[JAK]

I've been away for over two weeks. Sorry, futrethink. Life is still hectic for me, but I will be more timely (at least for a while).

Originally Posted by futrethink

---This is one of the things that I have up my sleeve. I was waiting for you to admit this, because I knew that you would tear apart anything I bring up, as just being a hypothesis/guess with the possibilities for it to be wrong or to have loopholes.

This is true. To counter, I expect you to produce a testable exception to my rule. Mental contrivances require my 3 laws, so they, too, fail.

But let's not "throw the baby out with the bathwater". Mental jousting has its benefits even if it just exercises infrequently used brain cells. Let's continue ...

Originally Posted by futrethink

---Everything that anyone brings up, will always have the possibility of being wrong or having loophole, due to something being unknown and as long as there are things that are known by anyone or anything in existence, there will always be an unknown.

This is the line of logic is at the root of a flaw with using the powerful Coherence Theory of Truth - unless you are omniscient, this criteria cannot be used. However, from this logic comes the my favorite, Negative Pragmatism, which states that what "works" may or may not be true (due to your logic above), but what fails cannot possibly be true because "the truth always works". The underlying belief is that truths are constants which we can always rely upon. The more constancy, the more powerful the truth.

Originally Posted by futrethink

---I have tried to show you a circumstance that applies, here and now, as a way for you to be wrong and you blew it off, because you don’t like it, in relation to your hypothesis: to a person, in a coma, a deep and black sleep (one in which, you wake up not noticing any time has passed or you wake up unsure that you were even asleep) or in a trance, there is no proof, to you, that there are any differences, while you are in that state.
---Now, if all of the concept that we describe as ‘reality’ is like an individual in that state, there are no differences between anything, because there would be absolutely no knowledge of anything. Your 3 laws only work, if there is something/someone to perceive something else as a not. A ‘not’ is only a ‘not’ as long as there is something/someone/an individual to perceive it as having separateness.

I did not mean to "blow it off". But your example is not compelling. A myriad of differences exist despite the comatose patient not realizing (or observing) them. Failure to observe changes does not eliminate them from existence. But you seem to be suggesting the changes require an observer.

Here is your assertion again: "A ‘not’ is only a ‘not’ as long as there is something/someone/an individual to perceive it as having separateness."

Let's cut to the chase: WHY??!! Why is an observer required for changes to occur, for differences to exist, for any separateness?

Again, I am not "blowing off" your "exception".

The problem appears to be this: I am not convinced that changes (differences) require an observer, and you have not presented a compelling case supporting the need for an observer in order for change to occur. I claim that changes occur inspite of the lack of an observer. Change and differences are independent of their observation.

To convince me otherwise, you will need to show why an observer is needed for change to occur.

(I am breaking this here because the ToE editing software chokes on large posts.)