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:
This gave rise to a component to the theorem: The Relative Infra-Inference Problem-Postulate (TRIIPP)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*?
that serves as a principle for LORI: Law of Relative Inference
which begs that there be a serious reconsideration of:It is impossible to infer an unknown by way of another unknown.
to:All knowing is belief, but not all belief is knowing.
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:All knowing is by way of indefinitely trying all belief, but
not all belief is by way of indefinitely trying to know all.
________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:
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: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.
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:
to be further begging of a modification of belief:All knowing is belief, but not all belief is knowing.
And this would certainly collapse any/all "belief"-based ideologies as being necessarily ignorant. Which finally brings me to ask:All belief is ignorance, but not all ignorance is belief.
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