A Pro Theory view of history

[ProKeymaster]

A Pro Theory view of history

SeanTheLight – ‘A protheory view of history?’

The problem I have with accepting the 3 possibilities statement, is that there are certainties in this existence. Once an event has occurred, there no longer seems to be the possibility that something other than that occurred instead of what actually happened. (changing a past event).

In the present, it is possible to convince others that something else has happened, if time is cyclical, you can act differently the next time you come to that time, but so far as I know, we cannot change the past event itself.I would like more information on this topic.

Pro – ‘Re: A protheory view of history?’

Hi Sean, sorry I’m so late in replying to this. First off on a human level I see your point but on a Pro theory level my response would be to say to your statement there are certainties in this existence would be to say “there are certainties in this existence but there are also simultaneously not certainties in this existence plus neutral.”

This is my stock response to this kind of question.Having said this I still hold to certainties in my every day life, I start work at 8am no matter what Pro theory proposes 😉 The context is always important and here the context is a question about Pro theory so I’ll answer it in the right way. It’s difficult for me to explain that I live a normal life outside of my ideas and videos, I don’t talk in threes all day, I just think and see things in threes.

I have normal conversations with people, I moan about the cold, talk about history and many other things. This is part of any person’s usual life but we have to realise I think that we make a choice not to talk and act as literally as Pro theory suggests.I mean let’s say something like [I]The second world war ended in 1945, is this a certainty?[/I] You and I know full well that this is certain, it’s beyond question and doubt.

The difference is simply that when we’re talking in TOE methods and principles we account for the opposite to my statement about WW2 and we also define a neutral reality in-between the fact of it either being certain or not that the war ended back in 45.Just because something is ‘certain’ doesn’t ever mean that you cannot have a theoretical opposite and neutral potential associated with it. I know it’s far out, pedantic and seemingly stupid to think and talk like this but if we want a TOE we need to be this pedantic and this literal.

I’ve said before that my name is Pro but I never say to folks I meet in the street ‘hey, my name’s Pro, but it also theoretically isn’t plus neutral…’ I live the singular life like everybody else but again it comes down to context, I have a Pro theory (TOE) mindset or persona, a work persona, a social persona, and I act accordingly.

If I’m in a history class I don’t dispute every single fact by saying the opposite and neutral potential stuff as it’s just not appropriate to the situaton. When I’m on my YouTube account or this forum I’m talking in TOE mode and so I will take the potentials thing to its extreme to show how it works. Basically certainties are a choice, you choose to see something as singular, or you choose to see something as Pro theory sees it and things get plural. What things interest you the most in history? History was my favourite subject growing up and I’m always interested in a discussion :thumbup:

SeanTheLight – ‘Re: A protheory view of history?’

Do the negative and neutral potentials continue on when a certainty has been reached? If so, why have we not previously identified them? My interest in history is based mostly on my desired actions and outcome at a given time. Currently I am researching the separation/invasion of Judaism by Khazars, and history of religion in general.

Pro – ‘Re: A protheory view of history?’

The negative and neutral potentials do continue when we reach a certainty yes, they work or exist in the background as it were.

The reason for this is simple enough, even though we may be aware of opposites and neutral occurrences such as the doldrums, or the middle of a stream, or the state of balance that tight rope walkers achieve, it makes no practical sense to constantly account for them. In fact I’d go so far as to say it’s actively impractical to do so. If for example I were an engineer following Pro theory’s reasoning I’d never build anything. I’d always be saying ‘so this girder will hold the floor, but it also might not…’

Imagine if everybody everywhere spoke in threes all the time. If we had to say three answers for every question: How are you today? ‘I’m ok, not ok, and neutral, how are you, aren’t you, plus neutral?’ :p Anyway, this level of accuracy is not generally necessary in what we know as everyday life, it’s not helpful really and so it’s ignored and we only use the opposites don’t we, we have certainty and uncertainty, up and down, wet and dry, sweet and sour etcetera.

Importantly however, just because we choose not to speak or think of these three potentials all the time, this never stops the possibility for the potentials! I can always introduce the opposite and neutral potentials whenever I choose to do so by saying something like ‘The battle of Hastings occurred in 1066, didn’t occur in 1066, and neutral.’

This is a bit of a rough way of putting things here by me but it’s the best I can do for now 🙂 What you’re studying sounds interesting, I’m not familiar with Khazars, how do they fit into the story of Judaism? Religion interests me a great deal, as does history.

SeanTheLight – ‘Re: A protheory view of history?’

If something happened in 1066, it no longer seems possible that it did not happen in 1066. It can be ignored, or hidden, but not changed. The accuracy of the statements then is relative to actual events. If actual events do not support one of the 3 possibilities, that possibility has no chance of occurring.

Without a chance of occurrence, the possibility no longer can manifest.Can protheory support itself while adhering to the definitions of words?regarding Khazars: I was not there, so I know only what different sides claim. Khazar was a kingdom that converted to Judaism. It is believed that it is the Khazar influence and not the Hebrew, that has brought forward things like “the holocaust”, Zionism, Israel, international banking, etc. It is something I would suggest one researched for themselves.

Pro – ‘Re: A protheory view of history?’

The negative and neutral potentials do continue when we reach a certainty yes, they work or exist in the background as it were. The reason for this is simple enough, even though we may be aware of opposites and neutral occurrences such as the doldrums, or the middle of a stream, or the state of balance that tight rope walkers achieve, it makes no practical sense to constantly account for them. In fact I’d go so far as to say it’s actively impractical to do so.

If for example I were an engineer following Pro theory’s reasoning I’d never build anything. I’d always be saying ‘so this girder will hold the floor, but it also might not…’ Imagine if everybody everywhere spoke in threes all the time. If we had to say three answers for every question: How are you today? ‘I’m ok, not ok, and neutral, how are you, aren’t you, plus neutral?’ :p

Anyway, this level of accuracy is not generally necessary in what we know as everyday life, it’s not helpful really and so it’s ignored and we only use the opposites don’t we, we have certainty and uncertainty, up and down, wet and dry, sweet and sour etcetera. Importantly however, just because we choose not to speak or think of these three potentials all the time, this never stops the possibility for the potentials!

I can always introduce the opposite and neutral potentials whenever I choose to do so by saying something like ‘The battle of Hastings occurred in 1066, didn’t occur in 1066, and neutral.’ This is a bit of a rough way of putting things here by me but it’s the best I can do for now 🙂 What you’re studying sounds interesting, I’m not familiar with Khazars, how do they fit into the story of Judaism? Religion interests me a great deal, as does history.

SeanTheLight – ‘Re: A protheory view of history?’

If something happened in 1066, it no longer seems possible that it did not happen in 1066. It can be ignored, or hidden, but not changed. The accuracy of the statements then is relative to actual events. If actual events do not support one of the 3 possibilities, that possibility has no chance of occurring.

SeanTheLight – ‘Re: A protheory view of history?’

Further, if protheory can describe everything in varying accuracies, it is true but not applicable. I find it similar to saying “everything is nothing”. It may be true, and explain some things more accurately than others, but for those instances it does not apply accurately (my hand does not pass through a brick wall) it fails as a tool to describe our environment (or is only a partial explanation, with further rules needing to be included).

[Author]

Posts