#1 The Probability of Truth

Humanity has arrived at a salient moment. An intangible sensation hangs in the air, invisible, but highly anxiogenic. A putrid stench surrounds and overwhelms us.
We search for its source, but find it to be pervasive. Each and every one of us have been poisoned by our own minds. An immense toxicity has accumulated within the collective consciousness of humanity.
The toxin within all of us is certainty. The concept of certainty is fallacious. A rigid mind is a rotting mind. Reality, or Actuality, most probably is not deterministic.
Rather, humanity has progressively unearthed information which suggests that our entire existence is probablistic.

Animism, Theology, Cosmology, Elenchus, Aristotelianism, Platonism, Rationalism, Existentialism, Postmodernism, all of metaphysics has existed as a collective human effort to give definition to our existence.
If reality is indeed flexible, our definitions ought to mirror this. Each of our mental definitions exist as an aggregate of measurements, and correlations to other definitions.
These correlations, if probablistic, should contain weights. Grass = [(green: 0.2), (plant: 0.9), ...].
These weights, or probabilities, express the similarity of a given correlated definition to the definition which it aids in constructing.
Grass is almost always a plant, thus this correlation would have a high weight. But it is much less frequently green, indicating a lower weight.
Plato's "Forms", or weights of 1, do not exist in a probablistic model of reality. Rather a probability without a known false case would be expressed aysmptotically, as to not preclude undiscovered information.
We must never fall prey to certainty. The preceding suggestion is enormous. The physical construction of such a map of information would be infinite, and thus impossible.
This script is not a prescription for the creation of such a map, though its undertaking is not necessarily discouraged. The goal of this paper is human evolution.
To bring about the death of the Boolean mind.

#2 Unreliability of Information

One of the major difficulties in correlating and weighing definitions lies in the unreliability of human information.
All human definitions are constructed from percieved information, and conceptualized against our own pre-existing definitions.
The difficulty in this is determining the accuracy of the information we perceive against physical reality. The existence we find ourselves in is not physical reality.
Our consciousness exists within a simulation of what our bodies believe reality to be.
Human existence is an amalgam of measurements from biological sensors, compiled into our perception. Human reality is a simulation of the senses.
However, our biological sensors, and the system they are a part of, are not perfect instruments. A simulation exists to recreate the characteristics of something without wholly reprocuding it.
Our consciousness attempts to recreate the characteristics of physical reality so that we may understand it and operate within it. Reality does not exist in our minds.
Quite the opposite appears to be accurate. Only our perception of reality exists within our minds, but that perception need not have any likeness to Physical Reality.

The accuracy of a simulation compared to its source can be expressed as a ratio. An accuracy of 1 would repesent a perfect recreation, while 0 would express no likeness to the source whatsoever.
No simulation has an accuracy of 1 as it would then definitionally cease to be a simulation, and become a perfect copy of its source. In other words, all simulations are innacurate by some amount.
A simulacrum is a simulation in which the replicated source is a simulation itself. A simulation of a simulation.
Let us picture simulacrum as a lineage wherein a given simulation is expressed as a child of that which it intends recreate.
The depth of a particular simulacrum is the number of simulations between it and the original source (Physical Reality in this case).
We would say that the source has a "Simulacral Depth" of 0, a direct simulation of the source has a depth of 1, and so on.
Suppose we endeavored to create a mimic of our thoughts, such that we could make them percievable to others. This is a simulation which we know as speech.
If physical reality is the chosen source from which we derive our biological simulations, and we know how many simulations exist between it, and speech. We can then determine the simulacral depth of Speech.
(-> = simulates) Physical Reality -> nervous sensation -> thought -> speech. x(d) = the simulacral depth of x.
Physical Reality(d) = 0, nervous sensation(d) = 1, thought(d) = 2, speech(d) = 3. This way we would say that the simulacral depth from reality to speech is 3.

"Simulacral Decay" is an expression of compounding inaccuracy of a given simulation corresponding to its depth.
Physical reality is the intended source of our simulation, thus it would have an accuracy to itself of 1, or 100%.
Nervous sensation is a simulation of some of the inputs from physical reality which exist around the individual. As is it a simulation, this sensation would be innacurate by some amount.
For this example we will boldly claim that human nervous sensation simulates inputs from Physical reality eighty percent accurately.
The brain then recieves the results of this simulation and compiles them into thought.
The accuracy of this thought to reality is then dependent upon, and limited by the accuracy of the nervous sensation which served to form it.
If the sensation is eighty percent accurate to reality, the accuracy to reality of the thought simulating these sensations definitionally must be lower than eighty percent.
If a ratio is multiplied by another ratio, the product can only be lower than its factors. Thus we can posit, "The greater the depth of a simulacrum, the lower its accuracy to the source."

#3 Construction of Probability

The question then remains, "If our measurements are unreliable, how can we determine the probability of a definition?" The answer to this question would be, "Scientifically."
For a definition's accuracy to be ascertained it must be measured. To accuracy of a measurement is deteremined by its repeatability, consilience and precision.
Repetition is simple. If some process of measurement is repeated and the outcome of multiple measurements are similar, we can begin to conceptualize a defenition from them.
Say a pile of logs is burned 1000 times, and the temperature of the resulting fire is measured each time.
If the entire set of measurements exist within a range of 300°C-500°C, we can then make a determination of the average heat of this type of fire.

The process of reconciliation exists as a comparison of measurements from different sources. Multiple sources may have wildly varying defenitions of identical concepts.
If measurements of a single definition from differing sources are incongruent, the definition would then be less accurate.
It must then be determined through continued measurement and reconcilation which, if any, of these measurements is more accurate.
The consilience of a definition is its accuracy when compared against multiple sets of data.

Precision is the scale, or variance of a given definition, or measurement. The more multivariate a given measurement is, the lower its accuracy will be.

#4 Influences on Probability (Relativity)