**7-minute read. Published July 23rd, 2023** (& edit July 25th @)

Subscription in menu

Whilst making my list of 1000 unambiguous terms, definitions, and descriptions that process brought me into a flow of new discoveries. Some of which were incorporated before publishing and some I’ve via editing included in the list.

I’m now going to stop doing that and I guess after a year or so publish a new fully updated list.

One such new insight is that besides the known fallacy fallacy we must distinguish the fallacy of fallacies.

**Fallacy fallacy or Argument from fallacy** means an error in logical reasoning namely the idea that incorrect reasoning means that the conclusion must be wrong. As an in-part joke, 4 + 2 = 42 is an untrue statement. Indeed, but the answer might still be correct. Especially when via your essential literature you should know that 42 is the answer to all our questions. We now need a larger AI quantum computer to find out what the question was. (Spoiling the joke: read Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, or simply look it up on Wikipedia. BTW essential literature to understand nerd humour.) Stating the same in a different way * AAA & BB * are 5 letters of the alphabet because 3A + 6B = 5 letters between the two asterisks. The answer is correct. The question (3 + 6 = 5?) is wrong concerning the probandum how many letters are between the asterisks? This on the other hand of course doesn’t mean that 4 + 2 can’t be 42 as well, yet then one must change the conventions of the definititions. For, indeed 42 consists of a 4 and adding a 2. Furthermore, as a rule of general probability when the argument is flawed then the answer is mostly incorrect as well. Thus the correct reaction to such a way of reasoning is to dismiss the answer not as wrong per se but as probably wrong for being incorrectly reasoned or not sufficiently substantiated by evidence. The latter of course when that evidence is not clearly given. Which has been done in this case, warranting to do what should have been done. “your answer is correct 5 yet the reasoning that this is so because 3 + 6 = 5 is incorrect because that is 9. You only have 3A + 2B = 5 letters between the asterisks.

This insight immediately brings about the topic at hand:

**The fallacy of fallacies** means all reasoning to a more or less degree is always built up out of *all *possible fallacies when taking my model as a fact. Via a metaphor (which inherently holds to the slightest degree the fallacy of metaphor) this can not be proven for presenting it in that way would entail a fallacy of metaphor. But I can present it as the only means of explaining it as an inherent idiot to all other inherent idiots. The insight of use of metaphor I “stole” from the Bible and all other Holy scriptures. The cowboy with the white hat (good guy) in practice always as a fallible human being has a black devilish dot. And even when not making any mistake it’s simply absolutely impossible to describe anything without implicit assumptions at least. Assuming the five exclusive axioms means that pointing to any fallacy as 100% proof thereof is in itself a fallacy when demanding perfection. You’ve split the unsplittable. Taking my model as a fact (means absolutely true) then all statements need to be placed in the impossible context of infinite data. This is both theoretically/ logically and practically impossible. Only in an absolutely confined local space can I define a seeming absolute truth that 4 + 2 = 6. But isn’t 4.4 also 4 in a way that the answer might also be 7 by adding 2.4 as well? No, it isn’t when defining the numbers and way of annotation. The number two written as 2 means absolutely 2. Towards people not aware of these conventions as also legal laws con jobs can of course be played out. As a fallacy on the internet even philosophical and mathematical sites knowing the simple conventions is often shown as a sign of genius. Which is idiotic. All the more so because my model taken as a fact shows that geniuses are a myth.

**Fallacy of meaningless fallacy** means that there is a correct and incorrect use of any claimed fallacy. Simply apply GLOE. For that, you need to study the complete list of 1000 terms and much more. In the (set law) context of this short blog post, all I can do is point to the problem and possible solutions via metaphor. Pointing to the small black dot of a cowboy with the black hat is a foul play fallacy when implying a larger black dot than is true. That constitutes the fallacy of logic-chopping or nitpicking. Usually done via vehemently stating the opposite. When in oligarch power this Bayesian inversion indeed works most often. Hypnotically making the 1% black dot seem to be a 99% large black dot. Donald Trump uses this technique quite often and very effectively in a very blunt and thus unrefined way. Adolf Hitler having the genotype talent for the use of socially competent mass-hypnotic irony used the technique in a far more refined way. Alas to great effect. Some Jews are bad so all Jews are bad. Using this hypnotic trick to get into power. Then when the shit predictably hit the fan the Jews became more and more the religious scapegoats for the ever more apocalyptic traumatic consequences.

**Kurt Gödel** means the man who broke math. Taking this link on YouTube as a fact to the paradox of Gödel’s incompleteness theorem readily proves my solution to this problem as well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4pQbo5MQOs

Most mathematicians will start nitpicking stating that this fair representation of these theorems is not fully correct. This is without being able to be specific. Something I can be towards their thesis. The terms: axiom, paradox, and proof in mathematics are ill-defined in the current paradigm. The starting statement of “this statement is false” shouldn’t be defined as a paradox (defined as a seeming contradiction) but as a contradiction. A proven true contradiction is logically proven unsolvable. On the implicit probandum the error lies in the question. The more than 5 maybe now 79 or more axioms that this video (as indeed did Gödel) talks about are to be defined as postulates (proven suspects/ prior odds ex 3rd LOE Bayes). Axioms are to be seen (i.e. defined) as proven culprits (posterior odds ex 3rd LOE Bayes). Study the list to see why. Based on my 5 exclusive axioms, the cosmos is proven dualistic and infinite by theorem. Given dualistic reasoning, do we have a result for this question if the statement “this statement is false” is true or false? The answer is of course no. The question is absolutely meaningless because it absolutely has a 50% probative value via the applicable mathematics of Bayes as the 3rd LOE. Only after having a result can the question true (1) or false (0) be answered. The elementary problem is that 40% of humanity contains most mathematicians and most physicists religiously want the cosmos to be quantifiable because they are best at numbers. For only then can they be the vehemently mostly unwittingly desired boss of god. Coupling these incompleteness theorems with nature via quantum weirdness is a fallacy. The exclusive five axiomatic-based proof of Mother Nature having an in every focus sphere for humans observable all the godly order functions in the infinite cosmos is a falsifiable statement that is as yet not falsified. This is for the simple reason that it’s absolutely true. A circumstantial evidence-based reductio ad absurdum valid mathematical strongest possible proof isn’t a fallacy. Stating it is a fallacy is indeed a fallacy. Because it includes a hell of a lot of data, namely a lot of all that is known to me. I’m thus not committing the fallacy of begging the question due to my relative little black spot, which is an absolutely infinitely large black dot. A simple wise fools paradox coupled with the chess grandmasters fallacy. An infinite cosmos provides an infinite lack of data, even when forced to take all data into evidence. Yet, that doesn’t prove that we humans are nothing. We are only nearly absolutely nothing in the cosmos. With such a god as a cowboy with the white hat and absolutely no black dot as workability. (Workability means werkelijkheid in Dutch see the list as infinite topology in spacetime). The absence of disproof after presenting all the evidence is a convincing exact scientific strongest proof there is. Current sinister science carries the burden of disproof. Current science will remain sinister until it’s properly defined. Peers and thus peer review scientifically don’t exist until they are unambiguously defined. Scientific peers are the ones shying away from their obligation to the social contract with humanity. There is compelling evidence of only evidence pro and absolutely no evidence con for the statement that the infinite cosmos is classical mechanical is a true statement. This is thus proven until falsified by the largest possible circular argument covering most data ground in a completely consistent way. Sinister science needs to urgently shut up and follow proper proceeding ex the Grand Law of Everything. Or pose a data-based absolutely consistent loop-hole-free valid falsification via reproducible reason. They show only to be capable of either ignoring or mostly venturing into mad ad hominem attacks. This is strong evidence that they indeed can’t carry the burden of disproof of my thesis. Or disprove my valid falsification even overkill by theorems of absolutely all of science’s material and all formal thesis positions. The latter are my anti-thesis positions.

@ Edit: After publication and some discussions on Facebook on the definition of paradigm.

The elementary (meaning most fundamental) terms for schools, the courts of law, and science show why systematically the term paradox should not mean an untruth in any way at all. When mathematic & physics teachers use the term paradox in another way than the Oxford Dictionary then this causes sinister mayhem and an avoidable thus culpable Babylonian confusion.

**Truth **means seeming true yet true

**Contradiction **means seeming untrue yet untrue

**Illusion** means seeming true yet untrue

**Paradox **means seeming untrue yet true

**Enigma** means (as an improvement to the list) as yet unsolved either an illusion (untruth) or a paradox (truth). This is what exact scientists should state when talking about quantum entanglement when not accepting the five exclusive axioms. Well, because my model(s) solve(s) this enigma which prove(s) it to be a non-elementary local law problem. Indeed a proven paradox non workability truth.

**Truth** means also a linear interpretation of inherent always object subject dualistic data.

**Reality **means interpreted in more than one truth perspective.

**Workability** means (werkelijkheid in Dutch) interpreted from infinite angles or infinite truths. A homunculus is real but not as workability.

(end @ edit)

Absolute Axiomatic Proof exists only now via GLOE as a proven true statement.

God plays dualistic dice between absolute limits of one quantum length interactive of two such lengths of spacetime speed.

On an elementary probandum in any local spacetime sphere, the cosmos is absolutely quantifiable up to one elementary zero to one quantum length. Yet, at-the-same-time-all-the-time absolutely loophole-free non-quantifiable smaller than the smallest of two opposing one quantum lengths of 3D CM mass. Observed speed is only possible with a two separate object-subject duality constituting the smallest space-time set law domain. (Set theory should be defined as set law. See list.)

Take note that pure mathematics is to be defined as meta-physics. Contrary to elementary physics and thus elementary mathematics physically traveling back in time absolutely isn’t possible. Of course in metaphysics anything is possible.

All that I’ve done by following proper legal Just Proof proceedings is develop and apply the Grand Law of Everything. This then absolutely on inherent fewest axiomatic assumptions as a metaphor shows that I in the Cloths of the Emperor scenario have shown the naked truth of a con job by oligarch peers of sinister science botching the elementary setup of any proper argument. This is akin to having broken a Rubik’s cube open and swopping the central squares. Having Kurt Gödel and John Bell by theorems proves the current sciences’ position to indeed *then *be absolutely unsolvable.

All I’ve done is use all existing elementary scientific theorems in the correct starting position order and solve the then-solvable puzzle. Only requiring a slight twist after having solved the Babylonian definition confusion via my list.

This one A4 doodle graphic proves that it’s possible to describe the whole mainstream Copenhagen Interpretation in a fair way to any mentally healthy six to twelve-year kid with sufficient Bildung. It’s explained in the pingback.

This pingback gives you the list of 1000 elementary terms, definitions, and descriptions you should simply quickly scan to grasp how we all have been coned by sinister science causing mayhem in schools, courts of law, and science.

This one doodle graphic and picture show the whole core solution, which is explained in this pingback.

When you like this content and want to support this blog subscribe via the menu.

· Permalink

You shouldn’t believe what you hear in a five minutes talk on Gödel’s theorem for dummies. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4pQbo5MQOs Full of misleading statements and a few outright wrong ones.

· Permalink

Well, again as a third time, I’m trying to respond. I hope it will work this time around.

It’s not presented as a complete proof of what Godel states, but to inform those who don’t know about it to further investigate it.

like I already stated you’ll need to be much more specific in your critique to give a valid falsification of what I state. What you do now as a emeritus professor of statistitics KNAW is the fallacy of authority. Combined with the strawman fallacy implying the video claims more than to be a mere introduction.

· Permalink

· Permalink