

Most would express the following, in their own words, to explain knowing and believing:

Knowing is the acceptance of something as true based on evidence.

Believing is the acceptance of something as true based on nothing.

The CKOIA is indisputably correct but trivial as well.

Thank you - any way to strengthen the argument and/or indicate the triviality of it?

Nothing is nothing, thus it negates itself into being.

Being is perpetual as nothing negates itself as it is beyond being.

Nothing negates being, but being is perpetually generated, thus being turns from one state to many.

There is thus unified being. And non unified being.

Does this in some way falsify the contents of the OP? The somethingness experienced can be whatever a being has "believed" (ie. adopted) of themselves (as a "belief"-based ignorance) such that it plays out over time as "something" that would otherwise be nothing if not for the ignorance.

In this way the problem of "how does something come from nothing" can be addressed metaphysically: any/all "belief"-based ignorance is just that - something out of nothing that plays itself out over "time". This is more or less predicted by the theorem.

My philosophical speciality, which is not a good way of putting it but will do nonetheless, is circularity. I observe cycles within arguments. You can look at the majority of any post or thread I made and see this as present. So that is the angle I am coming from.

First all arguments are true within a context, false outside of them. Context determines truth and when context expands all arguments are simultaneously true and false.


So to your question.

We assume phenomenon, as in we give no thought to them. We assume them in a state of empty mind. This state can be called the sub consciousness or void.

This void cancels itself out into forms. Simply stay still, empty your mind and you will see spontaneous images appear or spontaneous words (like a song is stuck in your head).

This void acts the same way in physics. In a complete vaccuum particles pop in and out spontaneously.

So both the subject void and the empirical void both function the same way. The void negates itself into forms.

Now when you assume something, ie give no thought, an experience makes an imprint on this void by encapsulating it. Your mind is empty but an image takes over, the same with physics. Nature internal and external abhors a vaccuum (this is also why people are attracted to psychopaths).

This form in turn as a whole, is inverted into another form. An experience is changed into a new form. A physical object simultaneously entropies/negentropies. It goes from one state to another state.

So when we assume something we in turn project it out. I assume someone else words and project them as my own. I assume the movements of a basketball player and project them as my own. "My own" being a variation of the original.

So this one form is now inverted into many forms. The original form and the new form. In turn one reassumes and the process continues in a loop.

So void, as ever present cancels itself out into form and/or assumes that form by turning it from one form to many forms. Void voids into being and voids that being into many being with being manifesting continually as void voids itself.

So a belief is a set of assumed patterns. Thoughts, memories, whatever, that are continually recycled in a loop. I believe something because it is repeated in this void, this repitition gives it form and this from allows it to become real subjectively to the individual and/or objectively in the respect it loops through multiple awareness (the group).

Belief is thus a continuum of forms, and it irrational in the respect it is a continuum. Irrationality is good and evil, again based on context. However this beleif acts as a filter of how we assume reality. We believe (loop) certain experiences and in turn this loop acts as a filter for how we assume things.

Looping a mantra of say "poor people need help" vs "poor people are poor because of there own fault" will cause me to assume the experience of a poor person in different ways. As I assume this experience I will automatically project some action (in thought, word and/or deed) to deel with the situation.

Knowing is also a loop as well. When you know something you have no doubts, it is evident for what it is. A beleif, while subject to doubt, is still quite similar.

Assuming assumption is knowing. This cannot be avoided. It make be reworded, but its intrinsic self referencing nature is knowing, it is the nature. Knowing is when something is integrated in your being.

Belief is the the cycling of assumptions and exists through and as "knowing" but is subject to greater change. Belief is the process of it intregrating.





You can view the form as the white on the yin/yang, and the formless as black.

[nothing]

My philosophical speciality, which is not a good way of putting it but will do nonetheless, is circularity. I observe cycles within arguments. You can look at the majority of any post or thread I made and see this as present. So that is the angle I am coming from.

Interesting - I can't help but sense that time-in-and-of-itself is a circle wherein life/death is a single fold (ie. infinity).

First all arguments are true within a context, false outside of them. Context determines truth and when context expands all arguments are simultaneously true and false.

So to your question.

We assume phenomenon, as in we give no thought to them. We assume them in a state of empty mind. This state can be called the sub consciousness or void.

This void cancels itself out into forms. Simply stay still, empty your mind and you will see spontaneous images appear or spontaneous words (like a song is stuck in your head).

This void acts the same way in physics. In a complete vaccuum particles pop in and out spontaneously.

So both the subject void and the empirical void both function the same way. The void negates itself into forms.

Now when you assume something, ie give no thought, an experience makes an imprint on this void by encapsulating it. Your mind is empty but an image takes over, the same with physics. Nature internal and external abhors a vaccuum (this is also why people are attracted to psychopaths).

This form in turn as a whole, is inverted into another form. An experience is changed into a new form. A physical object simultaneously entropies/negentropies. It goes from one state to another state.

So when we assume something we in turn project it out. I assume someone else words and project them as my own. I assume the movements of a basketball player and project them as my own. "My own" being a variation of the original.

So this one form is now inverted into many forms. The original form and the new form. In turn one reassumes and the process continues in a loop.

So void, as ever present cancels itself out into form and/or assumes that form by turning it from one form to many forms. Void voids into being and voids that being into many being with being manifesting continually as void voids itself.

So a belief is a set of assumed patterns. Thoughts, memories, whatever, that are continually recycled in a loop. I believe something because it is repeated in this void, this repitition gives it form and this from allows it to become real subjectively to the individual and/or objectively in the respect it loops through multiple awareness (the group).

This last one struck in me: "belief"-based religions employ the patterns of conduct of dead men who serve as idols for the followers. They use the conduct of the idol to justify their own conduct. This is what I feel true idol worship is, and find "mercy upon mankind" religions to be just this.

Belief is thus a continuum of forms, and it irrational in the respect it is a continuum. Irrationality is good and evil, again based on context. However this beleif acts as a filter of how we assume reality. We believe (loop) certain experiences and in turn this loop acts as a filter for how we assume things.

2- any/all
1- KNOW
0- I am (willing to
4- BELIEVE
3- *not to*

0-1-2-3-4 = I am willing to KNOW any/all *not to* BELIEVE... = Tree of Life
0-4-3-2-1 = I am willing to BELIEVE *not to* any/all KNOW = Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil

I find the former ascending necessarily tends towards any all-knowing god, whereas
the latter descending necessarily tends towards any "belief"-based ignorance(s) including so-called satanic ones.

Does it not hold, then, that to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is to merely "believe" to objectively 'know' either such: to unconsciously (re-)manufacture confusion(s) (ie. a continuum of forms) ad infinitum so long as one is themselves confused (ie. eating / believing to know, rather than knowing any/all not to believe)?

If I can find a way to make this hold, I can develop it into a blockade against any/all "belief"-based theologies that continuously impose themselves on others.

Looping a mantra of say "poor people need help" vs "poor people are poor because of there own fault" will cause me to assume the experience of a poor person in different ways. As I assume this experience I will automatically project some action (in thought, word and/or deed) to deel with the situation.

Knowing is also a loop as well. When you know something you have no doubts, it is evident for what it is. A beleif, while subject to doubt, is still quite similar.

But with knowing certainly comes potentiality to make prediction: the ability to foresee based on knowing the ignorance(s) (ie. pattern(s)) of others. This makes it distinct from "belief"(-based ignorance) as in the way of a cat-and-mouse: for the cat, it is a game, but for the mouse, it is life-or-death. With such a context I hardly see how "belief" is ever more desirable over knowledge (of any/all *not* to "believe").

Can a body of knowledge not be ascertained by way of what one negates, rather than ascribes to? I find myself begging a reconciliation of Jesus' "I am the Truth, the Way and the Life - nobody comes to the Father but by me" as, rather than being a man, a method:

Try it (ie. render a true/false assertion)
Test it (ie. try to falsify it)
Falsification of any/all "belief"-based ignorance tends towards whatever tends to be true (ie. an all-knowing god)

and this obviously calls not for any "belief", but a practical method. I wish for my theorem to prove this: the truth of the way of the living is not a man, it is a method that can be used to falsify any/all that is *not* to ever be "believed" in.

Assuming assumption is knowing. This cannot be avoided. It make be reworded, but its intrinsic self referencing nature is knowing, it is the nature. Knowing is when something is integrated in your being.

Belief is the the cycling of assumptions and exists through and as "knowing" but is subject to greater change. Belief is the process of it intregrating.

It is like the thought experiment that came to me:
if 'that I am' is the universe, and 'I am' is in/of it,
the former can not be inferred unless the latter is known unto/by itself.

Thus 'know thy self' holds and is as universal an axiom as can be: first fundamental knowledge/ignorance is of ones own self.

This is the first precept derived from the theorem.

You can view the form as the white on the yin/yang, and the formless as black.

Can it be viewed as knowledge/of/ignorance ? Does it not take knowledge *of* ignorance to qualify as a first fundamental knowledge?

[Age]

Hello, greetings.

First and forever foremost: let there be peace. This is my first post thus as a forewarning: please forgive the unorthodox style owing to the author having absolutely none.

I am currently working on a theorem that I would love to have falsified (if it can be, it must be). It predicts a:

"belief"-in-and-of-itself / "knowledge"-in-and-itself
primordial antithetical dichotomous dipole singularity-sort-of-thingy (?)
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 (later herein).

I derived it via 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'.
Let there be a being "I" in/of 'that'.
Let 'that' be absolutely unknown: god, no god, satan, no satan, flying spaghetti monster etc. absolutely 'unknown'.
Query: is it possible to infer 'that' if "I" 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 beyond belief-in-and-of-itself. 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 falsified, thus not to be "believed" in, which is a knowledge *as distinct from* belief. This demands a conscious knowledge of ignorance argument I 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).

________
P1 establishes acknowledgement as a viable knowledge (ie. to acknowledge a "belief"-based assertion)
P2 establishes there being a conscious justification process that can be used to try/test/falsify (ie. discover) unknown ignorance(s) (ie. learn)
P3 establishes "belief"-in-and-of-itself as a requirement of any/all "belief"-based ignorance(s)
C establishes a precedent for the conscious knowledge of ignorance: perpetually try any/all belief

This later gave rise to LORI: Laws of Relative Inference:

https://ibb.co/090gbJ2

which predicts a bi-directional eye of a dipole:

2 (any/all)
1 KNOW equivalent: Tree of Life
0 will ^v
4 BELIEVE equivalent: Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil
3 *not to* (negation/falsification)

wherein:

0-1-2-3-4 = tends towards knowledge of any/all "belief"-based ignorance(s) otherwise "believed" in by the unknowing
0-4-3-2-1 = tends towards "belief"-based ignorance(s) lacking knowledge that would otherwise negate "belief" in/of them

which allows me to render the following dichotomous statement:

What the absence of knowledge is to *the presence of* "belief"-based ignorance,
the absence of "belief"-based ignorance is to *the presence of* knowledge.

As a proof of concept of this theorem, it seems to completely undermine any/all "belief"-based theology/ideology as ignorant-in-and-of-itself thus:

0. Try so called satan which is "believed" to exist in some potent way.

What fixed qualities/characteristics might so-called satan have that can be used to infer its inverse to try for a god?
What does it take for a "believer" to "believe" evil is good and/or good is evil (without the need to define them at all)?

(viz. the answer is in the question itself).
Belief.

1. Try the inverse of "belief".

...(absence of) belief? To *not* believe? Unbelief? Disbelief?
If so-called satan requires *belief* would that any/all "believe" evil is good, how does one know what *not* to believe?

(viz. the answer is in the question itself).
Knowledge.

2/3. Try (inv/not) knowing any/all *not* to "believe".

Would any all-knowing god knowingly know so-called satan *requires* belief-in-and-of-itself would that any/all "believers" "believe":
i. evil is good / good is evil (whatever they may or may not be) (ie. confusion)
ii. satan is god / god is satan (whatever they may or may not be) (ie. conflation)
iii. "BELIEF" is in-and-of-itself to be a VIRTUE (it may not necessarily be..?)

Is knowing any/all *not* to "believe" a kind of knowledge-in-and-of-itself?
If so-called satan *requires* belief-in-and-of-itself for potency, can it not be said that any/all negation of (need for) "belief" would render so-called satan absolutely impotent?

(viz. the answer is in the question itself)
belief-in-and-of-itself.

4. Try (to infer) so-called god with an inverse of "belief"-in-and-of-itself as "knowledge"-in-and-of-itself.
What could comprise a knowledge-in-and-of-itself? A body of knowledge of any/all *not* to "believe"?
How might any/all all-knowing god(s) *require* knowledge-in-and-of-itself for potency?
Can it be inferred that what satan is to any/all "belief", any all-knowing (god) is to knowing any/all *not* to "believe"?
Does it take a "believer" to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil such to confuse them?
Would *not* ever "believing" to know good/evil be equivalent to *not* ever eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?
Would this make *not* eating from the tree a knowledge-in-and-of-itself?

And this all lead naturally to the dipole presented:
(+)knowledge/negation/ignorance(-).

their mutual annihilation occurring at a single point (I coin!) the negatron singularity, which I predict is the observable universe at any given time by any given person according to their own knowledge/of/ignorance and/or ignorance/of/knowledge. It predicts that each being is a body if knowledge/ignorance wherein the latter gives rise to the former accordingly.

Thus:
as ignorance increases
(for lacking knowledge *not* to believe),
suffering/death increases.

and

as knowledge increases
(for lacking need of any/all belief)
suffering/death decreases.

Which derives two tentative definitions:

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) immutable (ie. fixed) principles
(attained to in pursuit of the same 'knowledge') immediately serving (as in: temperance) the same body.

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? Can it be improved/re-written?

Thank you to any/all for your considerations,
and lastly but forever foremost: let there be peace.
I believe that world peace is possible because
I know it is certainly possible with such a model
that calls "belief"-in-and-of-itself into question
indefinitely trying it for ignorance, leaving only truth
(whatever it may be - god or no god, satan or no satan,
there is certainly more knowledge to be had).

**EDIT: I made a new graphic that demonstrates the two Edenic trees.

https://ibb.co/hXLknn8

I usually just ask the question; WHY believe or disbelieve any thing?

I neither believe or disbelieve any thing.

I also do not like to assume any thing, but I sometimes do fail at this as I sometimes fall back into the bad habit and have not consciously been aware of making an assumption.

I neither believe or disbelieve any thing so I have NO beliefs because beliefs STOPPED me from being OPEN. I do not like to make assumptions because assumptions prevent me from being OPEN. Being OPEN I found is the best (quickest, simplest, and easiest) way to learn, and only when I am Truly OPEN is when I can see the actual Truth of things. So, I just STOPPED having BELIEFS all together.

I also know how 'world peace' can be created, so like you I KNOW 'world peace' is very possible.

Understanding WHY EVERY one is the way they are leads to what quickly speeds the process up exponentially to actual 'world peace'.

[nothing]

I usually just ask the question; WHY believe or disbelieve any thing?

I neither believe or disbelieve any thing.

I also do not like to assume any thing, but I sometimes do fail at this as I sometimes fall back into the bad habit and have not consciously been aware of making an assumption.

I neither believe or disbelieve any thing so I have NO beliefs because beliefs STOPPED me from being OPEN. I do not like to make assumptions because assumptions prevent me from being OPEN. Being OPEN I found is the best (quickest, simplest, and easiest) way to learn, and only when I am Truly OPEN is when I can see the actual Truth of things. So, I just STOPPED having BELIEFS all together.

I also know how 'world peace' can be created, so like you I KNOW 'world peace' is very possible.

Understanding WHY EVERY one is the way they are leads to what quickly speeds the process up exponentially to actual 'world peace'.

I think it is true that "beliefs" are boundary conditions that can erode ones sense of (free) will. It is predicted by the theorem:

Suppose free will "exists" but is not necessarily "available" (to any/all) based on ones own self-imposed boundary conditions (ie. "beliefs").
So suppose an individual "believes" a, b, and c (which all impose a boundary conditions governing their own will) such that they begin to "believe" that they do not themselves have free will! This all relates to the conscious knowledge of ignorance: if one is ignorant of any/all self-imposed boundary conditions (ie. "beliefs") one is necessarily ignorant of their own will.

Can I ask any/all generally: does the theorem have enough strength to continue pursuing? Any other feedback or suggestions? It would be greatly appreciated (trying for a research grant).

[Age]

I usually just ask the question; WHY believe or disbelieve any thing?

I neither believe or disbelieve any thing.

I also do not like to assume any thing, but I sometimes do fail at this as I sometimes fall back into the bad habit and have not consciously been aware of making an assumption.

I neither believe or disbelieve any thing so I have NO beliefs because beliefs STOPPED me from being OPEN. I do not like to make assumptions because assumptions prevent me from being OPEN. Being OPEN I found is the best (quickest, simplest, and easiest) way to learn, and only when I am Truly OPEN is when I can see the actual Truth of things. So, I just STOPPED having BELIEFS all together.

I also know how 'world peace' can be created, so like you I KNOW 'world peace' is very possible.

Understanding WHY EVERY one is the way they are leads to what quickly speeds the process up exponentially to actual 'world peace'.

I think it is true that "beliefs" are boundary conditions that can erode ones sense of (free) will. It is predicted by the theorem:

Suppose free will "exists" but is not necessarily "available" (to any/all) based on ones own self-imposed boundary conditions (ie. "beliefs").
So suppose an individual "believes" a, b, and c (which all impose a boundary conditions governing their own will) such that they begin to "believe" that they do not themselves have free will! This all relates to the conscious knowledge of ignorance: if one is ignorant of any/all self-imposed boundary conditions (ie. "beliefs") one is necessarily ignorant of their own will.

To me, EVERY one has 'free will' EQUALLY as being 'deterministic' also. To me, 'free will' is just having the freedom to choose. However, the choices are limited or determined by one's pre-existing thoughts.

Can I ask any/all generally: does the theorem have enough strength to continue pursuing? Any other feedback or suggestions? It would be greatly appreciated (trying for a research grant).

Any thing that is seriously being done for PEACE is worth pursuing.

[surreptitious57]

Suppose free will exists but is not necessarily available [ to any / all ] based on ones own self imposed boundary conditions [ ie beliefs ]

Free will is the ability to choose between any alternative position that exists outside of any self imposed boundary conditions
Everyone has such conditions so while free will is restricted by them it is still something that can be exercised to some degree

The greater the self imposed boundary conditions the lesser the free will will be
The lesser the self imposed boundary conditions the greater the free will will be

[nothing]

Free will is the ability to choose between any alternative position that exists outside of any self imposed boundary conditions
Everyone has such conditions so while free will is restricted by them it is still something that can be exercised to some degree

Does free will not imply the absence of such boundaries? As in: what chicken is to absence of boundary, egg is to boundary. Are they not the same, just transformations of one another?

For example, can it be said that any being is defined by his/her own boundaries/limitations? If so, the expression of 'will' would be limited accordingly, like a colored lampshade over an otherwise white light. If a discernment arises such that a being *transcends* a previous limitation (making accessible "more free" will), can it be said that it has something to do with the attaining (to) knowledge? If so, the person can be defined by their willingness to overcome/negate boundaries, which demands that they first have a conscious knowledge of them. If this is sound, it begs a consideration of free will naturally being "without boundary" and else being bound accordingly.

If that holds, then the kaballistic designation ein soph aur (un-ending light) as the basis of existence holds as well: if all is light, and the source of it is un-ending, any/all 'state' less un-ending light has boundaries associated with it, which defines that 'thing' in/of itself. If so, that has huge implications for the need to identify with limitations/ignorance(s) rather than what one "believes" to know, and leaving such to an indefinite state.

Apologies for thinking out loud - thank you for the spark.

The greater the self imposed boundary conditions the lesser the free will will be
The lesser the self imposed boundary conditions the greater the free will will be

It's rendered well and sound - can not see this ever being falsified. Will you (and others) try:

Any/all knowing is attainable by way of indefinitely trying any/all "belief", but
not any/all "belief" is attained to by way of indefinitely trying to know any/all.
________________________________________________________________________
knowing - as it ultimately pertains to any/all *not* to "believe" for being 'known' untrue/false/ignorant
trying - attempting by any means to consciously falsify (ie. justify) any/all "belief"

Can this assertion be falsified in any way, or does it seem to hold? If it holds, it defeats:

All knowing is belief, but not all belief is knowing.

as neglecting the trial of any/all "belief" as a knowledge-in-and-of-itself. It is what gave rise to the entire theorem: conscious knowledge of ignorance. That knowledge of ignorance is a knowledge absent any/all "belief" because... that is the ultimate ends towards what knowledge itself serves: the negation of (need for) any/all belief, which is subject to ignorance(s) and degree(s) of uncertainty.

How can any/all knowing be "belief" if knowing serves towards knowing any/all *not* to "believe"? It's absurd: like saying all yang is yin. They are opposites: one negates the other!

belief - defined as containing one (or more) degrees of uncertainty, though (can be) consciously justified as 'true'
knowledge - defined as containing no degrees of uncertainty

Can one not 'know' of their own ignorance? It would take a "believer" to "believe" they have *not* any ignorance(s), would it not? See this is where the problem of the two trees comes in: no conscious knowledge of ignorance is ignorance-in-and-of-itself, leading to any/all manner of "belief"-based ignorance causing suffering and death.

belief-in-and-of-itself = required by so-called satan to confuse good and evil
knowledge-in-and-of-itself = required by so-called god to 'know' good and evil is invariably confused by "belief"-based satan
ignorance-in-and-of-itself = no conscious knowledge of (ones own) ignorance(s) due to "belief"(-based satan)

Please continue to pick apart if anything is lacking: I don't take personally.

[commonsense]

(As an aside, my preference would be to use the word, “testing”, where you have used “trying”.)

[nothing]

(As an aside, my preference would be to use the word, “testing”, where you have used “trying”.)

It's a good point to make: the theorem takes "trying" and "testing" as the same overall function (despite being distinct operatives) - like a teeter-totter of give/take between trying/testing.

It may be difficult to discern from LORI:

https://ibb.co/090gbJ2

wherein:
0 = unknown from unknown is impossible
1 = any knowledge of any fixed characteristic(s) of any member(s) of any possible dichotomous relationship(s)
2 = inference of any/all inverse(s) of any/all fixed characteristic(s) of 1
3 = inference of antitheses of 2 to be tried/tested as 4 against 1
4 = trying/testing for antithesis of 1

actually maps onto:
0- I am willing to... <-* (un)conscious being
1- KNOW <-* TREE OF LIVING
2- (any/all) <-* infinitude/boundlessness
3- *not to* <-* negation
4- BELIEVE <-* TREE OF KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL

wherein 2-3 (any/all *not to*) and 4-1 (BELIEF to KNOW) both perpetually serve towards attaining to knowledge while simultaneously trying/testing belief such to turn the latter into the former - the very thing being tried/tested (ie. belief) becomes knowledge. Therefor trying/testing is shuffled back-and-forth as if one cohesive operation serving towards the same end.

rendering:
TREE OF LIVING - any/all *not to* BELIEVE into/as KNOWLEDGE
(ie. a negation (-) of belief (+) into knowledge)
TREE OF KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL - KNOW any/all *not to* BELIEVE
(ie. a belief (+) as knowledge (-) into suffering...)

They seem to theoretically have the capacity to serve one another ad infinitum:
as one eats from the tree of living, they negate any/all "belief"-based ignorance(s), while
as one eats from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, they gain knowledge of any/all *not* to "believe"
which reaffirms the prediction of the theorem:

| Any/all knowing is by way of indefinitely trying all belief, but | <-*conscious knowledge
| any/all belief is not by way of indefinitely trying to know all. | <-*of ignorance

wherein trying any/all belief is a knowledge-in-and-of-itself
which is an inverted counterpart to belief-in-and-of-itself,
which derives ignorance-in-and-of-itself as:
no conscious knowledge of possible ignorance(s) pertaining to any/all "belief".

This is where human hubris/ego would certainly enter the picture, thus the problem can not be worked down any further than here.

https://ibb.co/3dG6Sk7

And the "belief"-based ideologies spill blood over books and idols not realizing their own ignorance.

[upsurgent]

Query: is it possible to infer 'that I am' if: "I am" is *also* unknown unto *itself?

No it is not possible. Non-Self-Consciousness simply is not self-conscious.

Self-consciousness is a reflection infinitely reflecting off of/upon itself across a distance/hiatus which is nothingness via which/whereby reflecting consciousness gains room, distance, perspective, from which to reflectively see/apprehend itself. (Being and Nothingness, J.P. Sartre, 1943; and, The Transcendence of the Ego, J.P. Sartre, 1936).
Duane

[upsurgent]

"Start with nothingness."

No, incorrect; i.e., nothingness is not originative ground of concrete being; rather, nothingness upsurges from the negation of concrete being. (See Being and Nothingness, J.P. Sartre, 1943).

Concrete being is prior to nothing/nothingness. See Martin Heidegger's Being and Time, 1927, wherein he states: "Being lies coiled like a worm with nothing at its heart."

Self-consciousness upsurges as an introduction of nothing into the heart of being; Sartre and Heidegger both posit nothing arising from negation of concrete being. You and I are that nothing, that hiatus...you and I are an empty stage whereupon/whereby being appears (Heidegger)...and, man speaks being, i.e., you and I speak/describe the concrete being/beings which appear upon the empty stage that is our consciousness...
Duane