The Unavoidability of Belief within Reason

[Skepdick]

That is what I said

You didn't.

What you said was:

All assertions are true as existing.

2+2=5 is an assertion of equality between "2+2" and "5".

The assertion 2+2=5 exists. It's not true in any context.

[Eodnhoj7]

That is what I said

You didn't.

What you said was:

All assertions are true as existing.

2+2=5 is an assertion of equality between "2+2" and "5

Then what I should have said "all assertions as existing contain elements of truth, if it exists then elements of truth are inherent.

[nothing]

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.

Belief is evidence of nothing but an absence: of knowledge.

You are too narrow, shallow and off target on the above.

What is held to be true lies on a continuum of truths from .01/100 to 99.99/100 and each of the below has its own range of degrees of objectivity.

Expressed another way:

BELIEF: one or more degrees of relative uncertainty.
KNOWLEDGE: no degrees of relative uncertainty.

Belief first-and-foremost concerns what one believes themselves to be, thus
knowledge first-and-foremost concerns what one knows not to believe themselves to be.

Belief is the displacement factor concerning any otherwise all-knowing state, god-or-no-god.

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.

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.

Faith is not necessarily grounding, often it is not grounded at all - that is the problem: imagined roots = imaginary fruits.
Knowledge is both necessarily grounding because it is grounded by necessity in real roots = real fruits (hence: knowledge).

Round-about to the two Edenic trees again: knowledge and belief, wherein
it takes a "believer" to "believe" the opposite of what is true. Knowledge
must reconcile any such conflation/confusion.

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

It is possible to believe in possibilities one knows are possible, however knowledge precedes faith, not the other way around.
If the other way around, the "faithful" one is rooted in something imaginary rather than real.

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 need both a datum and some object/subject to measure.
All measurements rely on a datum, thus the choosing of the datum
is wholly integral to any/all roots, including of the one measuring.

If one acknowledges space and time as multiplicative reciprocal aspects of motion:
v = s/t as velocity
e = t/s as energy
{s³/t ↔ s²/t² ↔ t³/s}
{physical / metaphysical}
one finds that velocity and energy are both expressions of the same: motion.
Thus motion is the variable subject, we now need a fixed "object" all motion concerns.

Let the speed of light c be 1, and let c both implicitly and explicitly concern unity such
that all physical phenomena are particular displacements from unity, expressed in/as motion.

Now we need space and time, your 1D yang (lines) and your 2D yin (loops).
Requires correction of π from the approximated 3.14159... to being in integer relation to Φ via 4/√Φ:



Φπ² = 16
Φ⁰ = 2π/2π = 1
Φ¹ = (π+π√5)/2π
Φ² = (3π+π√5)/2π
Φ³ = ((3π+π√5) + (π+π√5))/2π
1 = ((3π+π√5) - (π+π√5))/2π
1, Φ³ = ((3π+π√5) ± (π+π√5))/2π

Φ = radial, linear, electric, 1D
π² = orbital, circumferential, magnetic, 2D

that they equal 16 (4x4 matrix or 4 sets of homogeneous coordinates) cannot be a coincidence.

The boundaries are the progression (+1) and gravitation (-1) on the REAL number line.
2⁰ = 1: progression (outward motion in all dimensions)
2¹ = 2: apparent polarity of space and time
2² = 4: speed ranges: 1 ("speed of light"), 1-x, 2-x, 3-x
2³ = 8: gravity (inward motion in 3 dimensions)

Now the physical/metaphysical can be bridged by a real/imaginary axes:


π as x⁴ + 16x² = 256 captures all time in relation to
Φ as x² - x = 1 such to concern (or not) unity.

Circling back to "belief" and "knowledge" if one "believes" themselves to be something they are not,
and/or anything that is not necessarily true, they are effectively going around in circles (hence: loopy) in time.
Thus if one begins with acknowledging they do not know, the possibility of knowing is present.
If/as one "believes" something to be certain, yet they are wrong, death becomes a "matter" of "time".
At unity there is no displacement: photons do not move relative to displaced bodies, they can only spin
and are spun according to the constituency of the impetus (ie. "belief") of the body(s) concerned.

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.

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

Mostly upside-down. Try:

Given belief as a static process, the necessity of knowledge lies within the premises which grounds it (to reality). The premises are actual. Knowledge is thus a falsification of imaginary belief through time, where what is believed is a state of past events not fully acknowledged yet rooted as seeds as the premises which give root to any present/future suffering.

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

There is a methodology that can be used to ever-approach the cessation of all form and manner of suffering:

TRUTH-by-WAY-of-NEGATION
to:
o. ...ad infinitum... consciously acknowledge all BELIEF(s)
i. to TRY both: to and not to BELIEVE
ii. to TEST both: true and/or not (necessarily)
iii. to FALSIFY all BELIEF(s) NOT (necessarily) TRUE
...ad infinitum ...

The to and not (to believe) concerns a universal null-boundary binary all+/-not, hence
the alpha/omega/beg/end composes the '4' of 4/√Φ and 4-of-5 in-and-of √5, the remaining √1
the sole discretion of the body as it concerns unity (or not) as displaced.



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

[Skepdick]

Then what I should have said "all assertions as existing contain elements of truth, if it exists then elements of truth are inherent.

100000 truths and 1 falsity does not a tautology make. Because there is one interpretation in which doesn't satisfy the truth-condition.

[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.

Belief is evidence of nothing but an absence: of knowledge.

You are too narrow, shallow and off target on the above.

What is held to be true lies on a continuum of truths from .01/100 to 99.99/100 and each of the below has its own range of degrees of objectivity.

Expressed another way:

BELIEF: one or more degrees of relative uncertainty.
KNOWLEDGE: no degrees of relative uncertainty.

Belief first-and-foremost concerns what one believes themselves to be, thus
knowledge first-and-foremost concerns what one knows not to believe themselves to be.

Belief is the displacement factor concerning any otherwise all-knowing state, god-or-no-god.

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.

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.

Faith is not necessarily grounding, often it is not grounded at all - that is the problem: imagined roots = imaginary fruits.
Knowledge is both necessarily grounding because it is grounded by necessity in real roots = real fruits (hence: knowledge).

Round-about to the two Edenic trees again: knowledge and belief, wherein
it takes a "believer" to "believe" the opposite of what is true. Knowledge
must reconcile any such conflation/confusion.

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

It is possible to believe in possibilities one knows are possible, however knowledge precedes faith, not the other way around.
If the other way around, the "faithful" one is rooted in something imaginary rather than real.

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 need both a datum and some object/subject to measure.
All measurements rely on a datum, thus the choosing of the datum
is wholly integral to any/all roots, including of the one measuring.

If one acknowledges space and time as multiplicative reciprocal aspects of motion:
v = s/t as velocity
e = t/s as energy
{s³/t ↔ s²/t² ↔ t³/s}
{physical / metaphysical}
one finds that velocity and energy are both expressions of the same: motion.
Thus motion is the variable subject, we now need a fixed "object" all motion concerns.

Let the speed of light c be 1, and let c both implicitly and explicitly concern unity such
that all physical phenomena are particular displacements from unity, expressed in/as motion.

Now we need space and time, your 1D yang (lines) and your 2D yin (loops).
Requires correction of π from the approximated 3.14159... to being in integer relation to Φ via 4/√Φ:



Φπ² = 16
Φ⁰ = 2π/2π = 1
Φ¹ = (π+π√5)/2π
Φ² = (3π+π√5)/2π
Φ³ = ((3π+π√5) + (π+π√5))/2π
1 = ((3π+π√5) - (π+π√5))/2π
1, Φ³ = ((3π+π√5) ± (π+π√5))/2π

Φ = radial, linear, electric, 1D
π² = orbital, circumferential, magnetic, 2D

that they equal 16 (4x4 matrix or 4 sets of homogeneous coordinates) cannot be a coincidence.

The boundaries are the progression (+1) and gravitation (-1) on the REAL number line.
2⁰ = 1: progression (outward motion in all dimensions)
2¹ = 2: apparent polarity of space and time
2² = 4: speed ranges: 1 ("speed of light"), 1-x, 2-x, 3-x
2³ = 8: gravity (inward motion in 3 dimensions)

Now the physical/metaphysical can be bridged by a real/imaginary axes:


π as x⁴ + 16x² = 256 captures all time in relation to
Φ as x² - x = 1 such to concern (or not) unity.

Circling back to "belief" and "knowledge" if one "believes" themselves to be something they are not,
and/or anything that is not necessarily true, they are effectively going around in circles (hence: loopy) in time.
Thus if one begins with acknowledging they do not know, the possibility of knowing is present.
If/as one "believes" something to be certain, yet they are wrong, death becomes a "matter" of "time".
At unity there is no displacement: photons do not move relative to displaced bodies, they can only spin
are are spun according to the constituency of the impetus (ie. "belief") of the body(s) concerned.

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.

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

Mostly upside-down. Try:

Given belief as a static process, the necessity of knowledge lies within the premises which grounds it (to reality). The premises are actual. Knowledge is thus a falsification of imaginary belief through time, where what is believed is a state of past events not fully acknowledged yet rooted as seeds as the premises which give root to any present/future suffering.

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

There is a methodology that can be used to ever-approach the cessation of all form and manner of suffering:

TRUTH-by-WAY-of-NEGATION
to:
o. ...ad infinitum... consciously acknowledge all BELIEF(s)
i. to TRY both: to and not to BELIEVE
ii. to TEST both: true and/or not (necessarily)
iii. to FALSIFY all BELIEF(s) NOT (necessarily) TRUE
...ad infinitum ...

The to and not (to believe) concerns a universal null-boundary binary all+/-not, hence
the alpha/omega/beg/end composes the '4' of 4/√Φ and 4-of-5 in-and-of √5, the remaining √1
the sole discretion of the body as it concerns unity (or not) as displaced.



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

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.

[Eodnhoj7]

Then what I should have said "all assertions as existing contain elements of truth, if it exists then elements of truth are inherent.

100000 truths and 1 falsity does not a tautology make. Because there is one interpretation in which doesn't satisfy the truth-condition.

A tautology is the same thing expressed in a variety of ways. This variation necessitates all differences as having an underlying common bond. This common bond is a universal truth value.

2+2=5 is false, but it is true as an incomplete statement made of truth values. 2+2=5 is incomplete, as 2z+2z=5 it is true. The truth condition is universal where all phenomenon are variations of a single phenomena.

[Skepdick]

2+2=5 is false, but it is true....

The "but" should give it away - it's not a tautology.

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

If you find an interpretation/context in which it's false - then it's not a tautology.

[Eodnhoj7]

2+2=5 is false, but it is true....

Yes. That's NOT a tautology.

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

And it is true as having underlying truth values which composed it. There is no strict logical tautology which is always true in every possible interpretation. 2+2=4 is false if one is counting 5 oranges. The expansion of context is the expansion of truth values. 2+2=5 is correct as incomplete thus a truth value is manifest even in a contradiction.

Second, you are diverting the definition of tautology as it is not limited to logic. A tautology is the same thing expressed in a variety of ways.




2+2=5 is not "true in every possible interpretation".

Therefore it's not a tautology.

Neither is 2+2=4 if one is counting 2 and 3 objects. There is a possible truthful interpretation for everything including contradictions. Falsifiability is not universally possible for everything.

[Skepdick]

And it is true as having underlying truth values which composed it. There is no strict logical tautology which is always true in every possible interpretation.

And that's the crux with all language/logic. There is stuff that is always implicit.

If you expect language/logic to be explicit - you are smoking your socks.

Symbols don't have any meaning except by convention.

[Eodnhoj7]

And it is true as having underlying truth values which composed it. There is no strict logical tautology which is always true in every possible interpretation.

And that's the crux with all language/logic. There is stuff that is always implicit.

Then under your definition of tautology, by default, no truth value exists, yet this is a truth value, therefore you contradict yourself. Unless acknowledging a common underlying bond for all truth values, a tautology ceases to exist even as a definition.

If you expect language/logic to be explicit - you are smoking your socks.

Symbols don't have any meaning except by convention.

And this convention is grounded in one thing expressed in a variety of ways.

[Skepdick]

Then under your definition of tautology, by default, no truth value exists, yet this is a truth value, therefore you contradict yourself. Unless acknowledging a common underlying bond for all truth values, a tautology ceases to exist even as a definition.

I don't contradict myself because contradictions don't exist either. Except by definition. Just like truth.

And this convention is grounded in one thing expressed in a variety of ways.

It's expressed however it is expressed.

[Eodnhoj7]

Then under your definition of tautology, by default, no truth value exists, yet this is a truth value, therefore you contradict yourself. Unless acknowledging a common underlying bond for all truth values, a tautology ceases to exist even as a definition.

I don't contradict myself because contradictions don't exist either.

Then 2+2=5 even though you say it doesn't. Your whole position is fragmented.

And this convention is grounded in one thing expressed in a variety of ways.

It's expressed however it is expressed.

Then all expression has truth value, yet no truth value exists according to you.

[Skepdick]

Then 2+2=5 even though you say it doesn't. Your whole position is fragmented.

It's not fragmented. It's contextualised.

In the context of arithmetic "truth" is defined. 2+2=5 is false.

Then all expression has truth value, yet no truth value exists according to you.

It does? Says who?

Truth doesn't does exist as false. Up is down. Cats can fly to the moon.

I can say whatever I want when I am not burdened by rules or obligations. Which authority is going to stop me from saying such things?

[Eodnhoj7]

Then 2+2=5 even though you say it doesn't. Your whole position is fragmented.

It's not fragmented. It's contextualised.

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.

In arithmetic "truth" is defined.

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

Then all expression has truth value, yet no truth value exists according to you.

So what? I can say whatever I want when I am not burdened by rules.

Truth doesn't does exist as false. Up is down. Cats can fly to the moon.

Which authority is going to stop me?

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

[Veritas Aequitas]

The grounding of your premises is in a consensus, thus a fallacy.

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.