Symbolism is like a picture: it takes a thousand words to explain it.
Information theory defines communication as an information transfer process that reduces uncertainty about a proposition. No uncertainty is reduced by inarticulate symbols, and an event pulled out of context isn't even a symbol. You are on target only if you exactly know the meaning. Without the "exactness," then, yes, the symbol is meaningless.
You have a fantasy about what "the cabal has used." I've seen this so often. Someone floats a speculation, it gains currency, and then people simply take it as proven fact because everyone is parroting it. I guess that's pretty good---if you are a parrot.
If you understand communication by that definition, why do you struggle with the idea that Q team have created a form of symbolic communication that this forum is dedicated to utilizing?
Do you think it takes anons 1000 words to understand when POTUS flashes an air Q or quotes statistics with 17 or 33 in them?
Also I'm a bit surprised you think written and oral communication are exact. We have a whole branch of government dedicated to resolving disputes over the meaning of our written laws. 🤣🤣🤣
I don't bother to struggle with symbols. I'm happy when Q says things straight out, or provides a key to the symbols. But they don't speak for themselves.
The only thing Trump's references mean is "I am acquainted with Q." Duh.
I never said anything about exactness, which is your invention. I was pointing out the purpose of communication, which is to reduce uncertainty concerning propositions. This comes from Claude Shannon, who extended the principles of thermodynamics to information theory. But it is, and always has been, true that exactness in speech and writing is the acme of good communication. Nothing you say changes that fact.
Alas, there is no chatbot. I despise them. There is only me, and I sometimes shoot myself in the toe by not tracing back to the original thread. My apologies.
But I was focusing on what I said about communication of information being about the reduction of uncertainty in propositions. If you don't know what the proposition is, it is nothing but uncertainty. I was not using "exactness" in that formulation.
Exactness is no proof of communication, however. Exactness would be exemplified by the alphabet or numbers. The meaning of the symbol is exact (or in the case language, nearly so). I can read pages of clearly-printed gibberish, all of it exact, and no communication.
So, I don't know where we are with this discussion. To the extent that the "symbols" used by Q are just abbreviations, they are trivial. Anything other is obscure. I see too many people treating them, de facto, as Rorschach blots, reading meaning into them from their own prejudices. It bothers me to see it so starkly, and it puts me off---as I think it would put off any "normie." Sherlock Holmes would not approve.
Symbolism is like a picture: it takes a thousand words to explain it.
Information theory defines communication as an information transfer process that reduces uncertainty about a proposition. No uncertainty is reduced by inarticulate symbols, and an event pulled out of context isn't even a symbol. You are on target only if you exactly know the meaning. Without the "exactness," then, yes, the symbol is meaningless.
You have a fantasy about what "the cabal has used." I've seen this so often. Someone floats a speculation, it gains currency, and then people simply take it as proven fact because everyone is parroting it. I guess that's pretty good---if you are a parrot.
If you understand communication by that definition, why do you struggle with the idea that Q team have created a form of symbolic communication that this forum is dedicated to utilizing?
Do you think it takes anons 1000 words to understand when POTUS flashes an air Q or quotes statistics with 17 or 33 in them?
Also I'm a bit surprised you think written and oral communication are exact. We have a whole branch of government dedicated to resolving disputes over the meaning of our written laws. 🤣🤣🤣
I don't bother to struggle with symbols. I'm happy when Q says things straight out, or provides a key to the symbols. But they don't speak for themselves.
The only thing Trump's references mean is "I am acquainted with Q." Duh.
I never said anything about exactness, which is your invention. I was pointing out the purpose of communication, which is to reduce uncertainty concerning propositions. This comes from Claude Shannon, who extended the principles of thermodynamics to information theory. But it is, and always has been, true that exactness in speech and writing is the acme of good communication. Nothing you say changes that fact.
Bro, please increase the contextual memory of your chatbot to greater than one paragraph. 🤣🤣🤣
Alas, there is no chatbot. I despise them. There is only me, and I sometimes shoot myself in the toe by not tracing back to the original thread. My apologies.
But I was focusing on what I said about communication of information being about the reduction of uncertainty in propositions. If you don't know what the proposition is, it is nothing but uncertainty. I was not using "exactness" in that formulation.
Exactness is no proof of communication, however. Exactness would be exemplified by the alphabet or numbers. The meaning of the symbol is exact (or in the case language, nearly so). I can read pages of clearly-printed gibberish, all of it exact, and no communication.
So, I don't know where we are with this discussion. To the extent that the "symbols" used by Q are just abbreviations, they are trivial. Anything other is obscure. I see too many people treating them, de facto, as Rorschach blots, reading meaning into them from their own prejudices. It bothers me to see it so starkly, and it puts me off---as I think it would put off any "normie." Sherlock Holmes would not approve.