Why ‘True and False’ Is Not A Reliable Analytical Tool
Everything is ‘half-true.’ And, therefore, ‘half-false.’
Everything is ‘half-true.’ And, therefore, ‘half-false.’ How do we know this? True and false, like any X and Y, share an always-conserved circle. It looks like this.
And, also, this:
This is because the diagram shares a circular relationship with space. Meaning, space is, always, in the background (and, also, in the foreground).
We can prove this, easily, because X and Y is 0 and 1. 0 and 1 is circumference and diameter.
Meaning, everything is balanced, and explained, by the conservation of a circle.
Allowing us to notice (observe, ‘see’) that 50–50 is the base relationship governing everything.
Therefore, you can expect any scientific ‘study’ to be half-correct. And half-incorrect. Where data always share a circular relationship with space.
This means we have to ‘correctly’ identify ‘space’ if we want to understand, most thoroughly, what is going on in Nature, and what is going on when we try to ‘analyze’ Nature.
Where ‘space’ can only be correctly articulated (identified) as ‘pi.’
This means you can say (or think) whatever you want to say (or think) about anything, and it will always be half-true. Someone else will hold the opposing opinion, balancing, and explaining, (proving) the truth, or falsity, around your ‘opinion.’
This does not, necessarily, mean we are ‘always going around in circles.’ It means we have the power of ‘observation’ at our disposal, to do with, what we want.
Explaining why we can change our mind about anything. At any time. In any place.
And that’s why it’s impossible to use ‘true’ and-or ‘false’ as ‘barometers’ for what is ‘right’ and ‘wrong.’ Explaining why people do whatever they want. Whenever they want.
For whatever reason. They want. (True and false (logic) is, completely, unreliable.)
Conservation of the circle is the core dynamic in Nature.
