Validation vs. Proof

I   
n places I use the word validation almost interchangeably with the term proof. They are not exactly the same however.

Proof is the static part of logic (as, for instance, a proof that the circle cannot be "squared"). There is no temporal element in a formal proof. We approach such proofs as though all of its pieces are simultaneous. It is only when embodied in actuality that a proof moves according to the anterior-posterior aspects of its logic.

Validation is then the act by which the universe (qua logic) proves its consistency.

Validation means "To attest to the observation of" - (my definition)
In the case of the universe at large, some element (which is not functionally attached to a given interaction) must "observe" an interaction and attest to its validity by performing some action such as assuming a new state.

The difference between validation and existence is entirely semantic.
Existence = what we observe (as percept), i.e. not well understood.
Validation = what we observe (as integrated concept).

So if I say, "Why must existence validate itself?", it is the same as saying "Why must existence exist?".

And that answer is explored further along.
(It exists because it cannot be removed ;o)

Validation is then the identity of existence not a mere aspect of the case.




Next Page


Ebtx Home Page