A compilation of submissions by the author. (Note grammar intended by the author.)

"the universe is bounded by infinites, the outside and the inside edges. the outside is approximately 14billion light years from the centre. the inside edge is the event horizon of a black hole. to be classified as a human being you must be between these two limits.

i can prove this because i am human and i am within these limits.. but i can theoretically not be.

if im not, then im not, i am therefor i am. its recursive.

it is theoretical for a universe to be contained within a black hole or further than 14billion light years away. the sum total of all energy in the universe is equal to exactly zero, matter is positive and gravity is negative. when a black hole is created these two forces cancel each other out, and what you get is an area of space which has infinite curvature. anything contained within this space is therefor nothing and everything, a new universe is created. therefor the evolution of the universe is recursive. existence is simply a quality of our universe. if there are multiple universes there is a possibility there might be human beings in another existence.

another existence is not a subset of our universe. my existence is a subset of this universe, therefor am a human being which is a part of this casual infinity of existence. infinity is infinite so it is impossible to not be a part of it."

Additional arguments:

"i grok myself. therefor it can be implied that my being must know who it is and be what it is at any time, otherwise i would not exist.

i grok therefor i am.

this proposition can be overcome by proving that trying to 'overcome' it is not rational in our existence.

firstly i would like to point out that 'being' a human is fundamentally no different from being a rock, a piece of cheese, a dolphin, a tree or a monkey. everything is just energy.

we are here because of evolution on the boundary between finite and infinite scale. it started with simple concepts such as null, void and infinite space-time. from there we can extrapolate the entire existence of life, the universe and everything based upon our experiments and proofs, and it might equal 42 :) if you cant do that your not rational.

god created existence. i am the god of my own existence. i mean this in every possible rational way. i created my existence when my matter organised itself in a way which causes an illusion of consciousness.

please take this at face value and try to grok it.

thou art god.

i suppose some of you unfortunate people will need an explanation of how to grok. to do this you must not be a human being from earth. grokking is a theoretical concept of understanding by a conscious person who can look from a point of view that is outside of all human cognition. for example, a martian.

well actually you can just look it up in a dictionary.

[common; from the novel "Stranger in a Strange Land", by Robert A. Heinlein, where it is a Martian word meaning literally `to drink' and metaphorically `to be one with'] The emphatic form is `grok in fullness'. 1. To understand. Connotes intimate and exhaustive knowledge. When you claim to `grok' some knowledge or technique, you are asserting that you have not merely learned it in a detached instrumental way but that it has become part of you, part of your identity. For example, to say that you "know" LISP is simply to assert that you can code in it if necessary - but to say you "grok" LISP is to claim that you have deeply entered the world-view and spirit of the language, with the implication that it has transformed your view of programming. Contrast zen, which is similar supernal understanding experienced as a single brief flash. See also glark. 2. Used of programs, may connote merely sufficient understanding. "Almost all C compilers grok the void type these days." --The Jargon File version 4.3.1, ed. ESR, autonoded by rescdsk.

i grok infinity, a C compiler doesnt. do you?

I would like to state and prove my list of basic fundamental assumptions about infinite existence. These must be possible for the proposition to be overcome, otherwise it is null and void.

Basic Assumptions: (in concise words)

null, void, infinity, energy, singularity, time, space, expansion, gravity, matter, galaxy, star, planet, water, reaction, dna, recursion, mutation, selection, death, cell, structure, complexity, order, cognition, consciousness, reason, prediction, fate, uncertainty, principle, law, theory, philosophy, emotions, feelings, environment, discovery, learning, remembering, understanding, proving, sharing, caring, helping, needing, loving, fun, enjoyment, orgasm, experience, drugs, evil, conflict, terror.

Proof: (in concise words)

Given basic assumptions about a proposition, you can prove it be null and void by explaining it in infinite recursive terms.

Basic assumptions is exactly what you get when you explain casual infinity in concise words.

when testing basic assumptions for validity, please assume murphys law to be formal, complete, fair and just, or atleast theoretically possible.

MURPHY'S LAWS

Nothing is as easy as it looks.
Everything takes longer than you think.
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong.
If there is a possibility of several things going wrong, the one that will cause the most damage will be the one to go wrong. Corollary: If there is a worse time for something to go wrong, it will happen then.
If anything simply cannot go wrong, it will anyway.
If you perceive that there are four possible ways in which a procedure can go wrong, and circumvent these, then a fifth way, unprepared for, will promptly develop.
Left to themselves, things tend to go from bad to worse.
If everything seems to be going well, you have obviously overlooked something.
Nature always sides with the hidden flaw.
Mother nature is a bitch.
It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious.
Whenever you set out to do something, something else must be done first.
Every solution breeds new problems.

Murphy's Law of Research:
Enough research will tend to support your theory.

Murphy's Law of Copiers:
The legibility of a copy is inversely proportional to its importance.

Murphy's Law of the Open Road:
When there is a very long road upon which there is a one- way bridge placed at random, and there are only two cars on that road, it follows that: (1) the two cars are going in opposite directions, and
(2) they will always meet at the bridge.

Murphy's Law of Thermodynamics:
Things get worse under pressure.

The Murphy Philosophy:
Smile . . . tomorrow will be worse.

Quantization Revision of Murphy's Laws:
Everything goes wrong all at once.

Murphy's Constant:
Matter will be damaged in direct proportion to its value.

Law of the Perversity of Nature (Mrs. Murphy's Corollary):
You cannot successfully determine beforehand which side of the bread to butter.

Corollary (Jenning):
The chance of the bread falling with the buttered side down is directly proportional to the cost of the carpet.

The proposition is invalid when not asked to a human.

A martian will be able to answer you: i grok therefor i am, thou art god.

Artifical intelligence will return a syntax eror or divide by zero.

A quantum computer will become a singularity and the answer is therefor undefined in our casual infinity of existence.

You ask a human and he will lie to you.

BASIC ASSUMPTION:

Competition 1 evolved from Proposition Zero.
Competition (?-1) evolved from null and void.

PROOF:

Compeition 2 would not exist without a human being [which is part of the casual infinity of existence] winning Competition 1.

That is the nature of a competition, to see who wins.
The act of reaching 2 from 1 is simply infinite recursion.
The answer to this competition is the proof of it.

Is this the proof?

Basic Assumption: This competition is null and void.

Explanation of Basic Assumption:

You cannot overcome a proposition and successfully prove that you did overcome it at the same time.
Simple quantum mechanics.
Its elementary, my dear Watson.

The act of overcoming of all propositions and proving it at the same time will cancel each other out, creating a singularity in proof.

The proposition contains only assumptions and nothing more. Therefor it is impossible to prove either way, because to overcome it we must use your assumptions. This is not testable so therefor proven null and void.

Quantum Mechanics overcomes infinity.
Quantum Theory is actually Quantum Proof in itself.

Proof: Quantum Mechanics - some concise words.

"I don't like it, and I'm sorry I never had anything to do with it." - Erwin Schrödinger "Anyone who is not shocked by Quantum Proof has not understood it." - Niels Bohr

The theory states that at a fundamental level, the behavior of the universe is probabilistic (random). Quantum Mechanics is the best theory that the human race has ever come up with for explaining the behavior of the very small (subatomic).

Its predictions have all been correct and it is the core of all technology and complexity of all time.

Quantum Mechanics states that all matter is both a wave and a particle. This is called "wave-particle duality" and is the basis of all Quantum Mechanics. Quantum Mechanics is the basis for infinity, existence, null and void.

A quantum is really just a discrete unit of something, a singularity in the measurement of anything.

Quantum Proof states that all things exist as waves while they are not being observed, but once they have been observed, the wave functions "collapse" into particles. This can be proven using the dual slit experiment. This is basically where stream of electrons will pass through a pair of thin slits, both at the same time, and interfere with themselves.

If one attempts to view the electrons individually... to see which slit each one goes through, something remarkable happens. The interference pattern goes away. Since the observer has collapsed the wave function by localizing the electrons, they no longer behave as a wave. Obviously, a particle cannot pass through two slits at the same time, but a wave can. So when the electrons are behaving as a wave, they do pass through both slits and interfere with themselves. When they are behaving as particles (because they are being closely watched), they pass through only one or the other of the slits and no interference occurs. This is a fact, and the concept applies to all relative situations in nature, including propositions and theoretical questions.

Let us examine the case of a particle trapped inside an infinite potential well. This simply means in the outer regions (to the left and right) there is something that is stopping the particle from going there. What is stopping the particle depends on what the particle is. For example, an electron could be stopped in such a manner by extremely strong electric or magnetic fields. Note also that we say an "infinite" potential well. No such thing exists in nature, of course, but it is a simplified example to aide in understanding. At any rate, the wave function is obtained by using Schrödinger's equation (which is a differential equation and is therefore difficult to solve in many cases).

The wave function must be continuous (this is entirely logical), and it will go to zero at the edges of the well. This is because the square of the wave function represents the probability of finding the particle in that given location. Obviously, the probability of finding it in the area of infinite resistance must be zero.

What would happen, however, if the particle was more energetic? Well, it turns out that the wavelength of the particle shortens as it gains energy (just like light). Remember, though, that the wave function must be zero at the boundaries, which means that a small change in wavelength is not allowed. The wavelength must change sufficiently so that it is still equal to zero at the boundaries. This means that only discrete levels of energy are allowed for this particle! It is quantized.

An atom is just like a potential well for the electrons (of course, this well is not infinite). Therefore, the allowed energies of electrons are also quantized, hence the "quantum numbers" that describe an electron in an atom. It is important to realize that these quantizations apply only to trapped particles. A free particle can have any energy in the continuous spectrum.

Of particular interest to us in this particular proposition is something called "Quantum Tunneling". The particle is incident on a barrier of some sort (a potential jump). Solving the Schrödinger for such a case yields an amazing result. Instead of simply bouncing off the barrier, the wave function actually passes through the barrier. A portion of the wave function exists on the other side of the barrier. The wave function is smaller on that side though, indicating that there is a certain probability that the particle will be found on that side of the barrier; but, that probability is less than being found on the side it started on. The fact that particles can jump from one side of a barrier to the other is extremely important in understanding nuclear decay, and in creating many of today's technologies.

Fortunately, Quantum Tunneling is useful in answering questions. I can use it now to answer this question. The fact that I have attempted to do this observation has collapsed the proposition’s wave form, and is now overcome."

Ryan Monk June 7 2003

Response:

Though your use of the wave function to overcome the proposition is on track (viz., you have established an idea of overcoming the simultaneity problem of being and knowing), your use of the wave function lacks an epistemology for complete knowledge (i.e. complete knowledge of the wave function). Also, nor is it clear that even if you can more reasonably establish complete knowledge of the wave function as described by you that the function actually pertains to human consciousness itself.

Your use of the notion "grok" (viz., an apparently extended form or application of quantum theory) is problematic because though the notion of "grok" aims at getting one outside of human consciousness (i.e. "look from a point of view that is outside of human cognition"), the notion falls short of actually getting one outside of human consciousness because more reasonably we can only know from what we know (or inside of human perspective) no matter how limited what we know or what view we hold. In other words, a human "point of view" can only more reasonably be from human consciousness, unless you can more reasonably demonstrate how you or anyone else can get outside of human consciousness and know that you or anyone else has. So you can "grok" all you want and theoretically imagine you are outside of your consciousness, but it will more reasonably be an illusionary step outside of your consciousness unless as mentioned you can more reasonably establish grok.

Your argument that the proposition is "null and void" or only contains assumptions that cannot be completely proved either way, does not overcome the proposition because any other proposition including your claim of "null and void" is subject to circularity as well. Also, you appear to overlook that the proposition’s assumptions can more reasonably be proved either way. Viz., there is apparently nothing stopping us from more reasonably proving within the context of the Competition, the more or less soundness and consistency of the proposition itself and its assumptions.

We agree that from our (comparative) perspective some knowledge of identity, in whatever form or non-form, must more reasonably be part of existence, but it does not necessarily follow that complete knowledge of identity must be part of existence.

432. Entry:

"Firstly, a description of infinite existence. I feel that it gives a good introduction on 'how' it exists, and that its 'reason' is self contained.

Fundamental concepts in an approximate order of existence: infinity, singularity, dimension, quantum, energy, wave, magnet, gravity, time, space, matter, particle, physics, universe, galaxy, star, planet, element, combine, random, chemistry, structure, dna, life, death, mutation, evolution, cell, complexity, order, control, system, sense, brain, instinct, cognition, memory, conscious, thought, predict, uncertainty, principle, theory, philosophy, reason, understand, believe.

In concise words, tell us how the proposition that we cannot [more reasonably] truly know who we are, in part or in whole, and be who we are at the same time, can be overcome:

If 'we' were a particle, 'we' would obey the laws of quantum mechanics and the uncertainty principle. Since everything 'real' is made of particles, all substitutions of 'we' are valid. (viz., anything not 'real' becomes a particle upon observation.)"

Ryan Monk June 25 2003

Response:

It is unclear to us what grounds you have to say that everything "real" including ourselves is more reasonably truly (i.e. completely) made of particles.

433. Entry:

"The limited knowledge of one's true self is blocked by a dam in a river. Our true being and self is an iceberg lodged against this dam, slowing leaking through as we develop our character and sense of ourselves. For a human being to be who they truly are, one must find another path past the dam- unconscious gatekeeper. To be the iceberg, in the unconscious, is to dream. There is no other way to live as yourself. One must omit the dam, and live their life and their dreams as the same."

Daniel Mahnks July 1 2003

Response:

It appears to us that an individual cannot help from being who he or she is as long as he or she is alive. To exist is to be regardless of what state to be manifests itself. So the question is how can we more reasonably truly (i.e. completely) know who we are? You contend that our "dreams" are complete knowledge of who we are, and that all we have to do to completely know who we are is match our dreams to our lives. Though how do you more reasonably know that our dreams are completely who we are? How can our dreams be completely who we are if we do not match them to our lives? How can we completely know our dreams when we can only know them through our perception of them? How do you more reasonably know that our so-called true being and self slowly leaks through (the unconscious realm) as we develop our character and sense of ourselves?

434. Entry:

"We are always who we choose to be.

Proof: Do it. Choose. And then you will know."

Anne Proulx July 6 2003

Response:

What is it about the act of choosing that we more reasonably completely know who we are? How is what we choose to be whether a tree faller or environmentalist more reasonably completely who we are?

Note, if who we are (in a complete sense) is not attainable until we choose who we are to be, then it follows that before we choose there is no complete who we are, and if someone else chooses for us or influences our choice, there is no complete who we are.

How can we choose to be who we are (in a complete sense), since we are not complete to begin with? Viz., as fetuses or infants we did not begin our existence choosing who we are to be. It then follows that whatever we choose later in our existence is incomplete, because it stems from an incomplete who we are. Hence, your argument if it is contingent on complete who we are being attained through self-choice, is self-defeating. Also, if you expand complete who we are to include non-choice, then we want to know how you or anyone else can more reasonably completely know who you are?

Entries 426-430,  Entries 435-438