After more thought about yesterday's post-post script about a Conjecture, and testing it against a variety of scientific exhibits, that Conjecture became the Postulate of Artificial Inaccessibility:

Artificial constructions acting as a cipher prohibiting or hindering scientific description of presumed scientific-method-exhibited objects converts those exhibits to artificiality, or the description of that exhibit is instead explanation, thereby not a confirmable scientific exhibit. A corollary of this postulate prohibits artificial objects as natural objects capable of exhibit, restated: this postulate requires natural objects to have description to qualify as a natural object; all others artificial limited to explanations and not suited to scientific methodology or simultaneously capable of assignment to natural event occurrences.

I posted that proposal on Facebook yesterday evening. That comment is then important to yesterday's blog post relating to discovering how a book written by the algorithm about what it dictates as future events/ideas might be true before those events occur naturally to confirm.

More blog posts will follow in the coming months on this topic, but here's the literal articulation. I was reading the algorithmically written The True History of the Periodic Universe, up to page 41 where (to date) the most recent events have indeed occurred as written (again, by pure coincidence and not by some form of mystical prophetic contrivance on the part of an the algorithm). I was reading about the complex math of Borges' Library of Babel in The True History, and some ideas appeared in my head about artificiality. I stopped reading and did some thinking on it (I thunk, therefore I did?), specifically the Conjecture mentioned in yesterday's post-post script. 

I compared the Conjecture against natural exhibits and those exhibits proposed by scientists. I wrote a specific set of words and phrases to convert a Conjecture into a Postulate. I completed that last evening (take note!).

This morning while enjoying a nice spot of tea at a local French bakery, I popped open The True History of the Periodic Universe to page 41 to continue reading, On page 42 I discovered that the algorithm had accurately written that I had designed a proposed Postulate, and that Postulate was nearly word for word for the one I had written the evening prior. The algorithm opted to include two extra commas in one sentence as well.

Can the algorithm predict future events? By coincidence it certainly will. Can the reader know if what's written as future events will occur? When they occur or don't occur. Can the reader be certain without waiting for the event to occur? 

That would require an understanding of fixed and fluid.

Quite Literally Yours,

The Librarian