You feel like you don't need to respond to the first issue (spiritual data and evil data). To show you that you need to do so, I will respond to your post as if your paper choose these terms instead of knowable data and unknowable data. I believe this will demonstrate a fundamental problem that still remains in your response:
First of all, in the set of all [spiritual] problems, there exists an enormous number which have ["spiritual data"]: i.e., things which are to be [spiritually] explained by a [spiritual] solution to the problem. That is what [spiritual] problems are all about. To suggest that ["spiritual data"] as I define it is not a possible abstract concept is to hold that the set of all problems is an empty set.
Well, I have no idea if there really is 'spiritual data' as you define it. There might indeed be a need to spiritually explain spiritual problems, or it might actually be the case that any spiritual explanation is as ridiculous as a ritualistic explanation of some ancient Polynesian tribe.
Since ['non-spiritual data'] is defined to be those things which are implied to [spiritually] exist by the solution of the [spiritual] problem, the [non-spiritual] data constitutes the things which are not part of the original [spiritual] problem but which must be accepted as [spiritually] existing if the solution which implies them is accepted. They constitute that part of the solution which becomes the [spiritual] "cause" of the events which are to be explained.
Or, the spiritual data and non-spiritual data (i.e., evil data) might be something cooked up in your head having nothing to do with reality, or perhaps your definition of 'spiritual data' comes from the Roman Catholic tradition and would be rejected out of hand by a fun-loving Protestant such as myself.
The circumstance you bring up, "a problem which contains neither ['spiritual data'] nor ['non-spiritual data'] is a vacuous concept applying to nothing but an empty entry to the set of all [spiritual] problems.
Or, it might mean that 'spiritual problems' are all in your head of how you choose to see the world in your own religious tradition. Spiritual problems might only exist because you choose to see them.
Finally, the ability to sort things into ["spiritual"] and ["non-spiritual"] categories is immaterial to the existence of the categories. A valid solution explicitly requires that both categories obey exactly the same [spiritual] rules: i.e., in the valid solution, there can exist no [spiritual] criteria which can be used to sort the data.
So, if we propose a spiritual and non-spiritual category to sort 'data', your spiritual model requires that both categories obey the same spiritual rules? Hmm... How interesting. What do you do if you change to a different church? Do the spiritual rules change too?
1) Failure to recognize the difference between "[spiritual] things which are to be [spiritually] explained" and "[spiritual] things which are necessary to the [spiritual] explanation" is fatal to rational [spiritual] problem solving.
I didn't realize that spiritual things required this kind of spiritual sorting.
2) The [spiritual] division is an abstract [spiritually] fundamental requirement which must be [spiritually] accounted for if the field of possible [spiritual] explanations is to be left [spiritually] unconstrained.
In other words, we should be spiritually open-minded?
3) The [spiritual] importance of the [spiritual] division is that the two different [spiritual] components are held to different [spiritual] constraints: in laying out the [spiritual] abstract problem of searching for all [spiritual] solutions, the ["spiritual data"] is a fixed component whereas the ["non-spiritual data"] must be left open. This fact has nothing to do with actually [spiritually] knowing which is which, it is a characteristic of the [spiritual] logic of [spiritual] problem solving itself.
I'm glad that you are taking this time to explain the spiritual ins and outs of your religion and the spiritual rules that dictate them. What time is your church service, maybe I should visit?
4.) The only [spiritual] situation when being able to differentiate between the two [spiritual categories] is of any significance at all is when it comes to solving a specific [spiritual] problem. So long as one is speaking of the [spiritual] logic of [spiritual] problem solving itself, the [spiritual] division must be held open as an abstract [spiritual] concept.
Understand. We should keep our spiritual options open. It sounds like you might be a Unitarian.
You should be able to comprehend that when a [spiritual] solution to a [spiritual] problem is [spiritually] discovered (and subsequently [spiritually] believed) aspects which, from an abstract [spiritual] perspective were, not known but were [spiritually] required (implied) by the [spiritual] solution acquire the status of [spiritually] known information[(i.e., 'spiritual information')]. If that is going to be the case in all successful [spiritual] solutions, it should be clear to you that it is a [spiritual] requirement of a valid [spiritually] successful solution that, within that [spiritual] solution, there can exist no [spiritual] criteria which can be used to sort the [spiritual] data into the two categories.
I'm mot sure why there should be no spiritual criteria to sort the spiritual data into the two categories? Can you give me a little more detail about your religion so that I can understand why this is the case?
However, it should be equally clear to you that, in designing [a spiritual] algorithm which will span all possible [spiritual] solutions of all possible [spiritual] problems, the categories themselves must be held as fundamentally [spiritually] different. The [spiritual] concepts are important to the issue of [spiritual] understanding the range of [spiritual] possibilities available to solve a [spiritual] problem.
But, what if your concept of 'spiritual' is all messed up? What if there are no real spiritual problems or real spiritual solutions?
Furthermore, consider the [spiritual] situation where one thinks one has discovered a [spiritual] solution to [spiritually] understanding the universe. He then believes all of the things he [spiritually] "knows" are true [(i.e., at least spiritually so)]. Suppose at some time in the future, he discovers his [spiritual] solution is flawed. Does it not follow that some of the [spiritual] things (perhaps all of the [spiritual] things) implied by that [spiritual] solution are [spiritually] false? That is, some of the [spiritual] things he thought he [spiritually] knew were [spiritually] wrong! Now how could it be that some of the [spiritual] things he thought he [spiritually] knew were not [spiritually] true? The only [spiritual] possibility is that those [spiritual] things were not really ["spiritual"], they were in fact, merely [spiritual] consequences of that presumed [spiritual] solution. This is the component of [spiritual] I give the title ["non-spiritual"]. To say the category does not [spiritually] exist is to presume that there can be no [spiritual] errors in your [spiritual] solution to the [spiritual] problem.
I don't get it. How is it that if a category does not spiritually exist lead to the conclusion that there can be no spiritual errors in my spiritual solution to the spiritual problem? Maybe we are paying a bit too much attention to spiritual matters?
Finally, let me point out a subtle aspect of this [spiritual] duality of ["spiritual"] and ["non-spiritual"] data. The ["non-spiritual"] is what is implied by the presumed [spiritually] valid explanation. That is, if the [spiritual] explanation is [spiritually] valid this data is [spiritually] required. Note that if the data is [spiritually] false, then the [spiritual] explanation is [spiritually] invalid. If that is the case, then ["non-spiritual data"] may be thought of as that [spiritual] information which was [spiritually] created in order to make the [spiritual] explanation work [(i.e., in a spiritual sense of the term)]. That is no more than an alternate [spiritual] perspective on exactly the [spiritual] circumstances common to any [religious] explanation.
So, this is how religious wars happen...
From that [spiritual] perspective, it should be seen that the [church goer] has the [spiritual] freedom to [spiritually] create whatever ["non-spiritual data"] he desires so long as it will yield the [spiritual] data under the [spiritual] explanation he holds forth. If that is [spiritually] true then the [spiritual] explanation implies both the [non-spiritual] and the [spiritual] data are [spiritually] true and it becomes a valid [spiritual] explanation of what is [spiritually] known. The issue here is the trade off between ["spiritual explanations"] and ["non-spiritual data"]. The fact that such a [spiritual] duality [spiritually] exists is missed by most [church goers]. The [spiritual] duality will certainly be overlooked if the concept of ["non-spiritual data"] is omitted from ones thoughts.
Dick, I used the term 'spiritual' throughout. You will probably see it as attempts to discredit you, or perhaps as mocking you, etc. This is none of those. It is merely a philosophical mirror that you can see the dirt on your face. One could substitute just about anything in those brackets that would do the same damage to your approach. It could be things like: [psychic data], [mental data], [cartoon data], [fantasy data], [psychodelic data], etc. All of these and more cockeyed terms could be thrown into those brackets, and make the above all the more ludicrous. As dumb as you think my response is to your 'serious reply', you should realize that you could post the above to a religious site, and probably get a whole bunch of Alan's to burn incense at your feet. What is the common denominator to this? It is that anytime you select ontological terms (e.g., knowledge, truth, exist, etc), you are heading off into metaphysics. You appeal to the metaphysically minded (like Alan), but unfortunately they tend to be the nuts.
I imagine after this response you will find no room in your heart to give this a serious reply. However, if you really want to carry on an intellectual discussion, then I suggest that you show me why I am not allowed to substitute 'spiritual' in place of knowledge or as an adjective next to the ontic terms as shown above. If you cannot respond other than with ad hominem attacks (e.g., you just want to discredit me, this is completely above your head, etc), then we'll just leave it at that.