Truth is when "everything fits" but if "everything fits" - then it is not necessarily true

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

Have you ever seen people who determine the degree of correctness of their actions by a number of external clues like the numbers they see, combinations of letters or other signs that accompany the moment of their choice? They can read the cards and see confirmation of their position in a combination of various combinations; can make a choice of a product based on a subjective sense of harmony that arises when looking at the packaging (for example, beautiful combinations of expiration date, price or barcode). However, there are more interesting manifestations of the logical error discussed here.

We will talk about a very, VERY common mistake, which is a combination of several at once. This is a tendency to confirm, and permutations of cause and effect, and false generalization, and much more. But you have to start from afar.

Many people intuitively understand the correctness of their actions based on the accompanying results. They know, and the practice of their life confirms this, that when “everything is correct”, then “everything converges”, and in addition to the expected positive results of a certain process, accompanying positive results begin to appear that were not predicted, but they only confirm the correctness. This is used, for example, by investigators who are trying to restore the picture of a crime and compare the description of events by different people (witnesses, suspects, etc.). If they say everything correctly, then the complete picture of events converges, and, even if some elements were not detected immediately, they easily take their position in the correct picture. But the investigator has a much more difficult task: he DOES NOT KNOW if he is being told correctly, and therefore the correctness can only be determined by the criterion “everything fits together”. This is a common logical fallacy. If “everything fits together,” this does not mean at all that the participants in the process told the truth, and as far as I can judge, the investigative practice has examples of false accusations made on the basis of a seemingly “correct picture” in which it seems “everything fits.

So, once again: if a certain truth is available to a person, then within the framework of this truth, “everything fits together” for him, and in principle it cannot be otherwise. But on the contrary, it is not true: if everything fits together for a person, then the knowledge he has is NOT NECESSARILY true. This is clear to everyone, and it seems that it should not cause problems. But wait … why is this young man over there, see? - I counted the sum of the digits of the date of birth of my chosen one, compared it with her phone number, insurance policy and the date of their first meeting, concluding that “everything fits together,” and therefore she is the one and only …?

Here's why. The point is that people are prone to the mistake of rearranging cause and effect. Despite the seeming obviousness of this mistake, many people commit it. Look: a person intuitively understands that the truth is when “everything fits together,” that is, if the young man's chosen one really suits him, then EVERYTHING should be suitable, up to the combination of various accompanying figures in the documents. EVERYTHING should be beautiful. In itself, this is already strange, but oh well, I have not seen that. However, further there is an error of rearranging cause and effect: if one thing is beautiful (combinations of numbers), then the feeling is created that such a coincidence could not be accidental, and then the tendency to confirm completes its work, forcing the person to adjust ALL of his other observations to the desired result … So he "makes sure" that everything fits together completely, which means that the truth is that his chosen one is in front of him. There is only one little left to do: to convince the unfortunate victim of youthful stupidity of the nonrandomness of random events. Just think … business for a couple of minutes.

Only it will take much longer to rake all this gimmick when the fist of epiphany breaks the rose-colored glasses.

Do you think everything? No, this was one of the most harmless examples. The rest in my arsenal are much more tragic. But let me try for the third time to convey to you the fundamental essence of this error. Be careful.

A person can understand the correctness of his actions by a number of signs that he has determined for himself in advance or which he feels intuitively as the very signs of correctness. After completing an action or making a choice, he looks: “yeah, all my signs show that I’m moving correctly, because everything converges, and if I didn’t think about something in advance, then this is either insignificant, or it fits well into the process and makes it more it is better . If a person really made the right choice, then everything will surely come together the way he imagined it, and if he didn’t imagine it, then at least he intuitively guessed it. However, let's say that the person was mistaken, but the signs he chose still agreed with the expectations. Can this be? Yes, but only in the following cases, which I list in descending order of frequency of appearance in my social circle:

- In fact, NOT EVERYTHING came together, but the person artificially closed his eyes to unwanted signs, or changed the rules of the game “on the fly”, declaring black to be white (for example, convincing himself that the unwanted factor was actually beneficial to him and “it’s even better ). This affirmation bias worked.

- In fact, a person initially sees the process very superficially, and therefore among the signs of determining its correctness there are only signs characteristic of primitive thinking. For example, the trait is the profit made, the average exam score, the number of concubines, or the number of scientific publications in prestigious journals. According to these signs, yes, everything seems to be correct, but if you look at the number of suffering slaves, the value of the cost of goods and services, stupid graduates and the appearance of "Kolya from Urengoy", then nothing fits. However, only not everyone can notice this.

- In fact, almost nothing came together, but a violent imagination made it possible to generalize some “almost converged” criteria to the state of “completely converged”, and then extrapolate this technique to attract completely non-converged criteria by the ears. This is how false generalization works. Suppose, in a single case, something worked out well, but a person generalizes success to ALL possible variants of manifestation of reality and, without even conducting appropriate checks, simply announces that everything fits together. For example, a person had one case when an FSB officer got to the bottom of a phrase in his blog, but could not prove anything and let the poor fellow go. And he wrote on his blog: "For many years the special services have been pursuing me and want to close my activities, because I expose their deceitful nature and blah blah blah, I was tortured in the Lubyanka, but I fled from there." Thus, a person presents himself as a “victim of the regime”, which enhances his significance in the eyes of the public, and he himself begins to slowly believe in the truth of his words “about the regime”, confirming everything with an invented sign that the special services are not indifferent to his activities, although in reality they both did not care about him, and still do not care, just someone "tapped" on a dangerous phrase in the blog, and the intelligence officer had to just formally portray the appearance of the investigation, and, having done this, went to deal with really important matters, already forgot about the would-be preacher. The special services have a lot of other work and, firstly, they have no time to deal with garbage, and, secondly, if the need arose, the would-be preacher would have long ago been “neutralized” in one way or another within a few minutes, that is, to hide “For years”, while openly speaking on the Internet at the same time, he would not have succeeded with all his desire.

Taking this opportunity, I would like to convey my regards and sincere gratitude to the FSB officers for their help to our project. I serve Russia!

“Yeah, Forester is the Kremlin's project,” I hear those who first saw politics in my blog … Is the “Kremlin's project” not a Kremlin's project? Think about it.

And in general, here I pay tribute to the traffic police and, on the whole, respect the state, NOT LOOKING at the severe mistakes of management. Real opposition HELPS the state to become better, not destroy it. Do you get it?

So, back to the topic. After a person saw (or did artificially) that "everything came together" for him, he is affirmed in the truth of his plans or actions, including thereby the mistake of rearranging cause and effect. Now it seems to him that the truth is somewhere nearby … But no, it can be as far away as it was before, and maybe even further, it does not depend at all on the care with which a person deliberately made these mistakes. Why on purpose? Because I do not believe that all these scales can come out by accident through negligence. To perform the substitution of truth, you need to try VERY carefully, methodically committing one logical error after another, long and stubbornly pursuing a very specific goal. Making so many shoals by accident … no, sorry, I don't think so badly of people to believe this nonsense. This can only be done with intent.

Let's take another example. The man took up the study of esotericism. In itself, this is already strange, because esotericism is closed knowledge, you cannot just take it and start studying it, there must be a certain sanction and subsequent access from it to truly closed sources, which, as you understand, I COULD NOT mention in his series of articles on attitudes towards esotericism. Because I am not esoteric.

Let's do it differently. The person THINKS that he has taken up the study of esotericism. Now that's another matter, let him think what he wants, and no one is prohibited from playing games with the sum of numbers and astrological forecasts on the distribution of the planets. Games teach you to enter reality more prepared. Well, a person learned some tricks and saw a pattern: correct events are accompanied by such and such a distribution of numbers on accompanying objects and such and such a distribution of planets at the time of the event. Fine. This means that if a person saw a "successful" distribution of the planets and a suitable set of numbers, then the choice that corresponds to these observations will be correct!

AHA! Dream further, in reality, a lot of factors influence the favorableness of events, and often they are all subjective. Objective factors like planets are only very weak secondary markers showing only a certain cyclicality of events, the ratio of the frequency of their manifestation and your place in this cycle (you often call this the word "Time"). Considering the favorableness of the planets is as stupid as expecting rain after every washing of a car. Yes, there is a connection, but it is so insignificant for these two events that it can be ignored. Hmm … maybe someone thinks there is NO connection AT ALL between washing the car and the subsequent rain? … guys, then you don’t stick to the topic at all, do not read further, but type in the search engine “washed the car, it started raining”, then explain to all these people that they are mistaken.

"The regularity of historical phenomena is inversely proportional to their spirituality." What does V. O. Klyuchevsky speak about in his aphorism? There are a lot of things, but one of the many meanings is that the cyclicity of events depends not only on the location of the planets, and time can be measured not only by correlating the vibration frequencies of various objects. It can be measured through the recurrence of historical events. Human spirituality imposes its own restrictions on the specific form of manifestation of those circumstances that will unfold around him, and whether to correlate them with the planets or not, as well as correlate them with the cycles of the Mayan calendar or not, as well as correlate with any other cyclical processes or not, is the tenth thing. … If you know how - correlate, and if not, then you do not need to deceive yourself. Play - play, but do not take it as something serious, and even more so do not mislead other people that you allegedly saw something there by the arrangement of the planets. This tendency towards confirmation diminishes your innate esoteric sense, which subsequently leads to big mistakes in life. A real esoteric person keeps dozens of factors in his head, taking into account EVERYTHING that he can reach, but a charlatan is content with the location of the planets and / or numbers in the date of birth.

And here is a much less obvious manifestation of the error under discussion. If we know that a person always says something sincerely and tries to do everything right, then we gain confidence in him and then all the rest, even his most incomprehensible actions, are automatically considered correct. This is how the authorities and their hangers-on appear. That is, here we again see that “everything converges” (the authority said a lot that coincided with your position), and we automatically believe that everything else that we have not heard from him before also “converges”, then we have a word for it. This is a fallacy of false generalization.

The same mistake manifests itself in situations when a person saw the wrongness of another person, and therefore treats EVERYTHING else with his judgment with distrust, moreover, if something impartial is known about this person, then this automatically means that the person is saying stupid things. This is a common Ad Hominem mistake.

Why does this happen? Because a person confuses cause and effect. If a person says everything correctly, then really “everything fits together”, and if “everything fits together,” then it is not at all necessary that the person says correctly even what you agree on. And here comes the 4th case of how convergence leads to an error (the first three are described somewhere above):

- Both people have false ideas about the world, but they are the same among themselves, and then the same position in some wide area of knowledge is mistaken for truth in the broadest sense. So, for example, sometimes you come across "readers" of the blog who at first joyfully exclaim: "Wow, finally I found what I have been looking for for so many years, everything is so well written, as if I wrote it myself, if I could!" (I am translating into Russian: “finally you can use something original and saturate your bucket on your head with a portion of educational trash, satisfying the desire to become involved in something useful”). Further, the “reader” receives a portion of the negative in the form of criticism of his “smart thoughts”, which he is in a hurry to share, littering comments, believing that these thoughts completely coincide with mine, and then: “I knew that, in fact, you are such and such and such and such, I unsubscribe. " This is the first option. The second one looks like this: "what a stupid article, some nonsense, this whole blog is an example of obscurantism and a continuous stream of bile of an unsatisfied author." That is, in the second version, a person saw one article that was unpleasant for him, the opinion of which was generalized to the entire blog at once. I like the second approach more, personally, it is easiest for me to deal with such people, because they are filtered out themselves, without interfering with us. I pay a lot of attention to the placement of such filters and I see that I have done quite well at it. Learn.

Why does a person come to either the first or the second opinion? Because he is trying to know the truth exclusively by a narrow set of his own criteria, which have nothing to do with the truth. What is correct in his position is that a person initially intuitively understands that “truth is when everything fits together,” but then he turns this understanding inside out, making him look like this: “when everything fits together with me, then it’s true.” In Russian it sounds like this: “According to my purely subjective criteria, very superficial, truncated and primitive, lying mainly in the field of emotional perception and working on the principle“I personally like / dislike”I make an objective and absolutely accurate conclusion, that it is an objective truth / falsehood. And I'm not even exaggerating this, the translation into Russian here is absolutely correct … in my subjective opinion. Based on a whole bunch of primitive criteria.

What to do?

“It's time to blame! Everything is bad, the authorities do not want to do anything and soon they will all be sold into slavery by inserting one into our ass, and for especially smart ones - two electronic chips. Where to blame?

You need to bring it inside your “I”, to see its complete insignificance when trying to somehow isolate your “I” from the rest of the world. See your complete failure, admit it and start working with it somehow. The first steps can be started with getting rid of I-centrism, when the countdown of events, phenomena and any assessments are made, starting from the “I”. There is a particle of God inside every person, and therefore it is somehow ridiculous to consider oneself separate. Starting from this particle, you need to "collect God" as a whole. Roughly speaking, to unite on the basis of mutual understanding and the ability to see in the logic of another person his personal (still personal) truth, which he, like you, is trying to integrate into general purposefulness and who also cannot do it, just as you cannot. The further people move away from each other, the further they are from God, the closer to each other - the closer to Him. What's in the way? Self-centrism gets in the way - it is like an invisible wall that frames each person and prevents too close contact at the level of the Spirit.

While in your head there is a tendency to "snatch your piece" - not only in the physical plane, but also in any other, for example, any person who considers himself the author of an idea and is fighting for "his rights" also belongs to "snatches", they include and anyone who sells knowledge and ideas, you cannot do anything. This position is a consequence of self-centrism. A more correct position is to consider yourself a part of a single system called "Humanity", in the development of which you should be interested in the first place, EVEN at the cost of your own life, which you mistakenly consider the highest value. In general, such a position is also a consequence of "greed", because "to live as I want" is put above "to live correctly, even if not in everything it is pleasant", that is, the resource given to you from above is actually being stolen in favor of pleasure and comfort. I am not judging, but just warning you that with this approach to life, you will NEVER solve even a small part of your problems that will pester you all your life. You can run away … but this method of sweeping under the carpet will still lead to the fact that you have to clean up from under the carpet, and a lot at once.

As for the narrower topic described in this article, the question of the truth and convergence of the criteria is not as difficult to solve as it might seem. Here at first it is enough to adhere to only two rules:

- everything happens in the best way in accordance with our morality and

- you need to live under a tough dictatorship of conscience.

Then each person personally (in communion with God, subject to these rules) will be given discernment and absolutely unmistakable understanding of what is the difference between right and wrong. It happens that there are other options for describing the same rules. For example, something like this:

- do not expect reward for good deeds, - not strive to achieve the desired result precisely during his lifetime, - mainly to give, and not to consume, and consumption should be ONLY demographically determined.

You can search for other options for describing the same. But do you know why I don't want to do this? Firstly, those two rules described earlier are enough for me, and secondly, whatever such rules are, almost ANY person will say with confidence that he already follows them, although in reality he simply very successfully deceives himself. So talk, don't talk - nothing will help. Therefore, this article is written for those who know how to be honest with themselves, and the rest just wasted their time … however, they are no stranger to it.