Lack of belief system pt4

Imagine a single infinitely small dot out in the middle of space. It is just one single possibility, for example, tacos. Tacos either are or  they  are not. So tacos will connect with two other dots. One that says tacos do exist and one that says tacos do not exist. (We will ignore Schrödinger's cat for now)  If tacos exist then a whole stream of other possibilities will connect to the tacos are dot, such as people that like eating tacos, lists of what goes on tacos, pictures of tacos, and descriptions of what tacos may taste like. And each one of these possibilities will be a dot of their own and may or may not link up with a multitude of other dots. Pictures of tacos would link up to the possibility of pictures existing. And the pictures exist dot would link up to one about moving pictures. The more dots there are that link up with the one that says that particular thing is real, the more likely it is to be real.In the example above, in some small way, tacos and movies partially validate each others' existence.

In this example, every thing that might be has two possibilities connected to it. One that says it is and one that says it is not. And then there are a host of things that are connected to one or the other possibility. In that way you can and will build a malleable framework that includes everything you see, hear, say, think, feel and interact with. Over time it will likely become obvious to you which thing is more likely to be true in a given situation. The correct course of action then is to act as if that thing were true but still find ways to test it. Perhaps your logic was flawed. Maybe you did not think of enough possibilities on one side or the other for it to be truly conclusive. Or maybe there was data that you were unaware of that should have made some choices invalid.

And remember you should constantly be looking for evidence. Notice I did not say that you should look for evidence to support your beliefs. Do not jump to conclusions. A single piece of evidence does not fill in a whole puzzle. Each piece of new data either fits with your theory or it does not and when it does not it doesn't mean the piece should be discarded. It is not the data that is flawed and needs rethinking. It is the theory that should change.

Also if you notice above, I said you would be building a malleable structure. Unlike the belief system house, the lack of belief structure can grow infinitely in any direction. It is not limited in any way.  When a whole line of thought or reasoning proves to be unfounded all the dots connected to it can simply just disappear. They are no longer there to crowd up the framework. But they aren't gone forever.  Think of the way a lot of computer programs are made nowadays. The options that you can choose are easy to see and the ones that don't apply are often greyed out. And the choices that you make cause new options to appear or old ones to become greyed out. Only in your framework, since it's in your head,  instead of greying them out you just stop making them visible. And then when new information is entered, if necessary you can call them back at a moment's notice.

There is no foundation, no systems, no walls. Any single piece can be pulled out and replaced with any other piece. The possibilities are literally endless.