MAIL ME THIS POSTING!

```     THE A's AND THE B's

A and B are objects.

A and B may be two different objects, or one and the same object
with different names, namely A and B.

0.) If A and B have two different quality sets, then A and B are
two different objects.

1.) If A and B are two objects, and A changes state and B
doesn't, then A and B were and are two DIFFERENT objects.

2.) If A and B are two different objects, then one or both are
not nothings, as there can not be two different nothings.

3.) If A changes state, then A was or is a something.

4.) If A and B are separated by a space time distance or
extension in any dimension, then A and B are two different objects.

This applies even if A and B are MERELY points in space time.

5.) If A and B are two different objects, the only way B can
learn about A, is for B to be the effect of A, that is for A to cause
B to change state.  No matter how much effect B has on A, if A has no
effect on B, then B can not learn anything about A including whether A
exists or not.

Since the only way B can learn about A is to be the effect of A,
the only thing B can learn about A is how A affects B, namely A's
qualities of causal relation to B.

6.) If B and A are two different objects, at no time does B have
direct observation or contact with A.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

SCHOLIA

3.) If A changes state, then A is or was a something.

Proof:

A nothing can not change state into a nothing, as that is a no
change.

Thus if A changes state, it either was a nothing and changed into
a something, or it was a something and changed into another something,
or it was a something and changed into a nothing.  QED

------------------------------------------------------------------------

SCHOLIA CORE THEORM

This is the core theorem of the LCC (Learning, Certainty, and
Causality).  Without it, the whole thing is false.

5.) If A and B are two different objects, the only way B can
learn about A, is if A causes B to change state, that is if A has some
effect on B.  No matter how much effect B has on A, if A has no effect
on B, then B can not learn anything about A including whether A exists
or not.

If A can not influence B, and A can not influence anything that
can influence B, then any changes that B undergoes are irrelevant to
the nature of A, and thus can provide B no learning about A.

In the absence of cause, there is no learning.

In the presence of cause, the effect caused IS the learning.

An absence of a change in state indicates an absence of cause.

Thus in the absence of a change in state in B, there is no

Since the only way B can learn about A is to be the effect of A,
the only thing B can learn about A is how A affects B, namely A's
qualities of causal relation to B.

Thus the only qualities that B can learn about A, are qualities
of causal relation, namely how A caused B to change state.  All other
qualities of relation or being about A are inferred as theories from
A's qualities of causal relation.

Even the qualities of causal relation of A are inferred by B from
changes in B's own state.

If B does not change state, there can be no learning at all about
A.

B's change in state IS B's learning about A.

Since B's state gives no proof that B changed state, B can never
be perfectly certain it learned anything about A even if B did change
state as an effect of A.

When B is learning about A, A is the referent and B is the
symbol.

All mechanical learning between two different objects is the
arising of a symbol from a referent along a causal pathway.

All mechanical learning is by indirect perception, learning about
A by being and looking at B.
```