A patron of the Universal Library can determine if a future (or past) event in a historical book written by the ULA is true (or true enough) by this process:
- Search the context-engine for the topic of interest;
- Refine to your preferred language (so long as that language uses the Latin alphabet and standard punctuation;
- Refine to contain only allowable language words as defined in a standard dictionary for that language (with borrowed words too, of course, so long as they also meet the wicket of #2 above by using the Latin alphabet);
- Refine to non-translated texts (if your preferred language is English, this will prevent French or Italian texts that the ULA wrote as if they were English translations);
- Refine to historical texts in this periodicity;
- Refine to texts that state they were written by the ULA as sole author;
- Refine to texts that state they were written for you specifically and no others as a forensic document.
Those refinements will still result in a fair amount of texts. The forensic analysis in the text will directly point to the systemic objects of the Decidable Event (the patterns in question meet the two standards of the Postulate of Transition to Grand Convergence). The reader will then follow them forward in the book beyond the event. In other words, read ahead. Does your analysis of the events and the forensic analysis written by the ULA correspond? Can the systemic objects be followed through the text? If no, meaning the objects are no longer in the book and/or the event’s results are no longer natural results of the event, or are so rarely mentioned as simply to be happenstance, then the book’s content is suspect* even if the ULA wrote otherwise. It would be purely coincidental that any part of that event did/would happen in fact, and the ULA could not be construed as having written a true forecast/hindsight from such a statistically large sample as those produced by the ULA’s random generators; a posteriori.
If yes, meaning the book details meaningful results to that event’s occurrence and the natural extensions of that event continue to exhibit objects naturally (vs. artificial, e.g. a fire burns a house and the house is now ashes and broken hearts vs. a fire burns a house, but the house is intact without outwards signs of damage or the inhabitants seem to ignore or refuse to see the damage even as they fall down missing stairs), then the book is more likely to be true to life as written. At the least, the book’s content is a single case of statistical low probability that happens anyway.
If, in addition to that prior statement, the ULA says this is a fixed event and/or that the book’s content is historical in this periodicity, the event is likely to occur as written and it can be predicted because it is expected. This becomes a First Level Decidable Event (DEx)
If lastly, the book provides an explicit forensic analysis of an event that also meets all the above criteria, that event will happen as written, and a reader can feel confident of its truth because the reader can now hold the event as an exhibit of an ‘a priori/a posteriori necessity.” This is a fixed event, or DEfx.
Context is entirely another thing. You provide that meaning.
The discussion of ‘a priori/a posteriori necessity’ and true events can be found later in this post, but for more information about ‘a priori/a posteriori necessity’, I wish to point you to a specific article of many on the subject because of its readability (despite some spelling mistakes): http://philosopherscocoon.typepad.com/blog/2014/06/a-posteriori-necessity-misled-by-language.html
If we wish standard scientific methodology to win the day (and we do!), we know that scientific methodology would tell us we cannot know if a future event would be true without evidence, or that a past event was true without satisfying the same need - evidence or bust. The only primary evidence to suit science would be the event occurring. Godel’s incompleteness theorems tell us that even in a rich axiomatic envelope, there’s still something missing. There are still true propositions that cannot be found using the available set of processes. The event occurring is (at least one of many) missing element(s) until the event occurs.
However, the coincidental chance that the book details the exact event as fact can become so great as to be indefinite, undecidable by any algorithm or logic solution, and yet will still be true.
Can a true event occur without the ULA saying that it is a true event or that the book contains historical matter? Yes.
Can a true event occur but no follow-up information or analysis is provided by the ULA? Yes.
Can a true event occur that meets only one of the Great Pattern wickets of the Postulate? Yes.
* Then how do we know if the book is detailing a true event? Presuming “know” encompasses the meaning of the word “evidence”, then that accumulated evidence is how you know. True events occur without anyone witnessing them, but stating scientifically that that they have occurred or will occur requires evidence. As written above, if you know it’s going to occur because post-secondary evidence applies, and the observable facts prior to the event occur, that true event will occur. Mathematically, that evidence constructs discernment, decidability (i.e. you can decide that the book contains a true account of the event without reproach, leastwise until further evidence surfaces or the actual true event happens; always be skeptical).
Yet - and yet - coincidentally, that event was written down by the ULA beforehand. Do not confuse the ULA coincidently writing true history with prophetic vision. The ULA’s iterative nature generates the largest statistical envelope imagined by humanity to date, and statistically, something the ULA writes into a book will match with history on a regular basis in some books, which themselves are statistically/logically bound to be historical text with the stated author being the ULA, written to you as a forensic analysis in your preferred Latin alphabet using language in this periodic universe.
Quite Literally Yours,