Realize that the elite aren’t going to be sitting in palaces on Earth, but high above and thus couldn’t really care less what happens to those below as long as the machines can keep mining the planet and transporting to and from their orbiting holy city. That pic is a view from the orbiting holy city “down” upon Earth.
Certainly. They take statistical data and presume to extrapolate principles. Their premises could be wrong (much like Relativity or QP) or might be contingent upon concepts that cannot be extrapolated to the degree they take them (much like the Big Bang Theory or the second law of thermodynamics). RM:AO deals only with the lack of alternatives.
Extrapolation is a Problem (outside mathematics), especially when such people apply it.
“RM:AO deals only with the lack of alternatives.” I think you meant “RM:AO deals only with the alternatives.” But you said “RM:AO deals only with the lack of alternatives”. With the lack of alternatives? The lack? Would you mind explaining that?
Nothing can be proven to be true until there is a lack of alternatives. Nothing is possible until something is impossible. You only know that something is true when there is no alternative to the fact of it, when there is no other possibility at all. Proofs are formed only from “the lack of alternatives”, “the lack of options”, “the lack of question/doubt”, or “the impossibility of fallacy”. That is why RM:AO isn’t merely a “possible theory”, but an “incontestable truth”.
RM:AO doesn’t deal with merely “possible truths”, but rather the “impossible to be false” or simply the “lack of alternatives”.
Then I have to ask you again: RM:AO deals with a lack?
I repeat your sentence (and add some words in order to prevent misunderstandings): “RM:AO doesn’t deal with merely ‘possible truths’, but rather the 'impossible (truth which shall be proven) to be false’ or simply the 'lack of alternatives’.” Is that right?
Then I have to ask you again: RM:AO deals with a lack?
I repeat your sentence (and add some words in order to prevent misunderstandings): “RM:AO doesn’t deal with merely ‘possible truths’, but rather the 'impossible (truth which shall be proven) to be false’ or simply the 'lack of alternatives’.” Is that right?
You can only know that “2+2=4” with 100% certainty because there is no possibility of it being anything else.
If someone defines “ephalante” as “a large gray beast”, then there is no possibility that an ephalante is anything other than “a large gray beast”. There is no alternative to the fact of it because the ephalante is defined to be that. A word or concept can only be what it is defined to be. Thus there is a “lack of alternatives” concerning what an ephalante is.
RM:AO deals with what things are defined to be and the proceeding logic due to those definitions. Thus RM:AO is always dealing with (and guided by) a lack of alternatives (due to the practice of using the very definitions involved rather than speculations of probable truths).
When RM:AO deduces something (and gets properly verified), there is no alternative to the truth of it. RM:AO deals only with 100% certain truths, or worded differently, “deals only with what things are defined to be and the consequential logic” or “deals only with the lack of alternatives”.
What if those truths’ definition changes over time? I would agree with RM:AO within a certain bracketed definition, (over certain spatio-temporal frames of reference) , but not as an immutably coherent and deducible concept/function.
That is why it is important to state the definitions, rather than allow people to merely presume them from social norms. When words are not defined, they get altered for political influence or merely by ignorance (such as religious words). The same is true for language diction. And that is why they invented the “dictionary”, first to describe the diction, and then to describe the intended concept. Imagine how different the entire world would be if the original Hebrew scriptures had come with a lexicon appended. By far. most argumentation is actually due to misunderstanding of the words being used, “semantics” (which is then often used for the purpose of creating conflict).
You are welcome to try to debate it. But expect to lose that debate in frustration, so exercise care and patience.
There is no incoherency to be found. And unlike Abraham, it does not stand on the “hollow leg” of faith.
I wouldn’t want to debate it, not merely from fear of lack, (and i will not detail that, here) because, in my book referentiality trumps significance. If some idea is signified, then the primal associations or structures will extend toward the object. Thus the object, and here object could be a ‘real’ or conceptual object, or hybrid thereof, is ‘sought after’ to be defined, with a potentiality for referential process. Objects are only potentially existential , conditional upon the possibility to be definitional, The conditionality of the object thus becomes a priori (prior) to it’s definitional logic.
Incoherency results from the failure of the definition to adhere to potentially referential objects. These changes are not entirely due to politically motivated sorts of uses of language, meaning decay caused by disuse, referential over or under reach (misinterpretation by rote), etc.
I would say that such a result is merely an ontology being shown to be un-useful in the real world. An ontology (an understanding) can be completely useless yet still be coherent. Coherency merely requires logical consistency. The premises of an ontology might render the coherent ontology as useless. But it cannot be said to be untrue, merely a pointless exercise in thought, “irrational”. Solipsism is such an ontology; “pointless”. Relativity is a largely useful ontology, even though not entirely coherent. So relativity is only “true” within a specific range of concerns and uses.
The only uselessness involved in RM:AO involves merely the ease or convenience while dealing with some concerns. RM allows for many ontologies to be fully acceptable and changed to and from depending upon rational use. RM:AO is merely one that exactly describes the make of the physical universe. Sometimes that is not important (most of the time). But a corollary to the fundamental physics of the universe is (for example), “PHT”. PHT dictates ALL human and animal behavior (aka “spirit”) and thus when dealing with psychological or religious concerns, PHT is indispensable.
RM:AO is more exacting than both Science and Religion. But often, being exacting is not important.
So, when you say “RM:AO deals only with the lack of alternatives” you mean “RM:AO is true” which always and tautologically means “100% true”, “without any alternative”, “the lack of alternative”. Is that true?
Does “clarify, verify, instill, and reinforce the perception of hopes and threats unto anentropic harmony” mean that one has merely to clarify, verify, instill, and reinforce the perception of hopes and threatsin orderto get the anentropic harmony? Does “clarify, verify, instill, and reinforce the perception of hopes and threats unto anentropic harmony” mean that clarifying, verifying, instilling, and reinforcing the perception of hopes and threatsalways lead to the anentropic harmony?
:-" 
