Is This A Question?

[ProKeymaster]

Is This A Question?

Pro – ‘Re: Is This A Question?

[quote=SeanTheLight;698]Can you meet the requirements for each of your 3 potentials to be true with a defined subject? “Is this a question?” Using the noun “this” implies a known subject, otherwise “this” can be any thing at all and still be accurate. Since the subject is assumed to be known, then it has a value of true or false relative to the subject. If I point at a question written on the blackboard and say “Is this a question?”, then yes it is.

If I then point at almost any random object, and ask again “Is this a question?”, then no, that subject is not. Having left the subject as “this”, leaves an unknowable state unless the originator lets us know the subject, or we are able to infer it from the information available. As I understand it, an unknowable state is not true or false.[/quote]

Yes, an unknowable state would seem to imply that it’s neither knowable as 100% positive or negative as with Schroedinger’s Cat etc. It just means I think that it’s not definite or finite or anything at all because we can’t know it so it’s ultimately neutral.

This is of course going along with the general premise that ‘to know’ means, reasonably at least, to ‘know if a thing exists or not’ or ‘to know if a thing or situation is true or false…’ When we have no way of knowing anything we have no way of saying or proving that a thing is more one opposite than the other, like this emoticon, constantly in flux.

As I think I wrote in the posts above the original answer to the title of this topic was “only if this is the answer” or so my friend informed me. Not a bad answer really, and although I treat this question in my usual three pronged manner I still like this answer as well.

TriPower – ‘Re: Is This A Question?’

[quote=SeanTheLight] Having left the subject as “this”, leaves an unknowable state unless the originator lets us know the subject, or we are able to infer it from the information available. As I understand it, an unknowable state is not true or false.[/quote]

In this case the unknowable/indeterminate state of “X” is in the state of neutrality where both – X and – (-X) apply. Let X = “Is this a Question?” X or -X?- X (not the case true – no proof subject)-(-X) (not the case false – no proof subject) OR= -(T) ^ – (-T)= -T ^ T= 0.

SeanTheLight – ‘Re: Is This A Question?’

Can you meet the requirements for each of your 3 potentials to be true with a defined subject? Is this a question? Using the noun “this” implies a known subject, otherwise “this” can be any thing at all and still be accurate.

Since the subject is assumed to be known, then it has a value of true or false relative to the subject. If I point at a question written on the blackboard and say “Is this a question?”, then yes it is.

If I then point at almost any random object, and ask again “Is this a question?”, then no, that subject is not. Having left the subject as “this”, leaves an unknowable state unless the originator lets us know the subject, or we are able to infer it from the information available. As I understand it, an unknowable state is not true or false.

SeanTheLight – ‘Re: Is This A Question?’

The line of reasoning that leads to the answer “Only if this is the answer” seems to me more truthfully answered by stating “Only if that question itself was it’s subject”.

Why leave the subject “this” as arbitrary, without defining it as neutral? It seems to intentionally ignore perspective.

SeanTheLight – ‘Re: Is This A Question?’

[quote=Pro;704]It just means I think that it’s not definite or finite or anything at all because we can’t know it so it’s ultimately neutral.

This is of course going along with the general premise that ‘to know’ means, reasonably at least, to ‘know if a thing exists or not’ or ‘to know if a thing or situation is true or false…’

When we have no way of knowing anything we have no way of saying or proving that a thing is more one opposite than the other, like this emoticon, constantly in flux.[/quote]

I may have missed your statement the first time through. If “Is this a question” is neutral, how is it also positive and negative? Which got me to thinking…If something is provable as unchangeably positive or negative (for instance, something that has already happened), does it still have the potential for positive, negative, and neutral?

Pro – ‘Re: Is This A Question?’

[quote=SeanTheLight;706]I may have missed your statement the first time through.If “Is this a question” is neutral, how is it also positive and negative? Which got me to thinking…If something is provable as unchangeably positive or negative (for instance, something that has already happened), does it still have the potential for positive, negative, and neutral?[/quote]

That’s a good question as it seems like I’ve said it’s only neutral. I don’t mean it’s 100% unchangingly neutral as such, just that to all reasonable and general purposes its potential is neutral or undecidable.

This question can theoretically be positive, negative and importantly neutral simultaneously. There’s a couple of ways to get into this I think. First off I didn’t mean that the answer was 100% neutral, meaning specifically that I don’t discount the possibility (no matter how arbitrary) for an opposite and neutral potential to everything.

All questions included. In this case an opposite would be not-neutral as we’re talking about neutrality.Secondly, neutrality is the point between opposites and so it could conceivably go either way, like a game of football started from the half way line, either side (either opposite) could win but they couldn’t really say “we are the unchangingly best team in the world” because they won’t live forever and also things can change.

I’m not making clear points here, sorry :pMy original answers to the ‘question’ Is this a question? were as follows:This is a question.This is not a question.This is neutral.Simultaneously.All I’m saying is that there is not really any method of proving anything as an unchanging singularity, no matter what the question is. This kind of thinking has many implications and people press me for qualifications (degrees etc) and ask me to ‘prove’ my theory singularly all the time on YouTube.

I get a lot of general “you obviously don’t know anything about physics and mathematics…” comments on my videos but this isn’t really important to me any more. I’ve just got an idea, it’s open and free for everybody to debate. I’ve been watching a lot of debunking footage of psychics and magicians today as I’ve been rained off work and it comes down to a test.This theory if it is a TOE must literally be able to explain everything, no matter what it is.

It must never fail (which is singular) and it must simultaneously take account of past, present and future, mathematics, physics, paradoxes, evolution and everything else.The trouble is that when I say these things people say “ok, so what about this math problem then? Ha!” and when I reply with three potentials they variously accuse me of clever word play, or of inventing some paradoxical logic with no applicable value.

I just carry on debating, as I said with the test for my theory being a TOE, I’ll link you to my first real hardcore logic and debating test in public:[URL]http://www.toequest.com/forum/your-toe-theory/2034-protheory-com.html[/URL]

I’m going to have to test this link but as you’ll see, when you look closely, they attacked at first, then accused me of being un-knowledgeable then gave up. If you look on my profile on this site you’ll see all the threads and posts I’ve made about Pro theory on this fully public and famous forum. I went in boldly saying “this is my TOE prove me wrong…” and you can see what happened.

I haven’t got any opinions, I just like everyone and think a lot :thumbup:

Pro’ Re: Is This A Question?’

This was the very first reply: [quote]Re: protheory.com – 09-22-2006, 01:34 PM Protheory; With about 30 more years of studying physics while attempting to answer your own questions, you may become aware of the more simplistic nature of the universe. For the most part you are asking the right questions but are providing yourself with the wrong answers. So; are you wrong? —- YES.[/quote].

SeanTheLight – ‘Re: Is This A Question?’

:thumbup: I hope that my willingness to debate, is not taken as smugness, I enjoy the topic. Heres a few questions I am interested in seeing answered. Pro, have you ever told someone what you believe to be a lie? Pro, have you ever told someone what you believe to be the truth?

Pro, can protheory be proven true? Pro, can protheory be proven false? Or the funny ones (in some people’s opinion). Pro, do you stink? Pro, do you like wearing women’s clothing? Pro, do you think your theory is stupid? Each answer carries weight, and can be fleshed out individually for debate. I try to be a big picture guy. I am trying to grasp the extremes and implication of your theory so that my debate is more meaningful and helpful.

Pro – ‘Re: Is This A Question?’

No worries Sean 🙂 I only wrote about my usual comments online to show you the stuff folks have said before, and to give you a bit of perspective. I have always encouraged open and honest, non-emotional debate and I will continue to do so.

I just get so many comments sometimes and messages that it takes me a while to reply to them all :pPro, have you ever told someone what you believe to be a lie?My answer: Yes, many times as my younger self and in childhood. ‘I didn’t do it mum, honestly…’The literally and extremely applied Pro theory answer: I have told someone what I believe to be a lie, not told someone what I believe to be a lie, and neutral simultaneously.Pro, have you ever told someone what you believe to be the truth?

My answer: Yes, many times. I cannot lie, it’s been drummed into me from a very early age and it’s something I pride myself on or at least try my utmost to hold to.The literally and extremely applied Pro theory answer: I have told someone what I believe to be the truth, I have not told someone what I believe to be the truth, and neutral simultaneously.Pro, can protheory be proven true?

My answer: Yes it can, but it’s a so to speak case here. The thing is that my theory suggests that itself is true, false and also neutral all at once so it’s awkward for me to say categorically ‘yes, Pro theory is true’ as this implies an unchanging constant. Nevertheless, my theory is true in my everyday opinion most definitely. Aside from the obviously contradictory nature of any singular proof of my theory, it’s a TOE.

My website is up for criticism, my forum is for the same purpose, as was my ToeQuest thread, and as are all of my YouTube videos. Basically, I’m doing my best to prove the theory, so far NOBODY has managed to get me on any single point as it were. This is kind of the point I was trying to make in my previous post above, they can’t get me on any single thing as my theory is a loop in a way, although it’s also not a loop plus neutral :blah: according to the extreme you wish to apply the theory with.The literally and extremely applied Pro theory answer: As above really, Pro theory simultaneously explains itself in a truthful proven way, a non-truthful and non-proven way, and also a neutral way.

This is the absolute crux of this stuff. This only occurs as a problem because classically speaking throughout history we’ve dealt in right and wrong answers. When a TOE like this comes along, simultaneously answering and accounting for every possible (or not-possible + neutral :blah: ) state or answer we can’t really prove it wrong or right as it’s both at once.

Radical as this seems it’s simple really, it’s a simple principle that runs through “everything” and all I can do is just keep on trying to get it out there for the right reasons of positivity and for free/non-profit.Pro, can protheory be proven false?My answer: Same as above really, false is the opposite to true and Pro theory accounts for being both and also neutral all at once so it’s the same thing.

The literally and extremely applied Pro theory answer: Pro theory can be proven false, not proven false, plus neutral simultaneously.Or the funny ones (in some people’s opinion).Pro, do you stink?My answer: Hahaha :piratelaugh: The literally and extremely applied Pro theory answer: I stink, I do not stink, plus neutral simultaneously.Pro, do you like wearing women’s clothing?My answer: Yes, but don’t tell anyone 😉

The literally and extremely applied Pro theory answer: I like wearing women’s clothing, I do not like wearing women’s clothing, plus neutral simultaneously.Pro, do you think your theory is stupid?My answer: To be honest yes I do sort of. Actually it’s my answers, not answer, not being picky but it’s an important technicality to speak in plural terms for me rather than singularities. If I’d not had the visions I had when this all clicked for me then please believe that I would have been a critic in the most extreme sense I’m sure.

I’m well aware of how ridiculous and silly it seems, but the fact remains that it’s a TOE for its three pronged account of everything. I make no excuses for how stupid it seems only apologies.

I find it extremely difficult to explain this clearly and lucidly as you’ve probably noticed by now but I always mean well.The literally and extremely applied Pro theory answer: I think my theory is stupid, I do not think my theory is stupid, plus neutral simultaneously.About the big picture, I’m like that too which explains why I’ve got so many different interests.

It takes me ages to learn things as I need to absorb and digest the bigger picture in completeness before I really understand and can accept some new skill or interest as a part of myself. :thumbup:

TriPower – ‘Re: Is This A Question?’

[quote=SeanTheLight;706]Which got me to thinking…If something is provable as unchangeably positive or negative (for instance, something that has already happened), does it still have the potential for Everything has three simultaneous possibilities regardless of what words are used.?[/quote].

The past even becomes more precarious in determining the truth value of any statement about the past. The more we are removed chronologically from the event the harder it is to prove one way or another.

So many things that actually have happened still can have neutral truth value for lack of proof. The past can be regarded as “neutral heresay” until it can be proven….and even proof can be forged…and so on.

[Author]

Posts