Personal Manifesto on Miracles

Some people don't believe in miracles. Belief in the sense of a cognitive acknowledgment of miracles, not a belief to an institutionalized set of organized practices and rituals. You must know that I believe in miracles, and I tend to discard other people's considerations on this, yeah you Robin Scherbatsky. Although, miracles must be under these circumstances.

1. Miracles must be under the realm of possibility, excluding metaphysical discourses.
    1.1 The realm of possibility includes proved concepts thru scientific pursuit or documented investigative cases.
       1.1.1 Documented investigative cases exclude paranormal evidences, since it invalidates section 1.1

2. Miracles include occurrences above the 0% probability.
    2.1 Section 2 explains that a monkey that typed the name "Lester" on a computer is probable, even how astronomical the values are.
       2.1.1 Events that are deemed as a miracles, on the grounds of high improbability, must be in complete documentation.
       2.1.2 Hearsay evidence for miracles on the grounds of high improbability are invalid.
    2.2 Miracle consideration for personal visual evidence may be valid in your perspective. Propagation of the truth of the miracle may be in the unnecessary value.
       2.2.1 Approval for personal visual evidence is an appeal to the Five Tropes of Agrippa on Relation, where all things change due to the various relations it is entangled with.
       2.2.2 Approval for personal visual evidence, and propagating the truth of the miracle is unnecessary is an appeal to the Regressive Argument of the Munchhausen Trilemma, where current concepts rely on previous concepts, therefore infinitely regressing to prove a point that needs another proof.
       2.2.3 Approval for personal visual evidence, and propagating the truth of the miracle is unnecessary is an appeal to the Axiomatic Argument of the Munchhausen Trilemma, where current concepts rely on the biases of the developers that concocted it.

3. Highly improbable events are not necessarily miracles, other events may be in consideration as facts that are unknown to the public or the speaker.
    3.1 Exclusion from Section 3 is invalidated if the argument is an appeal to ignorance.
       3.1.1 Overall, any fallacious appeals for exclusions are invalidated.

You can adopt this manifesto for yourself, I am not imposing this on you. The higher importance of this list is to attain what the logical positivists are striving, eliminating vagueness and ambiguity in language.

On massacres and atrocities

This is a topic that is too old to dwell on, but timeless and relevant to analyze.

A friend asked me. “Ano ang say mo sa Ampatuan-ampatuan at massacre hype na yan?“

I replied “Di ko alam, galit lang ata si Ampatuan dun kay Mangudadatu“

Then he argued that my answer is too opinionated, that the feeling “hate” is ambiguous in the circumstance.

After much deliberation, I summed up my retaliation in the most rational way, that my answer is not necessarily opinionated and still rooted on objective analysis.

In this post, I will prove that Ampatuan hates Mangudadatu thru Proof by Resolution in Predicate Logic. I am saluting Ludwig Wittgenstein for stating that all discussions can be solved thru symbolic logic.

Here are the premises.

1. Ampatuan is a from Maguindanao
2. Ampatuan is from Datu Unsay
3. All that is from Datu Unsay is from Maguinadanao
4. Mangudadatu is a ruler.
5. All that is from Maguindanao is either loyal to Mangudadatu or a hater of Mangudadatu
6. All man tries to inflict damage to a ruler only if they are not loyal to him
7. Ampatuan inflicted damage to Mangudadatu
8. Ampatuan hates Mangudadatu

And then I translate the premises to its conjunctive normal form prerequisite to the main method of proving.

1. Maguindanao(Ampatuan)
2. Datu Unsay (Ampatuan)
3. ∀x(D(x) →M(x)), therefore ~D(x1)∨M(x)
4. Ruler(Mangudadatu)
5. ∀x[M(x) →LoyalTo(x,M) ∨ Hate(x,M)], therefore ~D(x2) ∨L(x2,M) ∨H(x2,M)
6. ∀x[N(x) →InflictDamage(x,y)^Ruler(y) →~LoyalTo(x,y)], therefore ~N(x3) ∨~I(x3,y) ∨~R(y) ∨~L(x3,y)
7. I(Ampatuan,Mangudadatu)
8. Hate(Ampatuan,Mangudadatu)

Then I proceed with the proving. To prove using Proof by Resolution, I must come up with a contradiction by deriving from the statements above thru Disjunctive Syllogism.

1. Statement8 & Statement5 = ~M(x) ∨LoyalTo(Ampatuan,Mangudadatu)
2. ~M(x) ∨LoyalTo(Ampatuan,Mangudadatu) & Statement3 = LoyalTo(Ampatuan,Mangudadatu) ∨ ~D(Ampatuan)
3. Statement2 & LoyalTo(Ampatuan,Mangudadatu) ∨ ~D(Ampatuan) = LoyalTo(Ampatuan,Mangudadatu)
4. LoyalTo(Ampatuan,Mangudadatu) & Statement6 = ~N(Ampatuan) ∨~I(Ampatuan,Mangudadatu) ∨ ~R(Mangudadatu)
5. ~N(Ampatuan) ∨~I(Ampatuan,Mangudadatu) ∨ ~R(Mangudadatu) & Statement7 = ~N(Ampatuan,Mangudadatu)
6. ~N(Ampatuan,Mangudadatu) & Statement1 = ~R(Mangudadatu)
7. ~R(Mangudadatu) & Statement4 = FALSE

I arrived with a contradiction, meaning the statement “Ampatuan hates Mangudadatu” is true.

Next time if a friend argues with you, try to think first then attack with an invincible one.

Gusto ko ng baboy

This is an insight about pigs, and a scrutiny in a Radioactive Sago’s song, as the pig would seem as a comparative parameter to many ideas such as politics and pop culture. The pig is a present element in the society and is subject to support and disdain, such as other elements in the society. As the pig is emphasized as an important niche, the pig must be a controversial concept, exhibited in different roles for the pig. In Gusto ko ng baboy, the persona is asking for a pig from his mother. The mother asks the persona’s need for a pig, and answers that the pig is an attention grabber especially from his teachers, and would expect a reward of high grades. This is a relation to a man’s consciousness to direct attention to him, and be at the top position among his peers and receive their approval. The mother, despite the son’s rational need for a pig, denies the provision.

The pig is also referred to be as many members of debatable notions such as the contrast of Gusto ko ng baboy to the existence of a god and being a pig. The weight of the comparison is significant, for the author to make a proposition that a supreme being must be a creature of lower importance and unclean lifestyle. With this, inferences can arise that the existence of god is of no lavish experience and not necessarily a holy appeal or any existence of supremacy is falsified. It is suggested that a pig can be any member of the society, and probably the world is composed of pigs; all is foul, dirty and impure.

Checkmate

“Our life is like a chessboard game, some talented genius people proclaim to be the kings and queens. Some ordinary people are just pawns. But those who work hard and never give up and has a goal could be a knight…enough to defeat kings and queens in a single move.″

I received this message thru text and I condemn the person who wrote this quote.

First of all, the writer did not really associate life with a chessboard game. He just used a relative importance of the pieces to the pre-existing niche of the people that may be in the position of the chess officials.

Another, being talented or being a genius does not give you the right to be royalty, or be in position of rule, if that’s what the writer wants to express. If I were to relate intellectuals to chess pieces, I say a bishop or what is nearer to a political adviser or a vizier. And what is intelligence relative to the appropriate chess piece? In contrast, yes, an intellectual can be a king or queen in a field, but that does not highlight the comparison to a chess game, since a king is a weak piece, and a queen is a more versatile official. Therefore the degree of importance of the king and the queen varies. The loss of a king does not equate to losing a queen.

Ordinary people, as he say, are pawns. In this premise, he compares the capability of ordinary people to be in that of pawns. The given fact that the writer presented is that brighter individuals can be royalty, and ordinary ones are not. This leaves out the other chess pieces to rot in anonymity. This gives a black and white view of the society, that violates social concepts of diversity in human nature. But the writer adds an exception to his black and white view of humanity, a knight.

In his quote, the status of a knight is attainable thru hard work and determination which is true in pursuing knighthood. But still, that does not refer to a knight chess piece nor his predetermined characteristics such as moves, shape and capability. And as he stated there that knights can defeat the kings and queens in a single move. Idiocy! ALL CHESS PIECES CAN DEFEAT ANYTHING BY A SINGLE MOVE. You don’t defeat chess pieces by combined attack, double attack, back attack, sneak attack, triple-combo dynamite attack or such things that does not refer to a single move. If he refers that knights can “Jump” on pieces to reach the queen or king, that does not make his statement any more significant.

The person who wrote this quote did not saw it through. Maybe he just wrote it for nonsense reasons or maybe he was trying to impress a girl. If you read this, oh great writer, i challenge you to make a coherent one.

The Invention of the Fooon

The spork is a funny eating utensil and doesn’t serve as both spoon and fork with full functionality and emulation of an individual spoon or fork. Example, you can’t use a spork for soup. And you can’t pierce hard meat with a spork since the spiky fork-like projections are in limited reach and with rounded edge.

Imagine a mass production of Fooon: a full substitute to any existing eating utensil, and yes, even if the chopstick is as fascinating and simple. The Fooon is a hybrid of a spoon and fork with the great dissimilarity from a spork, varying in capability and universality. Unlike the spork, the Fooon looks like a spoon with protruding fork teeth, making the Fooon a better choice since it gives the service of fusing the spoon and fork for portability without taking away a good characteristic of either parent utensil.

Are you good at hiding your emotions?

What a stupid question. many people ignore the deeper argument in this type of interrogation, they treat it lightly and never attempt to put the question under scrutiny. The society is degrading.

The question can not be easily answered by yes or no.

First, if you are really good at hiding your emotions, no one would really notice you are hiding something. Therefore, one cannot assess the potency of your hiding process, since he/she is not knowledgeable of the premise that you are hiding your emotions. And if one learned about your endeavor, he/she can not determine what variable of emotion you are trying to hide, therefore he/she can not evaluate. In this premise, one can only know your external behavior or if you have presented the idea to audience that you are capable of hiding emotions, then the premise breaks. But in this proposition, exhibiting the fact of your ability to hide emotions is nevertheless unimportant, for doing so will only cause ignorance to the audience.

Next, if you are not good at hiding your emotions, one cannot assess that you have tried to hide something, since it is already out and if one would recognize it, he/she will just state the obvious. then if you have already presented all possible emotions, the fact that you are unable to hide them, the ability to hide the emotion must be present in the set but as follows, the trait does not exist in the set. Opposite to the previous idea, knowledge of the audience on your inability to hide emotions will only fortify the idea that you are really incapable of doing it, since the audience will just recognize it since all your characteristics are present. In this premise, one can also know your external behaviors, but most importantly, answering “no” to the question will not deliver any significant recognition or trivia to the audience. Another thing is, if you answered “no”, this will only generate a paradox that if you really are not good at hiding, maybe you are already exhibiting the trait that you are GOOD in hiding emotions, therefore one cannot again determine the relative truthfulness of your statement.

Next time, if you are asked “are you good at hiding your emotions?”, answer them nothing, since your answers won’t matter. The ability of hiding emotions is fictional. I prefer to call it as “proper arrangement of emotions”, since “arrangement” is different from hiding. Where arrangement is organization, and organization does not point to disappearance.

Walk

Life, it is only a word. A definition of what we have today. It is a word created by the weak hearted, the anxious and the dull. Man created this word to prove possession of time, an unattainable thing that stirs this universe and bounds every twitch in the delicate fabric of matter. We thought that everything was still in this place, all answers are in one question and all lives are defined by all deaths.

So if there is such a thing as end of time, will it be some significance to the non- existing? To the deep void that lurks in every shadow that is casted by the creeping light that seems to be your companion, your savior? You can never trust again, no light or darkness will save a pitiful soul that thinks of acquiring knowledge that is unfathomable. Your attempt is futile. Many of us now are bothered by the sky that governs night. Thinkers conclude ideas that seem to prove our possession of time, but they are never right. Why care to the night sky that seems to ignore us? The universe never cared. They don’t have emotions, or an earthly feeling that chains us to the ground so we will never exceed our knowledge of how will we dominate the universe. But still, that attempt is futile. Everything is futile.

There is heaven and hell, but not like what our elders used to say. They are the dominions that created time, and they are the proper owners of it. If eternity can never be measured in our universe, in heaven and hell they can. They can sum up eternity into simple definitions that our human logic cannot digest; they can express eternity in a second or in a blink. Eternity is only a word, just like time, we strive to measure it, and oppose its command over the universe. We are born unworthy. That's why every start is an end, and an end is a start, and many still attempt to proclaim themselves as intelligent life forms. It is the start of their end.

This is the story of my universe, my time and eternity. In this dominion, I share the truthfulness of my lies, where my purpose is to propagate disbelief to generate certainty. Where distrust is worthy of trust and faith to the unfaithful is the very principle of this dominion. Where matter tends to corrupt anti-matter and the intangible is felt. Many call this in different names, but they all weigh the same, and they don’t worth much as names. Just like my name, where it never existed as mine but it lived as a deathly ward.