Empirical Observation Zero (EOZ)
There are changing patterns of sensation within awareness where some patterns can be interpreted as referring to other patterns. If you can read this statement then it must be true.
Due to fundamental limitations, such as the Fallacy of Induction and the Mystery of the Origin of Sensory Phenomena, is there anything other than the EOZ and it’s implications that we can be certain of? Do the rules of logic, computing, science, and math directly follow from the observed phenomena of some patterns referring to others?
All of logic can be derived from conjunctive or disjunctive normal form, which means statements composed of AND, OR, and NOT can be used to express all logical statements. These operations can be directly visualized as visual patterns being compared to one another at some granularity of resolution. Points that correspond are TRUE. Points that do not correspond are FALSE. A collection of points that must all be present in the pattern we’re comparing it too can be represented with an AND. A collection of points where at least one must be present in the pattern we’re comparing it to can be represented with an OR. When we add a pattern that can effect regular change in other patterns (such as a clock) we find that hardware, softwate, and math (that can be represented using digital computing) can also be represented by comparing patterns in these simple ways — since all digital computing can be constructed using a collection of NAND (“NOT(a AND b)”) operators and a clock.
Science also follows from the EOZ. Multiple parties can be given instructions for actions to take in order to observe certain patterns. They can then independently perform these actions and compare the observed sensory patterns with the expected patterns. Those theories that do not regularly produce the expected observations for all parties may eventually be falsified if any anomalies can not be accounted for. New theories may then be constructed that account for the observed anomalies and then the process repeats.
Interestingly, the EOZ seems to imply an eternal past. If we observe patterns changing today then there could not have been a past point in time when there was no change occurring. If the cosmos was ever static then what changed to make it start changing? A static cosmos in the past would be a logical contradiction with change occurring today, therefore, the cosmos must have always been changing and therefore must have always been existent.
If the EOZ and its implications are all that we can know with certainty, then are there implications for spirituality and ethics? Perhaps substantial uncertainty about things such as what the rules should be and how to apply them to the world in general should inspire us to be merciful to one another. It’s also interesting to note that any spiritual beings that may exist — such as angels, adepts, and demiurges — would only be certain of the EOZ and its implications as well.
