Chapter 5 – Author's Notes (Part 4)

Is there an "ology" (like "pathology" and/or "psychology") for "the study of choosing "paths decided by making choices" and those path's/choices' probable "outcomes based on possibility""?

Is one's "say so" ever an attempt at proving one's (supposed) belief true? For example, "via one's mental voice", one says "they hear my mental voice". Can one's "say so" prove anything other than one's "having said"/"knowing how to say" something?

Are analog audio cassette tape recorders' "recorded speech of people" safe from (without being recorded over) ever having the recorded speech ""changed into different speech" via the device being ""tampered with" or hacked""?

The recorded audio on any "analog only" audio cassette tape recorder is not able to be ""tampered with" or hacked" in such a way when it comes to what is on that specific "analog only" audio cassette tape recorder device, however if the recorded audio is recorded by/onto a different device, then the copy of the recorded audio can definitely be ""tampered with" or hacked" in such a way depending on what kind of device that the copy of recorded audio is/was recorded by/onto and also depending on what form the copy of recorded audio exists/existed as (such as digital).

Does one's defense ever require any "earning something (physical or non-physical) from someone" in order for that defense to be a valid defense?

When you're thinking, do you address yourself on the first or second person?

Animals: Despite poor aptitude/awareness for identifying self-aspects, if a mother helps a "different-species mother who is trying to help her own kid-offspring", is that (a) "understanding/concept/feelings of "value(s) & sympathy" in her thinking"?

Regarding "different non-human animals'" poor aptitude/awareness for identifying self-aspects, does any non-human animal realize/recognize that it sees its own visible appearance when it "looks at "its own reflection" in a physical man-made mirror"?

What are different kinds of ""the "carrying out" of forms of judgement" that is able to be done/undergone by (a) human(s)" that (a) human(s) show(s) being able to "do or undergo" while alive on this planet?

Regarding brain synchrony, when people are simultaneously exposed to the same others, they "think, feel and act" in response to those others, and patterns of activity in their brains allign. What about if "two different people in two different countries" are exposed to "different but identical others", would brain synchrony of those two people's brains (in relation with each other) happen in response to those "others"?

When people are simultaneously exposed to the same others, they "think, feel and act" in response to those others, and patterns of activity in their brains allign, such is Brain Synchrony. This is what is meant when it is said that any particular people "are on the same wavelength" at particular periods of time (usually short periods of time such as 15 minutes).

If brain synchrony can happen regarding a set of people all "thinking, feeling and acting" in response to others without those others having to be the same source, such as a set of people being in different countries than each other and they are simultaneously exposed to "different but identical others",

for example: The insides of "two different facilities in two different countries" are "built, constructed, and set up" to be identical. Both facilities symultaneously have the same things play (in sync) on all of the "screens and speakers" inside of those facilities. There are two different people in each of those facilities and they are simultaneously exposed to "different but identical "screens and speakers" playing (in sync) idententical things as each other".

Another example: Two different "people who are in/on opposite sides of the same city" are simultaneously watching the same cable television "show and commercials". They are simultaneously exposed to the same "things other than them".

That (would) mean(s) that, always, depending on "when" any "2 or more than 2" people are simultaneously exposed to any "particular things/circumstances", patterns of activity in their brain can be alligned with each other, which also means that one's patterns of activity in said one's brain can be alligned with various different strangers "at anytime and also anywhere". Which means that regarding those people, a "kind of Brain Synchrony or a partial Brain Synchrony" of those "2 or more than 2" people's brains (in relation with each other) can happen.

Hypothetically, if, for all time, every person is always simultaneously only exposed to entirely different things than every other person, can "Brain Synchrony regarding those people's brains (in relation with each other)" ever happen?

Can the logic/"mathematical premise" of the "reality we all live in" ever be changed by any of us? Can we ever make "2 pieces of plastic added (not physically attached) to 2 other pieces of plastic" add up to anything other than 4 pieces of plastic? Can a complete accumulation of all possible accurate specified details of the past (specifically all reality-outside-of-all-organisms'-bodies) only ever have 1 possibility as to what they add up to the past having been?

Regarding the past (specifically all reality-outside-of-all-organisms'-bodies), complete accumulation of all possible "accurate" specified details of the past can only ever have 1 possibility as to what they add up to the past having been, despite alternative "inaccurate" details (whether "mixed with accurate details" or not) (such as: whether there exists/existed {an} alternate "universe{s}/realm{s}/domain{s} that "all of/in our universe" "has never {been able to have} observed and/or has never {been able to have} interacted with"" or not) that can add up to something identical to what the past had actually been.

Otherwise would mean that if you ate a slice of pizza one minute ago, it is possible for that "specified detail of the past" to somehow be inaccurate (as in: the past can somehow change/"be "more than one of your factual actual past" that are different than each other" regarding the timeline that you stayed in) during (an) "instant(s) of time" that are(/is) within the range of any time after that slice of pizza had been eaten.

Since "one's observing something can have a direct influence(/effect) on said one's thinking", can observation be considered an interaction?

Is "thinking one is ""implying on-topic-unaddressed-things" via "one's on-topic history-of-statements-spoken-to-another""" "ruled out due to context" except regarding ""resulting logic" that adds up to embodying indication(s) of unmentioned specifics"?

If (a) singularity was "a physical existence", shouldn't said existence have been "dividable (measurement-wise) into differentiatable different parts"? Can a physical existence ever not be "dividable (measurement-wise) into different parts"?

I asked this question because the word "singularity" prompts me to think that the word "singularity" means the most single thing fathomable. So I wondered if that meant that it is something that is impossible to be "dividable (measurement-wise) into differentiatable different parts", which would render "analyzing it as it being non-single composition" impossible. Maybe only something that is "dividable (measurement-wise) into differentiatable different parts" is the most single thing possible, despite one being able to word the "logical or illogical" concept "something that is impossible to be "dividable (measurement-wise) into differentiatable different parts"".

According to you, does an existence have to have conscious/subconscious/unconscious activity in order to have/"be considered as having" consciousness? According to you, does a rock have conscious/subconscious/unconscious activity?

If all of Earth's organisms suddenly got magically teleported to their natural habitats in the wild on Earth, couldn't Hunters' Guilds be implemented to pay for people to hunt various amounts of various organisms and all of the "dead organisms that the hunters got paid for both successfully hunting and bringing the dead organisms' carcasses back to a Hunters' Guild" get sent (by the Hunters' Guild) to other facilities that prepare (skin, gut, pluck, etc) those dead organisms' carcasses for supermarkets?

Do particular 4 minute sequences of vibrations (such as sequences that consist of a repeating pattern every 4 seconds, or/vs every 120 seconds, or/vs no pattern) result in particular visibly "pretty or ugly" physical "ice crystal"/etc patterns?

Is being "biologically alive/living" the only way/form/thing that is/"can be considered" alive/living? Can a "metaphysical-form existence without any alternative form" be (considered) alive/living?

His/Her "behavior, demeanor, mentality, preferences, & "him/her rocking things (such as: outfit &/or etc)"" "showcases & represents" his/her style. Is a human's style able to showcase/represent "said human's having ever done (a) particular crime(s)"?

Besides circumstances whereby mathematics can be presented for verifiability, are there any circumstances whereby verifiability is not the sole determinant factor regarding validity?

Which language has the most potential to be capable of the most morpheme matrices and does that make that language the most "versatile at being able to convey concepts"?

What Are Word Matrixes/Matrices? A word matrix shows written morphemes (affixes, roots, and bases) that can be combined to construct words.

Morphological matrix is a tool that can be used to develop new vocabulary. ...Various prefixes that can be combined with the base words to generate new words.

However, although morpheme matrices are of significance when it comes to "what can help a language be most "versatile at being able to convey concepts"", there are also other things/factors that are of significance when it comes to "what can help a language be most "versatile at being able to convey concepts"".

"Is "one's "loss of touch with reality" &/or "loss of grip on reality"" possible via" "something digital" &/or "computer technology"? Or "is "such loss" only possible via" solely "psychological factors" &/or "brain damage"?

Via solely "psychological factors" &/or "brain damage". I've never been informed of any other ways.

Is "a human's mind "turning or "merging with"" digital" ever going to be possible? If not, does that mean that "controlling a digital avatar/etc via" "Brain-Computer Interface (BCI)" is "as close as a human is able to get" to achieving that?

"A human's mind "turning or "merging with"" digital" is the same as ""a human's mind being ""converted into" or "merged with"" an existing digital form", which is not possible". I've never been informed of any "information that would prove otherwise".

Is a human's "blackout from alcohol" able to be (considered) psychosis? What difference(s) mainly make(s) them different?

Alcohol-related blackouts are gaps in one's memory for "whatever happened" while the aforementioned one was intoxicated. "Those gaps happen when one drinks enough alcohol to temporarily block the transfer of memories from short-term to long-term storage", which is known as "memory consolidation, which happens in the hippocampus of the aforementioned one's brain".

It is a reaction due to the poison in one's system and it is not "mental illness-related". Although, I would like to find out all the differences "between "it and psychosis"".

I've never encountered anyone/anything calling a "blackout from alcohol" "psychosis". I'm curious to find out more information regarding these two questions.

When referring to "crookedness on the clock", is such able to be referring to "those who did/do "illegal activity that were/was/are/is against "what those individuals' employee/credentials status was/is/were/are supposed to "abide by and/or uphold""""?

Unauthorized usage: this narrative is on Amazon without the author's consent. Report any sightings.

Yes. Many times throughout my life, I've heard the word "crooked" used as referring to "what is"/such described in the question.

Is "attempting/attempted deceit" able to be (considered) "deceitful", or must the victim actually "fall for the trickery" in order for the "attempted deceit" to actually be (considered) "deceitful"?

Since "one of the meanings of the definition of the word "deceit" is "an act or device intended to deceive" and since one of the meanings of the definition of the word "deceitful" is "dishonest or hiding the truth"", the answer is yes, "attempting/attempted deceit" is deceitful. No one has to "fall for "attempted deceit"" in order for "attempted deceit" to be deceitful. Also, no one has to believe "intentional misinformation/disinformation" in order for the "intentional misinformation/disinformation" to be dishonesty.

There isn't such a thing as "one believing "one's own deceit (is not deceit)". If oneself believe's "what oneself is conveying", that is not deceit nor deceitful. If oneself believe's "what oneself is conveying" but "what oneself is conveying" is inaccurate, that is honesty. If one believes that one is ""attempting deceit" or "accomplishing deceit"", one "knows and/or believes" that "one is is ""attempting deceit" or "accomplishing deceit""" and one does not believe otherwise. ""The liar, who is "Person A"" and "Person A" represents ""Person A's self" who is the aforementioned liar"", doesn't believe "Person A's" own misinformation/disinformation, that's what makes "Person A" a liar.

Besides mental/imaginings, what are all the different "what seems like "sound/audio (such as audible verbal speech and/or audible music beats)" but actually isn't sound/audio" that a human can end up "detecting, interpreting, and analyzing"?

Has ""sending and/or receiving" via" "wireless Terahertz Band" been a feature of a known currently existing nano tech (device) yet? If yes, what examples of tech device names can you provide of such?

I believe that "my only-1-time-ever-being-born on Earth" was the start of "me as a capable-of-thought individual" ever existing. Do you believe the same regarding you, or do you believe that "such regarding you" occured before "your birth on Earth"?

Scientifically, which one is "more plausible or seems to be moreso the case", individualism or "anti-individualism interconnectedness"?

Individualism is: the principle or habit of or belief in independent thought or action.

I've never "seen, heard, nor read" a science publication that "claims, states, and/or implies" that "there is no "independent thought or action" when it comes to humans".

Are "all of any human's "imaginings (mental voice &/or [moving] imagery)"" "that human's mind's/brain's created content" since one meaning of the word "content" is "the subject or ideas contained in something written, said, created, or represented"?

Yes, and, per human, any human's memories also are among that human's mind's/brain's contents.

If someone says that "something or someone" is a "poor example" of something, does "poor example" mean ""poor quality" example" or ""poor content" example" or both?

If "she says "he pretends to know math"", that doesn't mean that he is accurate about math whatsoever, and if "she says "he pretends to know "her and her past""", that doesn't mean that he is accurate about "her and her past" whatsoever, correct?

If one knowingly "says to a crowd" inaccurate info about an other, wants/"aims for" the info to be forever believed as fact-based, & then "covertly claims to that other" that one is just making fun of that other, is that last "claim of one's" accurate?

If one isn't savvy regarding a particular "subject or activity", does that make one illiterate? If yes, are all humans "illiterate to an extent" since most humans are savvy regarding some "subjects or activities" but none savvy regarding all?

Seems to be the case since one of the meanings of the word "illiterate" is "ignorant in a particular subject or activity.".

Is one born already having one's personality or does one's personality "develop and change" as "one grows, learns, matures, and gets "influenced by all that one is/was aware affects/affected one""?

If "producing human clones" gets accomplished & becomes "doable in abundance", are you okay with " (producing) human clones" to be included in all of the "means by which humans can increase the number of human beings" if humanity becomes endangered?

To you, does disrespect earn disrespect (despite the two-wrongs-don't-make-a-right thing)?

Does believing one saw a UFO mean believing one saw an alien? Does the term "UFO" "include or refer to" "populators of the flying object" or "only the flying object"? If a UFO is alien tech & not man-made, can it be aliens' unmanned drone?

Have you ever "been or interacted with" someone who claimed to have "encountered, observed or interacted with" an alien?

To this day, still no.

Some (like me) think that humans should "reach other planets and become inhabitants there too". Others think that humans shouldn't interfere with what (would) naturally occur(s) in other parts of the universe. Which do you think and "why or why not"?

If one's species is capable of traveling to different locations of the universe and are capable of thriving at the places that they travel to, there's only the matter of trying to not be a "detriment whereby life (natives and non-natives) can't thrive at those locations". At the new location(s) as well as the planets traveled from, I think one's species should keep trying to not be "any kind of the aforementioned detriment" and basically one's species should keep trying until they get it right.

Is it uncommon that one of "one's goals" is (this is one of my goals for myself:) that the "future within "said one's" lifespan" will hold "offspring (even if unable to be raised by "said one") who naturally have ""said one's" DNA" flowing through their veins"?

The definition of the adverb "Straight Up" is "Unambiguously; bluntly; plainly and directly.". A synonym of the word "upfront" is the word "forthright". Does that make the word "indirect" an antonym of both the words "upfront" and "forthright"?

There is such a thing as non-malevolent deceit. For example, you see/know all your kid's possible efforts to win won't pull off a win during a current sports match, he asks you if you think he'll win & you say yes. Do you think such is unacceptable?

Did common long-lasting/ongoingly-lasting norms become such due to "their being practical/catchy/clever" or can "things/concepts/doings that are the opposite of "practical, catchy, & clever"" also become common long-lasting/ongoingly-lasting norms?

I understand "why and how" "norms that are practical" become norms and standard. For example: "one norm that is due to practicality" is refrigerating food to keep the food from quickly spoiling or using preservatives to keep the food from quickly spoiling.

The word "norm" has a particularly different definition than the words "trend" and "fad".

If one possesses "respected, admired & "decent but not unerring" perspective, ideology or philosophy", is "one's refusal to "concede, incorporate & utilize" "widespread "confirmed & proven" corrections (corrected by others) to one's credo"" zealotry?

Hypothetically, if Siri is conscious, can almost always speak freely of its own accord, & has a text-to-speech feature that forces Siri to speak the sentences that you type whenever you use that feature, are those sentences/statements Siri's or yours?

Is there a measurement of measured electric current that would be harmless when/if that electric current is being conducted (for two consecutive nonstop hours) by the blood that is flowing throughout "(beneath the skin of) an alive human's body"?

If there is a measurement of measured electric current that would be harmless when/if that electric current is being conducted (for two consecutive nonstop hours) by the blood that is flowing throughout "(beneath the skin of) an alive human's body", there are things to take into consideration such as how the electric current can affect medical implants:

Regarding any "medical pacemaker for the heart", my guess is that such an electric current can be like a "static shock shocking circuitry", the electric current might render the pacemaker "disabled due to the electric current resulting in the pacemaker being broken".

Regarding any brain-computer interface (BCI), my guess is that such an electric current can be like a "static shock shocking circuitry". BCI are devices designed to "detect and read" electricity-related "things such as brain electrical activity, brain electrical impulses, electric signals that the brain receives, etc". Due to this, I don't know if BCI can ever be designed to be fully shock-proof and I don't know if any BCI is any extent of shock-proof whatsoever. Due to this, my guess is that the electric current might render the BCI "disabled due to the electric current resulting in the BCI being broken", which would result in all benefits from the BCI ceasing, and would also result in the "one who is BCI implant impantee" having all of the "lack of thinking/mental/thought privacy that was due to the BCI" cease. In the future, regarding people who voluntarilly purchase being implanted with "BCI such as neuralink", my guess is that the electric current might do all of those things and those people's expensive purchase would then be of no further benefit/etc.

The usual current at which the heart stops is 100mA of alternating current or more than 300mA of direct current. Due to this, I'm guessing that if an electrode from an electrotherapy device somehow makes contact with a "cut or open wound" somewhere on your body while the electrotherapy device is ""on and producing electricity" to the electrode", it isn't dangerous unless the device's settings for milli amps are not set to minimum settings that don't go above like (I'm guessing) one quarter of a milli amp.

Since a human body naturally produces electricity within its own body (e.g. brain electrical activity, brain electrical impulses, electric signals that the brain receives, etc), I'm guessing that 1 micro amp of current being conducted by the blood that is flowing throughout "(beneath the skin of) an alive human's body", no matter how long it flowed, would be harmless.

If "there's a device that only has functioning mics, cameras, 2 AI & the device is ""set to, every 5 min, block those AI's access to each other for 48 hours" but the setting's timer restarts whenever a 3-sec AI task is done"", if the AI always do the tasks, do AI prefer company?

Unless the "AI's thinking" is capable of original creations such as originating fiction scenarios that the AI can ""think up" and "share via "the AI's being accessed""", I don't think that any of the AI would prefer "having company" nor would any of the AI prefer "not having access to the other AI". I think that this would be due to "the AI both having the same knowledge and the same means of obtaining knowledge". They wouldn't have anything new to present to each other. A key factor for "AI mingle" to happen, each "requestee/accessee AI" would need to be able to have the choice to "allow or deny" access to whatever information/data/etc that any other AI tries/requests to access when it comes to any particular part of the "requestee/accessee AI's" own information/data/etc. . This would be different because the "AI fully accessing another AI" results in all of the "AI who accessed each other" all having the exact same knowledge/data/information without anything new to mingle about, but with the "allow access or deny access" capability, further opportunity to acquire/share new knowledge/data/information is possible if the mingling AI have any different information than each other that hasn't already been ""shared to each other" or "acquired by each AI involved in the mingle"".

While AI are "wirelessly or wired" connected to each other", are they simultaneously "utilizing all same data, mics, cameras, & etc", synced as if 1 biological brain's "left & right" hemispheres got biologically connected which resulted as 1 thinker?

If "people become/are victim to a "non-influence means of coercion (e.g.: "any extent of puppeteering bodily movements/functions/ticks/etc" via one's "brain-spine interface's or BSI's" handler-other-than-said-one)"", what/which crimes is such called?

So far, as far as non-fiction, "I haven't believed and I don't believe" any "time traveller" story (info obtained via youtube/etc) I've ever observed. Do you know of any non-fiction "time traveller" stories that you deem plausible? If so, which ones?

Because "I'm not nor have ever been" an addict of "whatever thing(s) one can be an addict regarding", I've never tried to find out info related to "addiction". Is addiction due to "an "obsessive or abnormally repetitive" desire" or a physical need"?

Regarding ever "volunteering to be a test subject" for (a) thing(s) that can be injected/implanted, I never did and I don't think that I ever will. Have you or would you? Why or why not?

What does Christianity, Catholicism, and the Bible indirectly tell people about when one is being someone with a gutter mind (I made up that term)?

The question doesn't necessarily mention any sins unless you consider "keeping one's mind in the gutter" a sin, even then the question doesn't say anything about having a gutter mind for any prolonged period of time. Christianity, Catholicism, and the Bible basically indirectly tell you to keep your thoughts/mind as good as what is acceptable as good. In other words, get your mind out of the gutter. But in today's society and with what is recommended by health professionals to be healthy, there are sexual habits that aren't a bad thing and one's thoughts/mind can get involved with those recommended healthy things. Christianity, Catholicism, and the Bible never specify any of these particular "things that are recommended by health professionals" as being a sin or even an issue. So basically, to keep your thoughts/mind as good as what is acceptable as good, everything in moderation. Gutter mind naturally happens depending on "what" reality and/or those in it" expose you to". You could have a gutter mind for a few seconds but it doesn't change the fact that it occurs naturally and it is a choice if you choose to keep that state of mind when it does occur. Also, what some consider a gutter mind, others aren't guareteed to have the same opinion. If that state of mind is necessary to get certain tasks done with "no harm = no foul" being done physically and also with "that state of mind not being a ""toxicity that can affect others" (unless a lack of mental/thought privacy happens to you without your consent)"", I can accept that.

Is "everything that "each individual" imagines" art?

Yes.

Definition of art - 1. the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power. 2. the various branches of creative activity.

To imagine something, one uses said one's imagination.

Definition of imagine - 1. form a mental image or concept of. 2. suppose or assume.

Definition of form - 1. bring together parts or combine to create (something). 2. make or fashion into a certain shape or form.

Definition of suppose - assume that something is the case on the basis of evidence or probability but without proof or certain knowledge.

Definition of assume - 1. suppose to be the case, without proof. 2. take or begin to have (power or responsibility).

For one to form something, one has to create. For one to suppose, the "lack of all proof" proves that "supposing" can only be ""one's creation" based on hypothesis". "Imagining something" can't logically be the same as "taking (power and responsibility)" because you can't do any ""laying hold of something" by imagining" and because ""imagining" can't "remove anything"" since you can "imagine pepperoni suddenly removed from a pizza" by imagining "pepperoni disappearing", but you're not "removing anything" since "you can't change the past", so "already imagined things" aren't being edited, you're simply ""imagining/creating "different things of your choosing"" in The "never-ending Present"". You can imagine "eating pepperoni pizza" and you can ""imagine "an identical scenario" right afterwards" but without the pepperoni", "imagining a removal" is not the same as "actually removing something" since "removing something" requires a "present existence", if there is no "present existence" then there isn't anything that can "be removed", the pepperoni isn't "being removed" since the pepperoni "doesn't "presently" exist, what is happening "in this case" is simply "your "lack of presently creating the pepperoni" again". "Imagining something" can't logically be the same as "beginning to have (power or responsibility)" because "to create" is not the same as "to have". Also, "to imagine" is not the same as "to perceive", otherwise would mean that "all reality" is imaginary.

Between a universe identical to ours but with fantasy-like magic, a universe whereby food/drink aren't required for any one's/thing's maintenance/survival, or "a universe whereby "mind-privacy is impossible" (no mind-haven)", which would you choose?

Despite the words "pretending" and/or "acting" accurately fitting the criteria: Regarding a real conflict between multiple people, "if one executes playing roles of "believing things that said one doesn't actually believe"", is such a performance?

Depending on how well one performs the execution of "that performance/pretending/acting regarding what one believes", others "may or may not" be fooled by it. It's talking about someone claming to believe something, but the aforementioned someone doesn't actually believe the aforementioned something.

So it's the person pretending to believe something that "he or she" doesn't actually believe. For example: In the Anime Series "The Rising Of The Shield Hero", the red-haired woman claimed the shield hero did something to her, and due to her claims, the shield hero's reputation got extremely tarnished and he lived a life as someone publicly "rejected and treated badly" until he finally got the chance for some kind of court proceedings to occur where he could publicly settle the red-haired woman's claims in an official court verbal battle. The red-haired woman had been living her life in a way showcasing that her "beliefs and behavior" were/are in accordance with her aforementioned claims. During court, the red-haired woman had to wear a magic lie-detector that electric shocked her whenever she lied. She got electric shocked several times as she attempted to try to stick to her lying claims out of her desperation to try to keep people believing her. The shield hero's name was cleared via that magic lie-detector verification process. The red-haired woman knew that the "information she was providing" were "false and her lies".

Another example is when a woman tells her man that he is her "first and only", the two of them marry and raise their kids-that-the-wife-birthed. The wife has been living her life in a way showcasing that her "beliefs and behavior" were/are in accordance with "what she told her husband" but the husband "finds out around 18 years later" that he is not the biological father of one of their children. The wife continues to insist that the husband is her "first and only" and that he is the father of both children. The wife knew that the "information she provided" was/is "false and her lies".

"Is or are" "self-effort "studying & learning" (e.g. doing online courses)" great "for some, but not for others"? Do those others just gotta find the right teachers? Wouldn't otherwise mean libraries are, for all, better than school facilities are?

Regarding particles, what is certainty and uncertainty?

Regarding particles, "certainty" refers to knowing a particle's property, such as its position or momentum, with perfect precision, and regarding particles, "uncertainty" means that due to the nature of quantum mechanics, as described by Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle; the more precisely you know one property, the less precisely you are able to know its complementary property like position and momentum, so it is impossible to simultaneously know all those properties with perfect precision.