Differ & Deviate Nuances — Factual Opinion of Might (next msec++) Do — A Novice Corollary
--
Fourth Incremental Edition. This essay is entirely a matter of opinion.
(All essays belonging to this Medium.com publication, while in Medium.com subscription-service ‘story’ form, are continually and regularly under fluid edit. This is the standard and routine for this Medium.com publication.)
Publication-Level Inconsistency Annotation:
The term “FLAW” is planned for future more prolific replacement by the terms “DIFFER & DEVIATE.” Also, the term “PERFECT” is planned by me, the author, for future more prolific replacement by the term “PRISTINE.”
Essay Oddity Annotation 1:
“Do” and “Doing” — are continually changing, and thus encapsulate all possible “Verbing,” as currently cosmically occurring, of alive and unalive, inertia-possessing things/items (of noun notion.) These action “doings” — verb/adverb biological human proceedings — are inclusive of both the imparting and the receiving kinds/categories of ‘doings.’ These are each broadly (of mental method) sorted into kinds/categories of ‘doing’ / changing / ongoing-ennewing, and are such continually. Thus, a host of a multitude of verbs ongoing interior to a person are actively ennewing to significant delta from prior, in entropic interval duration of a very short duration to mental notion and simple method.
Essay Oddity Annotation 2:
Query structure exudes a prompt for reply or rebuttal, as is every query imbued of, even if delivering none such words in the query, though gladly this exudes a prompt of lesser/differ exertion interior by the receiver. Description is better much at bolstering and furthering good and well liking while living, by typing or reading as depicting or depicted, which are involved when the reader or typist is not engaged in rapport. Rapport has concurrent conversational engagement partial lock effect. Rapport method becomes simple in method, by prior msecs being nonexistent in replicated actions doing, whilst/when msec availing to re-call from/to the ‘experience basis.’ Experiencing presently and currently is only doable by living things/items of likely to me animal kind/category. Yet doing is very doable of no experience retention by inertia-possessing things unalive, as compared to inertia-possessing things of animal flesh, with keen new relevance considering that all biological animal cells are alive and be living, whilst such, and thus also are other than brain organelles, to that method of considerations. Experience basis performs recall from prior to the experiencing msec moment of entropic proceedings. While I as the author type textually deprecative of “Memory basis” or “Remember”, as appreciable to contrastable with better, to feature in usage some possibility to small damage to recall exertive powers, (memory, -member, as audio skew) recallable by living beings.
Oddity Annotation 3:
In living/unalive material doings as of subsequent msec, (in notion of 24 hours of thermal conditions progressive trends midnight to midnight — of all things/items, cosmically currently in proximity to similar time zone inclusive of vertical extent, proceeding concurrently to change anew — the nearby more similar as interactive more with nearest snowiest bank of colder exudence to things than from farther away some warmer basking span of moisture would be as greatly in time zone very similar inner zonal similarity, then processes do gradually warm and cool relative to durations after prior solar angles of incidence increased warming, then increased blockage from further warming, when solar incidence angles less imparting solar energy onto the scene, proceeded gradually less, and more lesser when below the horizon, occluded.)
There is much written and talked about in the recent decade and more, concerning opinion and concerning facts. Much of it is misinformation. That’s a bit humorous. Is that fact or opinion? That’s opinion, of course.
Opinion is the basis of legal decisions: judicial opinion. Opinion is of great importance to medical doctors. Opinion matters. Most of what we say or write is opinion, actually: opinion about facts, or opinion concerning facts, or opinion of facts, and never humanly possible to verbally or textually speak or write, or even conceive, to the resolution and detail of the real facts themselves. It’s the limitations of our perception, and it is also human limits, that cause this to be true. That only becomes clear to us, if we are advised of the idea behind the word “fact” and “facts,” which I will make an effort to elucidate and explain in this essay.
Maybe you, the reader, remember “…, in my opinion,.” Someone on a social service could have long ago been presenting his or her opinion. Most of what we write is opinion implicitly, but sadly that was and is not obvious to many readers, who were and are prone to present countering or supporting opinion — which is fine and good for us — but argue that such opinion was fact itself, which many scientists know is impossible. That’s the big trouble, published or televised, seemingly, wide and far. When did we get the fact briefing, nationwide, I wonder? I cannot recall, as I have long disliked televised news effects on me, but I believe it was bad for all of us, globally.
Continuing, after having just filled in some relevant side notes above: the person using a social service might have switched quickly into reciting a list of standardly agreed upon opinions, taken widely as standardized, such as the list of four: matter, energy, space, and time, which can sum up the contents of reality in this universe, as analyzed in a specific simplistic, but well laned by four, sort of way. Is it fact that such a list of four is the best or complete way to represent truths about events or items in nature? No, rather it is just the standard I was taught in high school physics class. So, after such a standard — maybe agreed upon with the reader, and not created by the poster of opinion (both salient points) — was recited in text; then “… so, in my opinion…” was used to return to one’s own thoughts and writing on the matter. Text before that portion was one’s own opinion; the recited list was a recitation of “official” opinion commonly known; and afterward there was a return to one’s own opinion. Ah. I’ve found it again: the reason for “imo:” a return to the writer’s opinion, rather than the education department’s officially taught opinion.
How much of subjective human writing and discussion is opinion? About 100% opinion, performed by factual humans concerning factual factors, and I consider that an absolute maybe, but beyond “perfect” proof. The idea of a fact is the total, and time-dependent real-time, in complete astronomically great resolution to reality. That is the reality of something perceived, conceived, or experienced by a person. Maybe consider a kitchen around you, full of items. Each is a fact, but awareness and perception of each fact is limited. Also, word choice as to how to convey information about each fact is a matter of personal opinion. One might say “It’s simple. that is a coffee machine.” That’s not saying much about the entirety, of everything, about the coffee maker. Of course, and that’s usually because someone is of the self-opinion more aimed at other personal activities potentially ahead in time, rather than being of the self-opinion to delay on overly much, just to elucidate more. Writing differs from kitchen hobbies such as meal and snack preparation, gladly, in that regard.
Other persons might be of the opinion that there could be more to say to better describe the situation. “No, it’s a little less simple: that is your coffee machine.” That too, doesn’t describe it all. Actions and words, generated by a factual human midbrain, as supplemented by other organelles and encapsulated structures in each currently alive human’s brain, in my opinion, are the embodiment of the factual part of each animal body forming our exchangeable or solo opinions. Words and ideas, plus concepts, to convey opinion concerning facts by way of usage, internally or externally, would have to fully replicate observations of facts in order to (bogusly) be fact, instead of a factual human processing opinion concerning facts. It’s better if we adopt, as common standard, a different way of considering the idea of “fact,” as more applicable than the many overly-concise dictionary company definitions, which are, to my opinion, a problem with reference material, which would seem to have likely been accumulative in adverse effects to the English language, for centuries.
A better stance, to my opinion, would be that “facts” are truly the full and complete material and energy realities of persons or things, in real-time. That’s of refinement down to every nuance of every atom within, plus every currently applicable energy operation (inertial, radiative, heat transfer, etc.) that actually is, in entirety, involved with the factual persons, or objects, or issues, to which cognitively referred. That’s not quite infinite, to my opinion, but is amazingly grand in finite extent, in detail.
(More of my opinions on the difficulties with the notions of infinities and infinitesimals, are available in another essay I have written. Maybe be forewarned that, like this essay, that essay stands at first or second edition, and is only slightly more than marginally beyond draft stages. The link to that essay is: Flaw Law’s Finite Bounds Postulate.)
“It’s all a matter of opinion,” is not correct, but rather is partially true, as incompletely stated. I prefer “It’s all factual persons, having opinion, concerning the factual (as of now, or as of when previously occurring.)” The statement in highlighting quotation marks in the previous sentence, could feasibly be memorized readily, without the parenthetical embellishment, is one reason I composed the previously read sentence that way.
Continuing and realigning on opinion about fact, opinion always relates in some greater or lesser way (lesser when discussing fiction stories, excepting the books, the writers, and the remainder of that which is, and are, related to both) to facts: of oneself, of what is within the interior of oneself, and what is exterior to oneself. That fact itself lies within our description potential, but only with limited and low fidelity short of “being the fact,” though in terms of applicability, utility, enjoyability, or benefit, greater than plenty enough to be effective and to be very elucidative, and thus be lucid, in maximum limit of descriptive power of opinion of fact. That also means that the factual lies beyond us in absolute fidelity — realistically and humbly — yet is paired with another seemingly absolute truth about scientific nature: that there truly should (for ethical reasons, toward self and/or others) be no limit imposed, to a natural law degree of restrictive effect (humans being part of nature, so each being also a force of nature), as to the degree of elucidation viable and worthwhile, when considering matters. That such necessarily be — by nature — far shorter than complete description to the point of replication — (to me) an idea impossible to become materially and truly existent — does not counter the former position of mine.
That nature of some ideas being impossible to become materially and truly existent, supports my idea, which I consider actual in relationships and connections, if there be errors of lack of comprehensive factors or caveat factors to the idea: of the impossible greatly outweighing the very hefty possible. This is a matter of absolutes personally held in life, such as time irreversibility, and such as time-skipping**, forward or backward, being personally held as impossible. Absolutes would be impossible to self-prove to factual replication of antiquity, or of matter parsecs away (in face-to-face detail). So then, one’s own opinion is elevated in worth, to self-consider a few things about life so very likely to be absolutely impossible, to adopt into one’s worldview. The beneficial trick is that such self-proving would only have to match personal experience since birth, or since approximately age of four, to merit: self-proven by that new standard, and not provable to the degree of fact replication inside a human brain, with that typical standard mentioned being a nearly impossible stumbling block to discussion or debate between persons. Instead, self-proof to this different “personal experience” standard is performable, (and updateable to account for new experience being corrective, by the Natural Laws of never perfect, and never prescient) via personal abilities, by anyone.
[**The term time-skipping I prefer over the term time-travel, as time is involved with recreational and refreshing travel, of a realistic sort. Of note to me, I do wonder if the long ago historical idea of travel might have had more to do with that which might be done solo or in the company of others, mostly while seated at destination restaurant, or at casino table or machine, or at personal or job computer workstation, or maybe at a very slow non-pedestrian walk occasionally in a kitchen, rather than the term transport, which many of us know from experience can become tedious if travel (in varied task or pursuit, and as well-enough involved in personally appealing activity) is not much available, while in transport on bus, via train, on sidewalk, in car, or on an airliner, etc.]
Continuing and proceeding, after having emphasized “opinion,” the word “fact” is still important between all of us, and important to support the actual nonstop pertinence of opinion.
The “concept” of a fact is important between all of us, to indicate something like “the exact complete detail, as to situations of things or activities, as they do, did, or might stand.” That complete detail is beyond our inspection, by none such inspection being perfect, and by more humble but thorough inspections and observations being limited as to detail of inspection, in time and reasonable effort. Human powers of analysis are viable and have great regular, though not guaranteed, true effectiveness at reasonable and widely beneficial result; but factual degree of knowledge is beyond our viable and capable inspection or observation.
Humorously, only a science fiction “replicator” of food aboard a science fiction spaceship could be capable of using human awareness to factual detail, which means utterly completely everything about something, down to the atoms and molecular motion.
That of course implicitly includes further down to the subatomic particles or superstrings — if you personally match in such opinions to many physics writings. I do not lean in favor of smaller than atoms existent, and consider many experimental interpretations of materially present distinct particulate matter to have likely been instead mistaken observations of behaviors of atoms, and not “spatial” or “material” orbits, in terms of differing distinct matter, or in terms of spatial distance between orbits being divisible or even logically present as we consider and experience space, with the absolute inner limit of spatial subdividable span of space, not allowing smaller spans to exist, at the scale of atoms. Another neat issue concerning atoms is that variety in natural forms would be based on far more than three differing types of such lower limits to spatial “withinness” (sp), and instead would be closer to the currently mainstream published number of elemental atom types in the periodic table of elements, and with that greater variety and gamut of types of matter existent and thus lusher, also possessing differing notional minimum spatial “withinness” (sp) lower limits in spatial span, such that such minimum would possess in attribute no “tyranny of one” in count option or feature to nature, as has also the superstring theory.
Continuing on the factual, concerning science fiction “replicators” of matter and energies, some of these science fiction constructs I do believe were designed with humor in mind, of which I am a fan, though the storied issues in books, episodes, and/or movies might run along a different sort of theme, than the fictional framework elements theme common throughout series. Themes like such in fiction, may be in some cases, humorous in negative critique. Equally bogus is the idea of a “universal translator.” The invention of such ideas might have been humorous and insightful ingenuity, to my opinion, in the examples of the bogus that such fiction inventions present to us, entertainingly.
Such replication, in my opinion, is impossible.
Opine as we will about facts, we cannot know facts, though we can surely know much: of facts or about facts. One short word, or another, makes a major difference.
Now you, the reader, might have been armed fairly adequately with some examples, notions (debatable definitions), and word structures, to better counteract, occasionally and casually, the fact vs. opinion frenzy that has troubled United States and global societies during the early twenty-first century.
Opinion is the way of life. We just need to choose which opinions to support, between competing opinions, and aim to quit accidentally exaggerating, worshipping, or defiling, using the fact word to refer erroneously to opinions about facts. That’s actually inclusive of official, educational, traditional, and widely held opinions, also, which by being written with erroneous surety in history books, reference material, and especially by medical management personnel, and even plenty by many amateur bloggers self-regrettably not able to get around societal standard. A way to address this issue can be self-discoverable, merely by adding a few words of partial and compelling likelihoods, combined with some degree of uncertainty/doubt in the writing.
Six degrees of freedom in scientific nature can be established, merely by movement of one hand in each of six ways, which is the total of in two opposite directions per each of three dimensional axes, from the same each starting stance of hand. That’s six of an entire field of optionality, with the starting position of one hand the common position to which the idea is each of the six movements could have been performed as the one and only choice of six options, so the exercise is considerable as simulating living six different lifelines, from reset the clock in seconds/milliseconds to match, virtually, as baseline.
For me, onset of such a personal approach to all the officially put forth as fact or irrefutable opinion (at least of how to write each definition in a supposedly rock-solid dictionary) both being truly strong-to-poor, in range, imperfect opinion, was awkward at first. With that first realization of opinion being so continually involved with each of all of us, next it came to be improved upon by a second step of arriving at plenty of ways in which that actually did not degrade or sour those opinions, finding many cases being personally agreed on, to my own knowledge and experience; finding many somewhat lesser valid or seemingly somewhat erroneous opinions still personally considered admirably valuable and well done (excepting commonly being overly-concise and thus sometimes misleading by way of missing much, an unavoidability when there is so much more to enjoy in life other than researching, considering, and writing reference material); and finding in very more predominant and in great majority of cases, those remaining opinions being mostly sincere and well-meaning, and with reasonably laudable human nature congruency as to why, to my self-opinion, seemingly quite incorrect. Those human nature congruency comparisons, or contrasts, were personally considered in terms of estimated validity, and involved sometimes mentally searching for contextual real-time, real-life, real-people cases that might have pertained to authors and proponents, to now and then build a short listing in mind of notional perspective-building possibilities, valuable even if not determinable between them in any case, of historical teachings and standards. Malicious motivators in the loosely formed and uncounted mental list, as to potentially having being involved in opinion author backgrounds, does count in as among human nature’s broad spectrum, but of glad and to me standard news, that reality of some very rare cases of maliciously misleading intent, also becoming effective to an ugly result on others beyond their resiliency, did personally assess at those mind-fleeting time periods (after proceeding through a review of many conceptual factors in mental listing) did intuitively feel present in life, but in a tremendously tiny sliver of a minority.
(I’ve found it true to form that to relate to concepts and ideas involving three or more factors concurrently applicable, is gladly and beautifully doable, but also true to form is the fading away of that “feel” for those interrelating factors in between, and also the ambient intuitive overall gist, just shortly, but maybe up to 30 seconds or so (plenty of time) after completing a sequencing of those three or more factors through mental review. Considering that, the feeling of returning to some mentally more standard ability to quickly grasp only a maximum of two scaled, sliding, comparative, competitive, or spectrum factors, is no call for disappointment, as it is also true to form. Coffee does only endure for a limited time.)
All this, for me, concerning opinion about fact, did involve some time of adjustment, in terms of time to complete. That time period duration total, to my recall, would likely be variable mostly by a person’s opportunity to self-enjoyably make quick, but not too quick, personal reviews of what such a person has been previously taught, and of what such a person has previously experienced — himself or herself — lifelong thus far. Only a few occasional reviews, totaling I believe less than five, in me resulted in the new paradigm settling in, and very comfortably.
Authored by: Patrick L. Cheatham, Master of Science in aeronautical engineering
