Continuing my idea that Torah is a theorem that Elochim proves and moreover that Torah proves that Torah should not proved, and the idea that In Torah something is missing, particularly the axiom like:
Sinners should not be punished by one who created [or made] them sinful.
And now I have an additional idea:
It seems that it is much easier to prove Torah (in another way that no more involves tortures) using the above axiom. The proof sketch:
- Torah should not be proved because it involves tortures.
- Therefore Torah involves tortures.
- Therefore Torah exists.
5 thoughts on “Continuing my musings on the meaning of Torah”
But as I said, this axiom seems not to follow from Torah.
Therefore, when God brings me in a cloud of time machine, to Nibiru, should we follow or not follow this axiom?
– If we don’t accept this axiom from the very beginning, then we inevitably will start to prove Torah, and this seems immoral.
– If we accept this axiom, we may fail, because it is not proved that it is true.
But there is a solution circumventing both of these axioms being bad:
– Assume this axiom from the beginning and follow it (probably forever), until we disprove it (if it can be disproved).
Oh, it is also a recommendation to human economists: Never assume that to reach results we need to torture poors, until this becomes a proved mathematical fact. All the rest variants are unethical.
And what if the statement “Trueness of Torah [or: existence of God] should not proved.” is neither proved nor disproved, then what?
We can assume that it’s true until disproved. Then we either:
– eventually disprove it
– never disprove it; in this case, it’s not disprovable and therefore we can assume it’s true, until we need it. Why may we need to assume that “trueness of Torah is sometimes needed to be proved”? Only if we need to check it. But in this case, if my earlier musings are correct then we already have the result that Torah should not be proved and therefore will never need to prove it!
Hm, maybe the above reasonings can be simplified to something formal in our usual, human mathematics and proved by us by eliminating the word “Torah” from consideration and replacing it with just “an ethical problem such that…” with some formal terms in place of ellipsis? If so, we humans get in some sense above the level or Torah just from simple math ideas that could be explained even to a teenager.
Suppose you are given a fact-checking task of something being unethical by somebody unknown (let’s call him “Baal”) about which you don’t whether it’s ethical in the case if it’s true (positive value that you want to attain in some measurement system) to start a process that solves the problem.
Should you accordingly this ethics try to solve the problem or not?
Assume that the task is unethical. Then if you solved it true, that’s a failure: you did an unethical thing. If you solved it false, you didn’t accomplish the task – zero value + spent time. If the problem is insolvable, you just spent time.
Assume that proving it is ethical. Then it’s true, that is you solved the problem.
Theorem. Assuming it is ethical and ignoring all other variants is the most ethical variant under the above conditions.
The above is almost exactly formulated. It is a task any Bachelor or even associate of mathematics should be able to solve in a few minutes (after I find time, I am to write about this a scientific article). Moreover, it can be generalized for partially ordered sets instead of real numbers.
So we have a MATHEMATICALLY EXACT PROVED consequence: If we don’t know whether proving Torah is ethical, we should not work on it.
Ugh! The entire story of Torah was just a silly behavior of some Baal. It was a very big useless spent of resources of at least intergallactic size. This is a mathematical consequence from theological statements accepted by all both Jews and Christians. We participated in something wrong.
From this theorem it follows an epistemological and economical model in which:
– We don’t require ourselves to rely on checked facts (e.g. we just “believe” that God exists).
– If our knowledge is wrong, we will in some future correct it (if no God, we will eventually know it).
– If we keep doing so infinitely, each of our assumed facts eventually becomes the same (false or true) as it really is.
It is contrary to science where we always fact-check before publishing. So I invented a non-science, a new kind of science which is not science like as BitCoin is not money or car is not a telega.
As a consequence in the present system everybody is a failure: scientists are thieves and amateurs claiming to be scientists are fake scientists.