Talk:Revelation principle
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Formulation
editThe current formulation is not particularly helpful because it doen not say what "associated" or "corresponds" actually means. What properties does the "corresponding associated" mechanism have in regard to the original one? 130.149.95.149 (talk) 12:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Revelation Principle Corollary
editHi there,
I know you don't accept unpublished material or speculation, but since I can't think about the subject further unless I first dump my processing to memory in some way, I will just share here and accept that it may be forgotten:
It is a corollary of the Revelation Principle that where "simply knowing the solution exists is enough", that information - disclosed within a closed system of truth-telling mechanisms - is able to spread outside that (seemingly) closed system, simply by virtue of the absence of difference, between mechanisms outside that closed system - over which that closed system has (direct) control(, that is, control by virtue of the information those mechanisms, under the control of that closed system, need (which hence creates a system of direct control)).
In other words, you can tell what you might be thinking, simply by looking in a mirror; not that you are (actively) thinking what you see, but simply that you cannot be (passively) thinking anything else (meaning you cannot alternatively redefine your active and passive thinking (and trick yourself), with respect to whatever it is that you will eventually reveal (as a result of looking in the mirror) - ...which being revealed, will be neither more or less than what is both in the mirror, and (existent) outside it(, short of returning a null value, a void reflection)).
If you are thinking this is unclear, even now, it may be that the whole article needs to be rewritten, as the two statements - of the principle and this, which I imagine to be its corollary - sound basically identical to me. I admit I have two guilty pleasures, in this: one, that you may take it seriously; two, that you may remember that it was a believer who attempted to tell it to you (if the truth in itself does not convict you, you may consider it irrelevant!). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.50.116 (talk) 05:47, 16 October 2011 (UTC)