{"id":678,"date":"2016-06-24T14:31:35","date_gmt":"2016-06-24T14:31:35","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.potentialismtheory.com\/td\/?p=678"},"modified":"2017-10-31T15:39:15","modified_gmt":"2017-10-31T15:39:15","slug":"appendix-z53-a-compelling-case","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.potentialismtheory.com\/td\/?p=678","title":{"rendered":"APPENDIX Z53: A Compelling Case"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
THE TRANSCENDENT DYNAMIC<\/div>\n
APPENDIX Z53:<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
A Compelling Case<\/div>\n
One cannot <\/span>expect to
\n <\/span>clinically pr<\/span>ove <\/span>a dynamic
\n <\/span>Framing\n <\/div>\n
Belief* of <\/span>the Cosmic
\n <\/span>Order <\/span>\u2013 <\/span>of the <\/span>overar<\/span>ching\/in\ue0c4nite<\/span>\n <\/div>\n
magnitude of <\/span>Quest for
\n <\/span>Potential\n <\/div>\n
\u221e<\/div>\n
.<\/div>\n
But ideally <\/span>one could
\n <\/span>provide <\/span>a <\/span>rather
\n compelling\n <\/div>\n
circumstantial\/supporting\/empirical case.<\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Perhaps we <\/span>have done
\n <\/span>so.\n <\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Supreme <\/span>Court Justice
\n <\/span>Louis Brandeis <\/span>said <\/span>that
\n ideally\n <\/div>\n
when solid <\/span>circumstantial <\/span>evidence is <\/span>pr<\/span>esented in <\/span>court, <\/span>it<\/span> <\/span><\/span><\/div>\n
would be <\/span>like a <\/span>spider\u2019<\/span>s web \u2013 <\/span>so str<\/span>ong that <\/span>nothing <\/span>could<\/span> <\/span><\/span>\n <\/div>\n
hope to <\/span>escape.
\n Accor<\/span>ding to <\/span>my <\/span>consulting
\n litigators, <\/span>in <\/span>an<\/span><\/div>\n
ideal legal <\/span>cobweb, all
\n <\/span>the infer<\/span>ences <\/span>and
\n implications <\/span>ar<\/span>e<\/span><\/div>\n
internally consistent <\/span>\u2013
\n like <\/span>the <\/span>fabric of <\/span>the
\n <\/span>web.\n <\/div>\n
Ideally<\/span>, a <\/span>powerful case <\/span>would clearly trump <\/span>competing<\/span><\/div>\n
scenarios. <\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Perhaps we <\/span>have done
\n <\/span>so her<\/span>e.\n <\/div>\n
There <\/span>is no <\/span>(repeat: <\/span>no) <\/span>contradictory evidence <\/span>to <\/span>Summa\u2019<\/span>s<\/span> <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/div>\n
hypothesis. Not <\/span>one iota
\n <\/span>of contradictory <\/span>information. After\n <\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n
\n
5,000+ years <\/span>of
\n accumulated <\/span>data and <\/span>wisdom \u2013 acr<\/span>oss a\n <\/div>\n
myriad of <\/span>\ue0c4elds.<\/div>\n
Over a <\/span>40+ year <\/span>period \u2013 <\/span>I have quite-car<\/span>efully
\n r<\/span>eviewed<\/span><\/div>\n
\ue0c4eld-after<\/span>-\ue0c4eld \u2013 <\/span>to r<\/span>eality-check Summa. <\/span>Does
\n <\/span>Summa<\/span><\/div>\n
\u2013 overlaid <\/span>over the
\n <\/span>particular \ue0c4eld <\/span>\u2013 enhance the <\/span>\ue0c4eld \u2013 <\/span>or<\/span> <\/span><\/div>\n
contradict the <\/span>\ue0c4eld?<\/span><\/div>\n
In each <\/span>and every <\/span>case, overlaying <\/span>Summa either has <\/span>a<\/span><\/div>\n
neutral ef<\/span>fect or<\/span>, mor<\/span>e often, <\/span>enhances the
\n <\/span>\ue0c4eld. Often,\n <\/div>\n
Summa radically <\/span>enhances
\n the <\/span>\ue0c4eld. Ther<\/span>e <\/span>are <\/span>no\n <\/div>\n
exceptions. Meaning, <\/span>there
\n <\/span>are <\/span>no <\/span>instances wher<\/span>e Summa\n <\/div>\n
detracts fr<\/span>om the <\/span>\ue0c4eld.<\/span> <\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Thus, on <\/span>weighing all
\n <\/span>the evidence, <\/span>the probability <\/span>that<\/span><\/div>\n
Summa is <\/span>essentially
\n on-the-mark, <\/span>is quite <\/span>high. And the\n <\/div>\n
possibility that <\/span>it is
\n <\/span>totally of<\/span>f-base, <\/span>is quite
\n <\/span>r<\/span>emote.<\/span><\/div>\n
Moreover<\/span>, <\/span>there <\/span>is <\/span>massive and <\/span>compelling <\/span>af\ue0c4rming<\/span><\/div>\n
evidence \u2013 <\/span>from <\/span>multiple dir<\/span>ections, <\/span>avenues
\n and <\/span>\ue0c4elds \u2013 <\/span>and<\/span><\/div>\n
from <\/span>careful, <\/span>direct <\/span>and empirical <\/span>observation
\n \u2013 <\/span>to buttr<\/span>ess\n <\/div>\n
Summa\u2019<\/span>s <\/span>hypothesis. One <\/span>has only to <\/span>objectively
\n weigh <\/span>the<\/span><\/div>\n
hypothesis.<\/div>\n
In addition, <\/span>as
\n explicated, <\/span>there <\/span>is <\/span>de
\n facto <\/span>no <\/span>competing<\/span><\/div>\n
metaphysics.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
So I <\/span>have pr<\/span>esented.<\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
There <\/span>are <\/span>no eyewitnesses <\/span>coming <\/span>forward
\n <\/span>from <\/span>the<\/span><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n
\n
THE TRANSCENDENT DYNAMIC<\/div>\n
Creation-point. <\/span>W<\/span>ith r<\/span>egards <\/span>the <\/span>Creation <\/span>point, Summa <\/span>has<\/span><\/div>\n
made-a-case for <\/span>circumstantial
\n <\/span>and deductive <\/span>(and <\/span>spiritually<\/span><\/div>\n
consonant) evidence.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
And contemporaneously<\/span>,
\n <\/span>we ar<\/span>e <\/span>all, indeed, <\/span>very <\/span>direct\n <\/div>\n
eyewitnesses. And <\/span>we can
\n <\/span>all car<\/span>efully <\/span>evaluate the\n <\/div>\n
contemporary situation <\/span>\u2013
\n acr<\/span>oss the <\/span>panoply <\/span>of
\n \ue0c4elds <\/span>\u2013 <\/span>and<\/span><\/div>\n
in our <\/span>own lives <\/span>\u2013 thr<\/span>ough <\/span>a Summa <\/span>lens.\n <\/div>\n
V<\/span>ery straightforwar<\/span>d: Does <\/span>it work?\n <\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
see Exhibit <\/span>Z41 several
\n <\/span>exhibits prior\n <\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

THE TRANSCENDENT DYNAMIC APPENDIX Z53: A Compelling Case One cannot expect to clinically prove a dynamic Framing Belief* of the Cosmic Order \u2013 of the overarching\/in\ue0c4nite magnitude of Quest for Potential \u221e . But ideally one could provide a rather compelling circumstantial\/supporting\/empirical case. Perhaps we have done so. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis said that […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_is_tweetstorm":false,"jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.potentialismtheory.com\/td\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/678"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.potentialismtheory.com\/td\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.potentialismtheory.com\/td\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.potentialismtheory.com\/td\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.potentialismtheory.com\/td\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=678"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.potentialismtheory.com\/td\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/678\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":708,"href":"https:\/\/www.potentialismtheory.com\/td\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/678\/revisions\/708"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.potentialismtheory.com\/td\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=678"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.potentialismtheory.com\/td\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=678"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.potentialismtheory.com\/td\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=678"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}