The+Freeman+Uncertainty+Principle

The Super-Uncertainty Principle:
What things can you not know simultaneously about anything? Perhaps the reality of existence and our ability to understand the idea of it. When we think we “understand” an idea, it is only because we are certain that we comprehend it, that it is in our field of vision, and that means that we cannot be sure it exists*. If we think something may exist, as opposed to our nonexistence, then it is beyond our comprehension, as beings that are confined to their own dimensions cannot interact with something of a higher order.* Therefore, we cannot be certain of one and the other. It is due to the omnipotent demon* and our own limits, that we do not exist, and thus cannot understand anything that does exist. What we may be allowed to understand by the demon means that whatever we think may exist may not be so, and that whatever we think we understand may be limited to other nonexistent things, and thus the super-uncertainty principle is established. The more certain you are of one, the less certain you are of the other, and vice-versa. This considers the demon, and all that it implies, including the logic-loops of the Nonexistence Theory* and Waffle*. **If we are certain about the existence of something, then it is probable that we cannot understand it because of the divide between different-order existences [in this case, nonexistence vs. existence, and nonreality vs. reality]. As we begin to ascertain our certainty about existence, we ensure that the uncertainty of our understanding of said existence, since we always have to acknowledge the possibility that we do not exist and that we are subject to the demon. Similarly, if we are certain that we can understand something, we become less certain that it exists, as whatever we may be able to comprehend may be bound to the same level of existence as us, which is to say, nonexistent.** In fact, we may not be able to understand anything, as to understand something would imply that it exists on some order of reality, and that would nullify our understanding of it, all the while leaving the question of whether it was real in the first place. The more the dilemma is probed, the less certain we become, and the more certain we are of our uncertainty, which brings forth paradoxes in the theory and invalidates everything we think we understand is real or not. Unfortunately, we are simultaneously establishing a possibility of our understanding of this phenomenon, which seemingly contradicts itself. How can we be certain that we are uncertain about one or the other [existence and our understanding of it], if we think that just the idea behind it exists or is comprehensible by us? It only serves to reinforce the Nonexistence Theory, which is problematic for us, as we wish to slay the demon once and for all and discover the truths, if any, to our failed understandings of understanding and reality. The uncertainty principle syncscribes a set of possibilities and certainty balances. Funnily enough, just by stating the possibility of the uncertainty principle being real or understandable, it becomes a member of itself. How? Since the uncertainty principle discusses the certainty concerning understanding things and the existence of things, it is logical that by proposing the principle itself, it itself is under the question of certainty concerning the possibility of the principle being uncertain about being certain of uncertainty. This only complicates things further, but is something to be taken into account, all having to do with waffle and the limits of Man's intellect. The demon described, although relating to Descartes' Demon, is not completely so, and incorporates my own "understandings", my own hypothesizations, and thus shall be discreetly referred to as my own demon. It was suggested that it be Cisco's Demon, or even Freeman's Demon, until it was realized that initial reactions pertainng to the hearing of Freeman's Demon would evoke imagery involving Morgan Freeman, and it is not wished that it may be so. Thus, the demon I have described we shall deem **The Daemon**, for various reasons. There is another problem that adds to the Uncertainty Principle. The problem of observation. When an observer observes something quantum, that action changes its state, makes it so that it is viewed in a classical nature versus its true quantum mechanical nature. It transforms from indefinite, probability, to defined and measured. Or should I say syncfine [heh]? In this case, anything we observe can only be viewed in respect to our limited perspective, regardless of whether it is real or not. Once you observe it, it is "formatted" to fit your window of perception, so that it may change from incomprehensible and real to comprehensible and nonreal. The problem is, how do you know if what you are observing is real or not, and partial or whole? If your observation changes its state, then it follows that if it was real, then it changes into a nonreal thing, something you can perceive and understand. But, if it is only a part of the whole, and you don't know if it really was, then how do you know at all if it's real?[on every level] It may be nonreal and whole, or even partial, but to our eyes, it's all the same, as we cannot tell the difference from artificial nonreality from real nonreality, and the same goes for the real stuff. Although, if you only see a part of the real whole, then you don't really see it at all, and thus incomprehension is preserved [or so we think, again, you have to consider the possbility that any part to the principle and N_E theory could be wrong, which invalidates them as well as reinforces them, which is daunting mentally even if only initially]. It also depends on how you phrase the question and the meaning of the question [waffle!, this is why Nate hates me now, since whatever I come up with, I compound the dificulty of the problem, and then some when I throw in Waffle]. Not to mention that the Daemon could be having on one of his whimsical moments and toying with our possible nonrealities, tantalizing us with the improbability of knowing anything for sure by compounding the dilemma even further by exposing our limitations [or so we think] and their extent. Even if there is A Stork of Certainty, we still cannot know for sure that it exists in our universe and if we can understand its teachings and value and significance and influence on the Daemon-maybe it is possible and it happened, but we may not necessarily be aware or capable of using it for our own purposes. We think something is there, but it will probably always be intangible and yet oh so close. And it applies to the quest for understanding itself, which adds to the complexity of the whole thing. Again, it blows everything we proposed out of the water. Dang-maybe when I have the time, I shall wrack my nonexistent brain to see if there can be made some "understanding" out of this mess.