community service org; exploring / helping others explore the limits of the conscious control of physical reality through ARGs. play well, and enjoy your game.
Joined April 2016
- Tweets29.2K
- Following2.4K
- Followers1.5K
- Likes35.2K
Thats the inflation where the oblverclaim as a hypothetical iced case becomes mistaken as an absolute objective truth itself. This is beyond what proof or experince can show a single observer or experiencer of observations.
Objection allows consideration of inadmissable forms as null cases ruling out reasoned extensions as hypothetically. Proof is what survives and it constructs the language if reasonabke descriptions not object qualities of absolute objective truth.
The word objection comes from the Latin verb obicere, meaning "to throw against" or "put in the way".
Etymological Breakdown
• Latin Roots: It combines ob- (meaning "against") with icere / jicere (a combining form of jacere, meaning "to throw"). Literally, it means
• Old French: It passed into Old French and Anglo-French as objeccion (meaning a reply, retort, or challenge).
The word experience traces back to the Latin noun experientia, meaning "a trial, proof, experiment, or knowledge gained through repeated tests".
Etymological Breakdown
• Proto-Indo-European Root: Stems from PIE *per- (meaning "to try, risk, or attempt").
•
• Middle English & Modern English: Entered Middle English in the late 14th century via Anglo-French, eventually splitting into modern concepts of observation, trial, and personal participation.
"My work sometimes overclaims therefore it is objectively irrelevant" is itself an overclaim of the exact same type ot accuses.
"Relevance" is not an object condition. its a relation to some other structure or referant considered significant by a single adjudicator or a collective of convention as an institutionalized block . People speak as God. as if they speak ACTUAL objects into existence hahahaha .
Our prime-number example makes the double-edged character of proof particularly clear.
The same formal apparatus that establishes exclusions can demonstrate that its own proposed boundary is insufficient.
The danger isn't that bounded proofs are meaningless. It's that their very success can conceal the boundary responsible for their meaning.
That is the paradoxical strength and limitation of the instrument you're describing.