« Home | The Pattern of Four » | Final Exam - Soulless » | In Response Part 2 - Soulless » | Everything: EVERYTHING » | In Response Part 1 - DJB » | Pushing the Pause Button Briefly » | Re-Grouping, Feedback and Self-Doubt Allayed » | The System State at an 'is' Decision Point » | The Power of Uncertainty » | The Selfish Gene - Modifying Theories »

What is, in fact, a FACT?

(future blogs, not yet written, or not yet linked):
(NOTE: This list is in no particular order: certainly NOT-sequential)
(if any are of interest to you, just ask!)

The 10 values of pee
Al's glue-sniffing example:crossing the THRESHOLD of FACT
Index to May's blogs
Index to JUne's blogs
In Response Part 2 - Soulless, continuing the conversation
In Response Part 3 - Dave
In Response Part 4 - Gary
The 4 quadrants of Truth
The Story of 10 o'clock
The final exam; graded
Chart of 'is' Possibilities Within BAT
String Bead Analogy
Global Bill of Rights
Letter Shapes and 'is' Systems
The Koch Curve and Pi
Examples of Practical Applications of 'is' Theory
(this one is an example)

Introduced by "my quote".

"It doesn't matter where you start over from; it's where you left off that matters." - me

1) Starting over hasn't happened yet, so it's manageable; leaving off is history, recorded as fact.
2) You don't have to start from fact, you could start from premise and assumption.
3) You could start from fact, and assume it is a fact.

A FACT consists of four components. The obvious one, first, is the FACT itself. If SOMETHING is to be considered as a FACT, then it must, indeed, be a FACT. I know, that sounds like I'm stating the obvious, but it's a FACT. Every ENTITY contains itself COMPLETELY. Without that ability, it would not have the capacity to re-produce itself completely.

We know that what may appear to be a FACT to one {person, witness, ENTITY...} may only be {an OPINION, a DISPUTED-FACT, a NOT-FACT...} to another ENTITY.

The portion of the FACT that the two ENTITIES are in total simultaneous agreement on, 'is' the FACT component of the FACT for those two ENTITIES (the facts may vary for a different set of ENTITIES, but the BINARY Agreement Theory works with any randomly-selected TWO ENTITIES simultaneously, the lowest number required to settle {a THRESHOLD, turmoil, disagreement, NOT-FACT...} in order to find unturmoiled or less-turmoiled ground between the two {resolve differences, do scientific research, arbitrate,...}

The remaining portion of FACT, consistent with the pattern of four I discussed yesterday, contains the universal pattern of three. [Remove the part that you're not interested in...always option #4...and you're left with a manageable problem of three]. In the case of FACT, we're removing FACT (i.e. the agreed-upon, stipulated part) in order to tackle the unresolved part (is the defendant guilty or NOT-guilty). The reason courts go to such great lengths to present "just the FACTs ma'am", is to help the jurors attain a state of tabla rasa --- they know they can throw the FACTS out as being relevant in settling where to draw the line between GUILT and NOT-GUILT, but they are of little value in actually determining guilt or innocence as an absolute.

If it was completely and totally to be based on FACT and FACT alone, there would be no need for a trial.

So, the three remaining components of FACT form its ENTROPY, the space where FACT takes on UNIQUE meaning for this one transaction between these two ENTITIES. There are three zones to the THRESHOLD. It, by being a reflection of itself, has its own THRESHOLD (I call that POSSIBLE --- in legal terms that translates into "beyond a shadow of a doubt" --- that means "does it cross the THRESHOLD line of the THRESHOLD of FACT"? If so, Guilty, If not NOT-GUILTY --- cut-and-dried. The only problem is determining the placement and width of POSSIBLE, the mid-range of the THRESHOLD.

On the "near" side of POSSIBLE(the side of the FACTS) lies the PROBABLE. This is the area in which disciplines such as Statistics excel, and you get your 'predictions' stated within a certain degree of accuracy based on past observation only, and therefore only likely projection into the future. On the "far" side of POSSIBLE {the counter-intuitive side, the area that is out of your normal comfort zone, the area for search and research, in case we missed some important part of FACT the first and second times we looked, ...} lies the WHAT-IF. This is the zone of speculators, science fiction writers, poetic dreamers, peaceniks, and dictators.

The weight of a FACT grows heavier with the shrinking of its entropy, with the removal of all doubt, with the shrivelling up of on-going challenge that it becomes a dogma, or a law, or dictate, and anyone challenging it further becomes a heretic, a madman, a danger to the state. Or a thinker. A philosopher. A scientist. An author. A songwriter. A poet.

To get to the incredible and incredulous, you don't have to go through the FACTs. Like my saying says, it doesn't matter where you start over. But if you haven't left off at a point where you can re-trace your steps if called upon to do so, you'll likely not get anyone to join you in your exploration of WHAT IF? But it's POSSIBLE. It's more likely if its PROBABLE, and it's more PROBABLE if you can state in WORDS what someone else will consider to be FACT. For it is then that you have established common ground. It 'is' then that you have a basis for BAT. It is then that I will have a receptive audience to the intricacies of the theory.




WHAT-IF we STARTed with WHAT-IF and ASSUMED it was FACT, then proceeded to {ADVANCE from there, RETREAT back to the present FACT}?

"It doesn't matter where you START OVER; it's where you leave off that matters."


FACT: i sniff glue

you are a beautiful person. bon appetit.


FACT: AL sniffs glue
OPINION: AL thinks that I write stuff he generally agrees with

FACT: AL smells something that smells like glue
OPINION: AL thinks that I write stuff he generally agrees with

FACT: The OPINIONS expressed above are mine and mine alone?
WHAT IF: they are AL's?
WHAT IF: we share them.

Post a Comment

Links to this post

Create a Link

  • I'm Evydense
  • From Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
  • And I'm tired of living in the shadow of narrow-mindedness and ignorance. So here's the fax, Jack! "The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and three hundred and sixty-two admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn't mean that God doesn't love heterosexuals. It's just that they need more supervision." - Lynne Lavner*** I'm confused; curious; satisfied; realistically resigned to being a frustrated idealist; usually at peace with myself, but not always. Amazed at how little I know, and wondering how much I need to understand.
More of Me