Premise: “Reality is number. Number is all.” – Pythagoras
Pythagoras meant that in a Platonic sense…in fact Plato got his Platonism from the Pythagorean school, funny as that is. Basically, and simply, mathematics, i.e. number, is the unseen domain of perfect form that underlies reality. It is not a domain of reality that you can sense with your animal senses (although, it is what your animal senses, sense), rather it is a domain which you can only see with your mind, with rational reason, with consciousness, in your mind’s eye. Numbers, and the mathematics which ensue, are the hidden or “occult” domain underlying existence. It is Plato’s domain of perfect form, it is Kant’s noumenal domain, but it is knowable, not unknowable. Understanding this mathematical domain is the true source of power in the world.
This concept paradoxically comes as a horrific shock to pretty much any scientist, and in particular, most curiously, physicists. A physicist spends all of his or her time doing mathematics; figuring out the right mathematical solution to some mathematically complex problem; doing measurements to check if their mathematical solution is correct, and when they’re not, it always indicates an error of calculation was made, and so the physicist continues on to seek the correct mathematical solution. However, for some reason they are still horrified at the idea that mathematics has anything to do with, let alone be the basis of, reality.
For example, just the other day I was chatting with an astronomer at dinner, and I mentioned this idea to him, of mathematics being the basis of reality. This was his paradoxical response: “I don’t agree with that. Mathematics is only a system of logic. For example, Riemannian geometry was developed well before we had any use for it, which didn’t come until Einstein.”
I don’t understand how that was a rebuttal. It seems to me to perfectly justify the idea that mathematics forms the logical basis of reality!
Now the point on mathematical logic is a very good one. There are two basic forms or classes of logical statements: analytic, and synthetic. Synthetic logical statements are generally “observational”, such as statements about reality that are based on observation. For example, the statement that all swans are white is synthetic logic. This type of logic is not “permanent”, it is not unfalsifiable, because the moment you see a black swan then the statement is no longer true. The full term for this type of logic statement is called “a-posteriori synthetic” which basically means “after the fact (of an observation), a statement was created”.
Analytic logical statements, or “a-priori analytic” statements, are on the other hand true by definition, and are not falsifiable. They are true independent of any requirement for confirmation. For example, “all bachelors are not married” is true by definition, it is an a-priori analytic statement. Another example is 1 + 1 = 2. You might think that this is funny, but you can prove that this is true by definition:
1 + 1 = 1 + 1
Now let’s just write 1 + 1 with a new symbol that looks like 2.
Therefore 1 + 1 = 2, which means 1 + 1. All that 1 + 1 = 2 means is that 1 + 1 = 1 + 1, which is true by definition, which is not falsifiable, and which does not require confirmation, and which is true forever. From there you can generate all numbers.
In fact that’s what any mathematical statement or function looks like, and all they say is that the left hand side equals the right hand side, but simply using different symbols on either side to represent the same thing. Of course, it can get more complicated. For example, look at the Pythagorean Equation
Z2 = X2 + Y2
for the length of the hypotenuse of a right angled triangle:
Figure 1
Z2 = X2 + Y2 is a little bit more complicated than 1 + 1 = 2, but it still a-priori analytic, only requiring a slightly more advanced rational intelligence to derive and define from scratch.
This puts mathematics and numbers into a very unique class of logic, and realm of existence. I can’t actually think of any other system of logic that has the size and scope that mathematics has and that stands on its own independent of human confirmation, only requiring rational understanding and discovery. The case of Riemann, and many others too of course, shows that we do not require observation to derive ontological mathematics – that is, mathematics which is the basis of reality (ontological). In fact it would be entirely safe to say that mathematics and number are the system of logic, defining the very basis of logic and rational thought itself. Mathematics is what we discover through science, and through physics – mathematics is the thing in itself, the thing we’re trying to understand when we do science. It is the mathematics of reality we are developing an understanding of, not some reality independent of the mathematical explanation; the mathematical explanation is the only thing that gives us understanding.
For example, is a proton made of matter, of some little “dirt” particles? No, in fact a proton, and all matter, is a rather ethereal convergence of energy fields of the relevant mathematical properties. The energy field of the proton can’t really be separated from the mathematics describing it – the energy of the proton is fully identified by its mathematical properties. The numbers describing its energy fields are its identification, and in so fact energy, and the numbers which “describe it”, are the same thing. Numbers are energy…that’s what they represent, because that’s what they are. We’ll come back to this shortly.
In physics, studying the fundamental nature of reality, have we ever discovered anything which is not mathematical, or which violates the logic of mathematics? Have we ever had to turn to anything other than mathematics when describing reality? It has never happened, and will never happen because the logic of numbers is the only thing that is a-priori analytic, the only permanent thing with the size and scope that an existence could base itself on and exist.
Existence from Scratch
What is the ultimate dream of any thinker? It is to derive a logical justification for the existence of existence based on pure logic. For example, Leibniz asked this question: “Why does something exist rather than nothing?” Here’s how to do it:
Can a perfectly pure and logical “nothing” have the quality of existing? Just think about that rationally: can this nothing have a quality that you could call existing? Further, if nothing did exist, then it would have to be something, because it would be that which existed. “Nothing” can not have the quality of existence because if it did, then it would be something, not nothing, because it would have a quality you could label as “existing”, which is a contradiction of the term nothing. “Nothing” can’t have any qualities. Second, if nothing does exist, it reduces to something existing, to something having the quality of existence, the thing you call “nothing”, which thus negates the possibility of non-existence.
Existence must exist because non-existence, i.e. nothing, does not exist by its own definition; further, and this ends up being the true key, “nothing” reduces to existence in any case, since if it is what exists then it is the thing which exists, and hence there would be a thing you call existing. Hence, existence exists, and the logic says that it is okay for this existence to be based on what we would label “nothing” because whatever we call “nothing” must have the property of existing, since it would have an identifiable quality. This ends up being the “key”, as we will see. There is simply no logical opportunity for a true non-existence to exist.
We must now consider that because pure logic has dictated the unavoidable necessity of existence, then within these terms of pure logic, what must exist must be intangible in the material sense. That is, we cannot specifically say that giraffes must exist, or trees, or even planets or protons. We have no way of predicting something that specific, because we’re just in the land of pure a-priori analytic logic, independent of observation. All we have justified is that something must exist, but whatever it is must be physically intangible, and not materially specific, due to the nature of the logic.
Well, what is it that science tells us that underlies all of reality? It is energy! And energy is a perfectly physically intangible abstract concept. Energy is all around us and in various forms, and you can physically identify the effects that energy has, but you can not actually directly point out the energy itself nor can you even define it in and of itself. That the fundamental basis of existence is energy, which is an abstract mental concept, goes on to demonstrate that existence is itself entirely mental, simply because it can not be, nor is it, material.
In fact, the idea of logically proving that the basis of reality is material is a contradiction in terms, because there exists no a-priori reason for why material would be logical; you’d simply need to accept that on faith, or at least on an a-posteriori synthetic basis. That is not sufficient. There is however such a reason for why a mental reality would be logical – this is the only way a mentality could exist, and it can justify itself on an a-priori analytic basis, as demonstrated; it exists by its own volition of logic requiring nothing else to create it, and in fact having always existed. There is no way to justify the existence of a material universe that creates mind, but it is entirely legitimate and logically allowable to justify a fundamentally mental existence that gives rise to the existence of matter.
Now we can take an additional line of logical questioning to determine what exactly is the nature and the properties of this thing we call energy which forms the mental, abstract basis of reality. We do this by determining what have to be the rational prerequisites for the basis of existence. We’ve already determined a little bit of that nature, but we’ll see that we can go further. The basis of existence must allow for the following properties:
- The basis must be rational. If it wasn’t rational then it wouldn’t be logical, and then it wouldn’t be knowable, ever, because it could be arbitrarily anything at any time and would never have to be consistent.
- The basis must be indivisible. If the basis of reality was divisible, then it wouldn’t be the basis of reality, because the thing it could be divided in to would be even more fundamental. Simple but pure a-priori logic.
- The basis must be uncreated. If it was created, then it wouldn’t be the basis, because the thing which created it would be even more fundamental and we would necessarily then need to ask of this creator’s properties, which must be rationally knowable given #1.
Property number 1 can perhaps be left out of that list since the existence of rationality is already implicit given that we are forming the second rational two statements, and that we have rationally lead ourselves up to them.
So, what is indivisible? And what doesn’t require creation? And what single thing shares in these two properties? Let’s consider the latter question. Whatever it is we might consider identifying as “nothing”, from the earlier discussion, doesn’t require creation, because it is nothing. “Nothing” doesn’t require creation…no force is required to create “nothing”. But remember, this was a very logical kind of nothing, a nothing which you could identify and therefore would actually have to exist. The logic simply trapped you in to something existing, even if the something is what you would identify as nothing!
Second, whatever this nothing is, it must be indivisible. You can’t take it apart any more than it is already diminished. So, what am I?
I am a mathematical concept. I am one of the great discoveries of all time. Think on it.
I am the number Zero.
You may have found it painful working through the logic of the above paragraphs…but now you should exhale a sigh of relief, of simplicity, because zero fulfills all the logical mumbo-jumbo we were discussing there. Do you know that this is how Leibniz discovered and developed calculus, was with this logical analysis? And of course you realize that this calculus went on to explain and describe basically all of reality? That should again tell you something about the mathematical and numeric basis of reality.
Zero has the rational, logical, a-priori properties required for it to be the basis of all of existence, permanently. We found the answer. It was the Pythagorean Society’s greatest secret, the occult, hidden but to the rational mind, basis of existence. Zero can’t be divided because it is the infinitely small, there’s nothing to divide, 0/2 = 0; and zero doesn’t require creation because it is “nothing”, no force is required for the existence of the number zero.
Now what other properties does zero have? Well, one basic logical property of zero is that zero equals zero, i.e. 0 = 0. Does that look familiar? Because 0 = 0 is the same thing as 1 + 1 = 1 + 1, i.e. 1 + 1 = 2, which reduce to 0 = 0. All of mathematics actually reduces to the statement 0 = 0; therefore every single mathematical function there is, is based on zero. From the existence of zero, you can actually have anything you want, so long as the equation is balanced, which is of course a basic definition of any valid equation. So this seems to tell us that we can have any numbers we want, because all equations of logic and mathematics reduce to the truism of 0.
The next question is then: how many zeros should there be? Forty two? One hundred? 6×1066? Is there any possible sufficient logical reason to stop the counting of zeros at any particular value? That question is Leibniz’ “Principle of Sufficient Reason”, and the logical necessity is that there is no sufficient reason for there to be a fixed arbitrary number of zeros. If existence is one zero, if one zero can exist, then what stops any number of other zeros from also existing? The logical conditions that necessitated the first zero also apply to any number of other zeros also existing; the logical conditions didn’t specify any limit. Which means that the number of zeros is infinite. If you can have one zero it makes no difference to have an infinite number of them, since they’re “nothing” anyway.
Secondly, we can think of zero as being the infinitely small, the infinitely divided “limit” where there is nothing left to divide. Obviously, if you have the infinitely small, then it automatically implies the infinitely large.
Therefore, an infinite number of zeros must exist, and, each zero in an of itself logically contains the principle of infinity. And so zero automatically necessitates all numbers between zero and infinity and therefore necessitates all of mathematics, the entire field, because all of mathematics is simply about numbers and the representation of numbers, whose equations always reduce to zero. All of mathematics, and hence all of reality, which is mathematics, is based on the logical beauty of zero.
So that’s what exists, is zero, and all of the numbers that it implies, going to infinity. Numbers are the basis of reality. Reality is number. Numbers are all. How in heaven did Pythagoras already know what took two-thousand years of later logical philosophical and mathematical and scientific development to figure out? It was the most genius intuitive statement of all time by far and away, and no other statement of insight in history comes anywhere close to it. The statement was sublime.
The connection here then is that energy is number. Energy is not something separate from or merely represented by number, energy is number and number is energy. “They” are one thing. Numbers are a mental abstract concept, and recall that energy is a mental abstract concept, and they are the same thing.
Energy is what we sense of the presence and action of number; number is what we comprehend of the presence and action of energy.
So this indicates two sort of domains of reality: the number domain which is the domain of perfect form and requires rational intelligence to “sense” and act upon with the mind, which are our mental bodies; and the energy domain which is the imperfect sensory domain of “matter” which we sense and act on with our physical bodies.
The logic all converges on zero and the subsequent mathematics of number. What numbers do is quantify their own size, which is therefore the degree of energy, and zero, in and of itself, implies the ultimate boundaries of energy, which are infinite (∞), because ∞ = ∞ which is the same thing as 0 = 0.
Life from Scratch
Leibniz called these zeros, the fundamental basis units of reality, monads. The nice thing about having an infinite number of them spaced zero distance apart is that they form a plenum for reality, they can fill up a reality with no paradoxical spaces of non-existence between them. Of course this is all about calculus, and how Leibniz was lead to discover it and represent it mathematically and algebraically.
But why is some of this plenum of reality apparently alive? Why is some of it, some of these monads, self-aware, and conscious? This is the principle of mentalism, that reality is mental, and not material. We’ve already established that of course. Mentalism is the only thing which is logically justifiable because materialism can not justify itself. Materialism can not justify where matter would come from in the first place and in the second place it can not explain why matter would produce this impression of being conscious and mental. There’s no justifiable logical requirement for that! Why the heck would matter pretend, or simulate, that it is alive and mental? We simply can not come up with a logical a-priori justification for that; any “explanation” reduces to faith, such as that of emergentism.
These philosophical limitations are simply not logically acceptable, because the only way to accept them reduces to a form of faith. Whether you call it mere “acceptance” or “emergence” rather than belief doesn’t matter, it is still something you would have to accept without having a foundational logical justification. “Emergence” is a tacit admittance that science doesn’t understand how mind arises from matter, it just accepts that it happens somehow. Well, matter isn’t even matter! There’s your problem! Matter is actually energy which is actually number, and number is actually mental.
You have no way of proving that your senses actually tell you about the “material” that’s out there because all such knowledge is a-posteriori synthetic. And our understanding of matter has changed drastically over the centuries to the point today where science says that matter is truly only a sense-perception of fields of energy, which can only be described with number. So we’re already there, to the fact of mentalism, science just hasn’t caught up to its own work yet, let alone being truly philosophically informed about what it’s been doing, or being philosophically informed at all.
Mind, hence life, is an intrinsic property of zero. But now why is this? There has to be some logical reason, for the statement to be acceptable. Sure we can put it together but there must be an a-priori logical justification for having mind inherent in zero, for mentalism to be a property of zero and thus of existence. Of course that means we’re going to have to define mind, then, as well.
The answer is found in what is now called dialectical logic, enumerated and developed by another genius of history, the philosopher Hegel. Basically it says that the thing in itself contains the principle of its opposite. And that’s what we’ve been talking about the whole time now already. The concept of non-existence contained the principle of existence; non-existence reduces to existence since non-existence can not exist; the nothing that exists is the something we label as the thing existing; the ontological zero is the nothing that exists; zero automatically necessitates its opposite, infinity.
What is happening is that these concepts are all automatically generating, by pure logic, their own resolution. A logical action is automatically generated and that action leads to resolution.
Zero has been established as the basis of existence. But zero contains its opposite, which is infinity, and so zero, the monad, must automatically undergo a resolution to become infinity. Zero exists without creation because it represents nothing and nothing doesn’t require an outside force to create it, but this nothing is something that has to exist because it self-satisfies the rational prerequisites for existence, and so zero becomes something – the thing that exists. As there is no sufficient reason to limit the degree to which something can become from nothing, then nothing, zero, becomes infinity. The action of this resolution is mind. This is what mind is. Mind is the action of zero resolving itself to infinity. This doesn’t equate to consciousness necessarily, it only equates to an action, but this action we call mind because it represents not stasis, but dynamic. It comes in various stages of monad-development with a transition from unconscious universal mind to conscious, individualized self-aware mind.
You are a Monad, you are an individual mental entity, a unique discontinuity in the mental plenum, developing via an action of resolution to become infinity. This is what you perceive as your consciousness, and it is your consciousness, and actually there’s a whole heck of a lot of unconsciousness still operating beneath that too, supporting your consciousness.
The Monad, your particular Zero, is no less than your immortal, uncreated, hence indestructible, becoming infinite, Soul. It is becoming a God. That’s what you are, you’re a mental entity, you’re a soul, and that’s what it is already called. And for God’s sake we discovered that it has a purely logical mathematical basis for proof, based on the fundamental number, zero. The resolution of zero becoming infinite is worked out along all possible paths, and hence all possible lives and lifetimes, and your monad contains a record of all these lives it has lived and previous to that the states of basic matter that it existed in.
The uniqueness of your particular monad comes from another mathematical logical justifying principle called Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem, and Gödel (pronounced “gurdle”) was of course another genius of history. The Incompleteness Theorem is a mathematical statement which basically says that all finite systems of logic will contain statements (we can call these statements “ideas”) that are indeterminable as true or false. What this means is that there are statements, i.e. mental ideas or propositions, which are subjective, which means that their comprehension and understanding is dependent upon the mental entity considering them. This means that there are things which monads can disagree over! The completeness of mathematics contains incompleteness as a subset!
This is the source of monadic individuality, and it is the source, and logical justification for, free will. It means that monads can be independently perceiving, and thus responding, entities within the context of an otherwise infinite objective universal plenum. At the limit of an infinite system of logic do all contradictions and ambiguities become resolved, and this is the end-state of your soul, and this is being God. When the entire universe reaches its full infinite potential reflected in an infinite number of infinitely developed monads, this is then the end of a cycle, and the only option left is to explore what it is like to do it again, differently, from scratch. The infinitely resolved monads reset themselves to zero, ∞ = ∞ gets reset to 0 = 0, and this outpouring of number is the energy which generates another Big Bang.
Relativity from Scratch
Now as far as why matter has taken the particular form that it has in this iteration, is still left for discovery. Given however that String Theory is all about avoiding the dreaded zero because physics and science has never stopped to logically consider what zero is and why it’s mathematically important, and doesn’t know how to interpret infinity, then this particular theory will not be able to find such an answer. Zero is the logical basis of reality and so therefore if you reject zero, you reject the ability to ultimately find reality. There have been some reports lately about some mathematical “jewel structure” that lies at the basis of quantum theory and particle physics, and possibly this will be a more fruitful pursuit of the mathematical grand theory of everything. Well, the grand theory of everything already exists, as it has been discussed here, based on zero and pure logic, but it is just the particulars of this iteration that still need to be worked out.
Now if reality is purely mathematical and based on numbers, then we should probably try to find an equation that describes all possible numbers. If you had an equation that describes all possible numbers, that would probably mean something, it would probably have something to say about the nature of our reality system.
Such an equation is a mathematical formula discovered by another genius of history, Leonhard Euler (Euler is pronounced “oiler”). Euler’s equation is a fundamental mathematical identity (which reduces to a simpler identity), not too dissimilar from the Pythagorean Equation, that describes how all possible numbers relate to each other. The equation is thus:
eiΘ = cos(Θ) + i*sin(Θ)
The equation contains both real and imaginary numbers and we haven’t talked about imaginary numbers yet, however, they come out of the same sort of logical analyses of numbers that produce geometry and the Pythagorean Equation, and they have a basic definition of being multiples of the square root of negative 1. That is, i = √-1. Such imaginary numbers are just as valid as what we call real numbers, because there is no sufficient logical reason for why a particular set or regime of numbers should be preferred over any other. They all logically have to be afforded ontological status, equally; there is no logical reason to discriminate against certain numbers.
So this equation describes how all possible numbers, negative and positive and real and imaginary, relate to each other. What is this equation going to represent, what is it going to indicate the behaviour of in what we call existence? You would think it must do something pretty important since reality is based on number, since reality is number, and this equation describes the relational behaviour of all of those numbers.
So, what’s big? It has got to be something big!
Consider first though – is there any property about reality that the equation should represent? Well what do we know about reality already: reality is based on a logical action of resolution, on some type of movement. We found that reality isn’t based on any static or stasis principle, other than its objective permanent logical basis of number and mathematics based on zero, but that the basis of reality itself must be in a state of movement, in this dialectical resolution of becoming. This is not stasis, but movement. On the one hand this is identified as mind for individual monads but on the other we have an infinite objective plenum of monads that must somehow reflect movement. And this infinite plenum is the reflection of all possible numbers. Therefore if Euler’s Equation describes all possible numbers and reality is the plenum of all possible numbers, then Euler’s equation must represent something about movement. Euler’s Equation must characterize motion. Euler’s equation has two terms, and so those two terms must reflect two types of motion: real motion, cos(Θ), and imaginary motion, i*sin(Θ). Well then what are the properties of the cosine and sine functions?
Figure 2
The cosine and sine function have a pretty important difference in that they are out of phase of each other by a quarter of a rotation, i.e. by 90 degrees. There’s something interesting about the sine in that it is anti-symmetric about the origin, as compared to the cosine which is symmetric. The imaginary term of Euler’s Equation represents something that behaves anti-symmetrically, while the real term is something that behaves symmetrically. Let’s look at Euler’s Equation on its complex plane unit circle:
eiΘ = cos(Θ) + i*sin(Θ)
Figure 3
So we have two terms, sort of trading off with each other as a function of Θ, and the magnitude of the vector has a constant value of 1. Well a constant is certainly interesting. Time to stop leading you on.
Euler’s Equation represents motion in the monadic number plenum. Time-motion is manifested by the imaginary set of numbers while space-motion is manifested by the real set of numbers. The symmetric cosine nature of the real space numbers indicates no particular preference for movement in the real number dimension, while the anti-symmetric sine nature of the imaginary numbers indicates a different behaviour.
The Pythagorean sum of motion between the two dimensions of movement is a constant, which we call ‘c’, which has a natural mathematical unit of 1. The angle Θ can represent velocity through space, such that
Θ = π/2 * (1- v/c)
and then the cosine and and sine terms represent motion in their particular dimension. With this argument, the cosine and sine terms over a range of real-space velocity -c ≤ v ≤ c, is a range from 0 to 180 degrees, which for cosine and sine looks like this:
Figure 4
So for all possible ranges of space velocity, which can go symmetrically from -c to plus c, the time velocity is always limited anti-symmetrically to the positive hemisphere. Hence the arrow of time – time always marches forward, or at the most could stop.
Motion in the real dimension is an easy one, in natural units being the fraction of motion relative to the maximum possible motion, the constant c if Θ = 0, i.e.,
cos(Θ) = v/c
The maximum rate of motion you can have in the real dimension is c, but what do we call that for the imaginary, time dimension? The most amount of motion you can experience in space is ‘c’ and this is when you experience the least (zero) time, while for the time dimension, the most time you can experience is called proper time, or “τ”, when the space velocity is zero. When your space velocity is zero then you experience the maximum rate of motion in time. So then
sin(Θ) = t/τ
Now let’s put it together:
Figure 5
It’s all mathematical identities from here. We have Euler’s equation, and now lets take the Pythagorean sum of the two components:
cos2(Θ) + (i*(sin(Θ))2 = cos2(Θ) – sin2(Θ)
which always has a magnitude of 1 on the unit circle in complex spacetime, and so
1 = cos2(Θ) – sin2(Θ).
just to demonstrate that, and then substituting for cos and sin
1 = (v/c)2 – (t/τ)2
moving to an infinitesimal in time,
1 = (v/c)2 – (dt/dτ)2,
and then multiplying through by c2dτ2,
c2dτ2 = v2dτ2 – c2dt2
which is typically denoted as
dS2 = dX2 – c2dt2
which is the Minkowski Spacetime Metric.
Now if we take the complex congugate of Euler’s equation, then:
|eiΘ|2 = (cos(Θ) + i*sin(Θ)) * (cos(Θ) – i*sin(Θ))
1 = cos2(Θ) + sin2(Θ)
1 = (v/c)2 + (t/τ)2
and then rearranging for t,
t/τ = √(1 – (v/c)2)
and the usual thing is to denote
γ = 1/√(1 – (v/c)2)
and then
t = τ/γ
which is Lorentz time dilation. Length contraction is trivially
ct = cτ/γ
or
l’ = L0/γ
Note however that the fundamental equation
eiΘ = cos(Θ) + i*sin(Θ)
is the space-time equation, and it is just as well to work on problems of space-time in that form, since that’s the fundamental form. From it you can calculate differentials and therefore derive a general relativistic theory based on Euler’s equation. Once you have that, you just consider that Euler’s Equation is found at the heart of quantum mechanics, and thus you can unite a general relativistic theory with quantum mechanics.
Religion from Scratch
So what are your options?
1. Have faith, believing in a creator God, which cares, angrily, about silly little things you might do with your body or desire for knowledge, as if this is going to ruin the whole universe, and he might send you for infinite torture in hell for infinity for arbitrary reasons. You can’t answer what this God actually is or what created it but you sure as heck need to feel guilty about yourself and ask for approval.
2. Mind doesn’t exist and is just some magical “emergent” (which is a non-term, a fancy word for “faith” that fools scientists) epiphenomenon of matter that magically creates the illusion of conscious self-awareness and free will for no real good damned explainable reason at all. Why matter should clump together and create the illusion of mind is because of “emergence”. It’s just like Brawndo: it’s what matter needs. But mind doesn’t really exist. Neither does matter for that matter but we ignore that…we just carefully maintain the cognitive dissonance for the sake of our career. Where are the laws of physics stored? Not in mathematics because that would be horrific! (for some unknown reason…) They’re just magically there…somehow independent of mathematics. Hedonism is the most that matter can ever get out of itself…stupid retarded lowest-common-denominator entertainment. Really this is the stupidest idea of all time…this is stupider than #1; it’s anti-intellectual and anti-rational in every way imaginable.
3. Mind does exist but you’re supposed to seek non-existence. You should disengage completely with life and the world because the minutest risk of suffering is such an unbearable, frightening, and horrific concept it just makes you want to hide in a monastery forever. It’s just not the way you were raised after-all! The possibility of experiencing “good” and possibly even “pleasure” or personal satisfaction or personal development is soooo not worth the slightest risk if something uncomfortable might happen while pursuing and developing those. So just shut down completely. Hide. Seek nothing.
4. Mind does exist and it has a perfectly logical and mathematical basis to prove it; you have a soul which has a basis in mental reality as a mathematical logical fact that is permanent and indestructible, which naturally develops itself into Godhood, because that’s logically what it does. You are a logically provable mathematical entity called a monad, which is an ontological zero. Rational intelligence is the mark of a highly developed and developing soul and this is something that any soul can pursue to make itself better and closer to being God. The struggle of a conscious mind and existence itself is not in “good vs. evil”, but in smart vs. stupid. Smart souls are good, stupid souls are bad. The best way to understand reality is via mathematics…and we can prove it. A religion based on logic and especially mathematics, the most logical subject of all, the Queen of the sciences.
Climate of Sophistry 
Awesome stuff Joe! … Going to take me a bit to digest, but this is great!
Thanks for the great Christmas gift Joe! … Merry Christmas to you!
Joseph,,
Best article yet, just in time for Christmas, Thank you. Merry and happy to you!,but never zero!
You are the physical JosephI You have some value “between” (noninclusive) zero and infinity,
depending on the beancounter. I really liked your explanation of Euler’s equation.
Before you get to happy please:
Can you relate all of this Philosophy between mental and real, to what all of science has that is not mental, “the physical”. The “a-posteriori synthetic”. That which has been observed, may be measured, and sometimes even predicted. This mainly in terms of the word action!
In science action “an act” is work integrated over time. One acre plowed is a act, the action being the integration of the work. same thing with a house, or a boat. or a quantum of anything.
In philosophy, action seems to be quite different.
Attention: Your “Smart souls are good, stupid souls are bad.” is a very “a-posteriori synthetic” value judgement, perhaps correct. Smart and stupid are values for some scale of understanding,
each “requiring” the other. Smart is generally desirable, while stupid is generally undesirable.
———-Just “had’ to get something in!!!———– Ho-Ho
Glad you like it Squid 🙂
Cheers Will 🙂
Joseph, to paraphrase Einstein, I do indeed think you are standing on the shoulders of giants.
We have had this debate before, but mathematics is not reality, it our best tool to describe reality. It is our language of pure logic that must be used to describe the universe because the universe only has one version, one reality and the only way to describe such perfection is with perfect logic. We are only going to get insights into the universe by using rational thought and mathematics, but since we are not purely rational and not purely mathematical, we will always have an imperfect understanding of the universe itself.
Joseph E Postma says: 2013/12/22 at 12:36 PM
Cheers Will 🙂
Thank you Joseph, and the very best to you!
Sorry about the Just “had’ to get something in”
I wish none to experience what I do to myself!
I like myself, being critical is what I like the most!
A great piece Joseph, it fits nicely with me so I thought I’d read on via the links provided. The ridiculous notion of a 100% inheritance tax stopped me cold at the first link, it would fight against basic human nature. Family is the foundation of society and provides very productive instincts. Wanting the best for elders and to leave a better existence for offspring should be encouraged not taxed.
From a very young age I worked in the family enterprise of farming with both my father and grandfather. Years of accumulated knowledge, hard work and sacrifice got us out of debt and into a position where we had a modest financial buffer of investments. Although not formally educated and with his physical strength failing my grandfather was an important, intuitive and productive part of the team deep into his old age, still he couldn’t have continued without his offspring working along side. Now these supposed enlightened fuck wits come along proposing that on his passing all the assets go to the state, or the commonwealth as they call it. And they’re not kidding. Tell me what would happen to the will to work and to be productive be if this tax came about? It’s as dangerous as it is stupid, violence rises as the last resort.
As it turned out our farm was taken by the state, resumed so a dam could be built. We were paid, below what it was worth, drip fed the funds over a 5 year period so we had to borrow to start a new life and enterprise. At least this was better then what your fool illuminated ones are proposing. It was the beginning of the end for my grandfather, he not only lost his home and life’s work but also his purpose. We rebuilt, my kids are now involved, being taught how to manage our modest assets. My father now elderly is still active in the business. My mother is being cared for.
Communism, Marxism, Socialism, whatever you want to call it, all the same totalitarian crap has failed and is failing again, as it must. Look around and see the discontent rising. It’s natural for people (Family) to want equal rights and to be free. Not to suggest that free means we are all equal, because we’re not, some are just dumb, some work hard, some are frugal and some are just lucky, so a system that tries to redistribute so all have the same will fail. The problem is not free markets, the problem is that markets are far from free and open. What is free about socialist states borrowing, without the peoples consent, just to prop up their cronies in finance? Why do bankers have the right to issue debt and so control the money supply? Nothing free market about that. What is free about bankers holding interest rates artificially low so government can continue to live with their snouts deep in the golden trough? This is punishing people, government workers whose pensions funds can’t make a buck and so will now fail, as well as people that have worked and scrimped their whole life in the hope of living with some dignity in their old age but now don’t have the income. What is free about the state dictating who is paid what for what? Nothing free about the state deciding what is taught and who does the teaching.
Human nature will not change, people will trade even if it’s outlawed, so they should be free and encouraged to do so. Everyone wants financial freedom so it should be encouraged, it’s hard to attain any form of enlightenment or grow until you have, so working half the week just to pay tax doesn’t help. The state shouldn’t dictate an acceptable degree of financial freedom, part freedom doesn’t exist, back to your zero infinity.
Socialists and their cronies, notably in banking but also in academia, will be difficult to dislodge, they will tax the community to death and resort to force before even admitting they’re wrong let alone giving up their privileges. It could be an ugly transition and I don’t have the answers. Martin of Armstrong Economics has ideas about a transition and is having a go, he’ll need help. My personal view is that elected governments should not be able to borrow on the peoples behalf, but should be responsible for the money supply. They would spend it into existence, so increasing the money supply by a fixed percentage and or at a set rate of inflation, without creating debt, on projects that they must take to the electorate. This allows the people to decide what they want, while protecting the savers from inflation. Banks would be able lend but only money they have on deposit, they won’t control the money supply so the fractional reserve set up we now have is gone. Money will find it’s true value. Nothing remotely like a free open market place with this too big to fail crap, the banks trading with other peoples money must stop. Now only the losses are socialised so their risk is taken by everyone but profits are retained among the elite, it’s a massive distortion and it in no way resembles a level playing field.
The last thing we need is another bunch of envious smart asses, self appointed to tell us how we should live, thinking they are entitled to the spoils of our labour. They can F off , after all if they’re that illuminated they should be able to make their own way.
I’m a bit of a fan of all the love and tolerance Christianity pushes at this time of year, it’s hopeful, so I wish you and all a large dose of it.
Westy thanks for the thoughtful reply. If you did like the logic of the OP you will still like the rest of what the books and website have to say, etc.
There’s a lot to converse with you about there but I will have to keep it short. I would say that 100% inheritance tax does indeed go against human nature – but as human nature is currently structured. It basically comes down to resource scarcity. If we didn’t have resource scarcity we wouldn’t care about protecting our children from scarcity of resources, since the concept wouldn’t exist. Leaving a monetary inheritance is obviously one of the ways we currently try to help protect our children from resource scarcity. Not all people can do that of course. The reason to get rid of resource scarcity and the desire for inheritance is because that is precisely what the Monarchs, oligarchs, bankers, etc., use to maintain their control over society and government (whether capitalist or socialist, etc…doesn’t make a difference the same money powers are behind it).
Do you or I NEED inheritance? I can’t say that I actually NEED it. I can’t say that I wouldn’t survive without it. And as it is, most people don’t get that much inheritance or any at all. However, someone else DOES NEED inheritance.
And who is that? It is the dynastic families that control government and most of the world. They really need inheritance.
However, if such a system (100% tax) were implemented today it would only be used for stripping the masses of wealth while the rich would be exempted. It really would be a terrible idea in today’s world and they need to do a better job at explaining what the intention is. I was able to accept it in terms of understanding the intention because I’d read all the rest of the books and website already, etc. But basically, the controllers of government and society use manufactured resource scarcity and their family inheritance to maintain that control. Rich families should not be in control of government and rich families should not be allowed to maintain a nepotistic advantage over the population. There is no logical reason why a small group of rich families should control the majority or entirety of resources of the state.
What inheritance would be replaced with is meritocracy. Without having nepotistic advantage, everyone would then earn what they get. I’m not interested in leaving my kids some money, I’m interested in leaving them intelligence and the ability to create and get what they want and work for, and I’m interested in creating a state where resource scarcity doesn’t exist, rather than one in which a small group of rich families control and manufacture the appearance of scarcity. Yes this means building a whole new structure of society.
Indeed, bankers and banks etc. should not have the right to manufacture debt money and control the supply. So that means you don’t support family advantage, because that’s the way they got to that point. The state should control the money supply and the manufacture of money, and really when we create a new system free of resource scarcity, and end this illusion of scarcity manufactured by those families, money itself would become a superfluous concept. Trading money to make money off of money would be made a crime by the state, as it serves no useful function to the state or the individuals which comprise it; it only serves parasites, and, those parasites are rich families maintaining their dynastic advantage over the state.
So yah, the point IS to change human nature. Because right now it is f’d up. The problem is manufactured resource scarcity and a totally dysfunctional state created by the dynastic families of monetary wealth.
Making your own way is exactly the philosophy the Illuminati champion and it is called Meritocracy. Communism, Marxism, Socialism etc. have been anti-Meritocratic. The US was sort of based on meritocracy but capitalism had the flaw of monetarism – wall street and the bankers. The US was supposed to have a state bank not a private reserve pretending to be the state. The state should serve to optimize people, based on systems of science, logic, and philosophy and psychology, rather than merely control them or manage them. See we’re at the point now where we could automate almost everything that society depends upon, so how are we going to go forward? With that tech in the hands only of the rich, as it is now, or in the hands of a meritocratic state for the benefit of all? Will we go for Hunger Games, or Star Trek? The rich dynastic families of inheritance want the Hunger Games, where their genetic strain lives in the Capitol, and the rest of us in the Districts. Thinking people want Star Trek. This is what their books are all about. The point is in creating an intelligent state, and an intelligent society. Family-first thinking is anti-state and antisocial…it is what has created this f’d up society we currently have.
From the AC website:
Gravity is acceleration, the shortest or if you will “resting” path through spacetime near a massive body is curved such that even if you are not moving relative to the body, you are still accelerating and your motion through time is accordingly reduced.
The rate of time interaction has a value which is set to equal 1 at an infinite distance from a gravity well, and zero for a body accelerating at c.
What if there were a different position for that R=1 point, such that it occurs for a specific but finite distance from a gravity well of a specific depth?
Say, around the masses at which quantum effects begin to dominate?
If a more massive body only interacted at a rate less than 1 the universe would appear fully causal at those scales.
If the time dilation curve continued on below that point then what would interaction at a rate greater than 1 look like?
If less massive bodies were able to interact with other in a manner which was opposite what we normally think of as time dilation–whereby a massive or rapidly accelerating body interacts at a far lower rate than the slower/lighter bodies around it–and to suggest a parallel with a description of gravity as “the influence on adjacent regions in space”, could that R > 1 interaction be “influence on adjacent regions in time” then?
If these very light bodies were able to interact across a broader “slice” of time than we were, you could be forgiven for thinking you were observing non-local effects rather than the results of, shall we say, extended temporal interaction.
Naturally massless bodies would then treat all points in time as adjacent, which fits well with certain descriptions of photon behavior.
Just an idea that’s bounced around my head for a while now.
Joe, this “New World Order” is exactly the way to enslave people and make all of them poor.
Just forget the rhetoric and try calculating consequences. Or look at the historical examples. This is the same failed communists ideology formulated differently, which is built upon hating the “rich” and treating people as “enemies of the people”.
Joe,
You say …
“What is ontological mathematics? Mathematics is not a human construct like the English language. It’s the language of existence itself and is a precondition for human life. Human beings don’t invent mathematics, they tune into it, they discover it, they are everywhere immersed in it. We exist in a cosmic ocean of mathematics.”
Again you are mixing up cause and effect. The universe works in precisely one way. The only way we have to describe that precision is a language of precision which is mathematics. Of course there will be an alignment of the language (mathematics) to the reality (the universe) that it is describing. If there wasn’t it wouldn’t be useful and we would throw it out for something that worked. Mathematics may be our language of the universe, but it is not the universe itself. You are rejecting one version of the Divine (quite rationally in my view) only to fall headlong into another. It is a more advanced version certainly, but still falling into the same arrogance that humans have had ever since they managed to control fire.
Some people say we just need a functioning representative republic.
We did have a representative republic. And it got lost. Why? Because the state wasn’t strong enough, because the state had flaws. So the state needs to be made stronger, keeping what was good about what we had, but adding in more good things to make it stronger and better protected. Some people seem to think the golden days were that of no state…this isn’t true. The good days were when we had a strong state espousing rational meritocratic values protecting the populace from oligarchs, monarchs, international bankers, and fundamentalist religions.
What flaws did the old representative republic have? Any idiot could vote, for one. And any idiot could be voted into office, for the other. And rich families were allowed to wield undue influence on the government for another (the very thing the Athenians created democracy to defeat in the first place). And no clear terms about the structure of economy and currency. There are lots of things about the old representative republic that made it susceptible to eventual failure.
So the solution is called Meritocracy, in general. Yes indeed the original representative republic was meritocratic, but it didn’t have all the necessary provisions to protect itself, and now it is lost and failed. Obama and Bush have absolutely no merit to speak of for example. And of course we have the parasitical fed reserve etc. We can’t just go back to what we had because what we had failed. The solution IS a stronger state, a state which serves the people, as it used to, but now stronger and wiser, able to protect itself from the parasite class – the rich families, the international bankers, Sharia law fundamentalists and even some of the Christians who might want to make it a fundamentalist state, the free loaders, etc. For example, trading money to make money off of money should be made a crime against the state (i.e. the people), because it serves no useful productive function for the state and it in fact harms the state; it only serves rich oligarchs and rich families, and even if a poor man succeeds in the endeavor then the poor man simply become a robber of the state, producing nothing valuable for state (the people), no products, no services, no general wealth, but only inflates the money supply for his individual advantage. Parasites think that it takes “merit” to be successful at doing that! Being a successful parasite is still being a parasite.
The state should serve the people not by merely producing workers, but by producing autonomous individuals. We all start off more or less equal, and our talent and our merit, not our families, or privilege, or our religion etc., then determines how far we make it and how much we get rewarded. We simply need to make the provision in the state constitution that anti-social behaviour, such as inflating the money supply to make yourself rich, using money to give incompetent people special advantage, etc etc., is illegal and punishable since it harms the state.
N.B.: The democratic state was created by the general populace to protect itself against violent oppression by those few who would use another form of state or simple outright force of arms to control and abuse and rob from the general populace. This happened 2500 years ago in Greece and today it is happening again in America. Will America do what Greece did and create a new and improved form of state, or will it go the way of Rome? The (true) New World Order is the path to a new and improved state; the existing Old World Order wants to take the populace the way of Rome.
Max yes indeed massless bodies such as photons when travelling at the speed of light, do not actually perceive any time or space at all. To a photon all points in both space and time are the “next point”, immediately adjacent. This is why we get non-local effects in QM such as the EPR paradox and Bell’s Theorem, etc. This is a great unexplored regime of physics, at least publicly. Interesting thesis though…little bit difficult for me to understand but it seems interesting!
Hi TS…if the universe operates in exactly one way, and that way appears to be perfectly mathematical and with mathematical logic all aspects of the universe can be explained, then it is still not the case that the universe is itself mathematical? Does it matter at that point though what we call it then? Basically this is bringing back Kant’s unknowable Noumenal Domain as the basis of reality, but the whole idea of that domain is irrelevant since it is not knowable. That is the type of domain from which humans can generate personal passionate and then arbitrary and insane ideas about, because no logic can be applied to understanding it. The fact that it is not knowable probably means that it doesn’t actually exist. On the other hand we do have the mathematical domain and it logically explains everything that apparently needs explaining, such as the origin of existence, mind and consciousness, free will, etc. If the mathematical domain explains all of that based on pure logic, then in fact what relevance does the Noumenal domain have at all? The noumenal domain becomes a superfluous appendage. What logical need is there for it to be invoked? Does it help explain anything? Does it justify itself or anything else? It doesn’t, because the mathematical domain did that. If we wish to propose that the universe is still something else than mathematics, this something else has no applicable relevance, reference, or value. So then the idea of the noumenal domain – the universe being something else yet besides what has been understood and explained about its fundamental nature – seems to negate itself, since it applies itself to that which has no application.
Joseph E Postma says: 2013/12/25 at 7:48 AM
– the universe being something else yet besides what has been understood and explained about its fundamental nature – seems to negate itself, since it applies itself to that which has no application.
Interesting! It seem that that you have logicly traped yourself within your own logic. If you try to escape, you find that that you are still a prisioner within a slighter larger prision, created by your own logic to contain your own logic!. That creation however, must also create the non or illogic, nomater known as a negation, inverse, or complex conjugate of that logic. Use that “illogic” to escape from your prision! This may not work, it has failed me several times. I guarantee you will learn, perhaps unlearn, much from “your” effort!
Merry Christmas and a happy! I understand that really fine scotch, or realy fine dope, plus someone you really really like,to snuggle with, resolves such issues, with little effort.
Truthseeker says: 2013/12/24 at 4:33 PM
“You are rejecting one version of the Divine (quite rationally in my view) only to fall headlong into another. It is a more advanced version certainly, but still falling into the same arrogance that humans have had ever since they managed to control fire.”
True indeed. You apply “arrogance” to “humans”. Arrogance is a characteristic of “earthlings”
who look like and appear among “humans” but have none of the charistics of “humanity”.
I like to think of them as, Politicians, Lobbyists, Bankers, Lawyers, and at the bottom of the bag, Climate Scientists!. iI can see no humanity in any!
Will, once we separate ourselves by any means and create “humans” and “non-humans” we are starting down a bad road that only ends in tears. Arrogance is a human condition. Some of us can see the truth about ourselves and try not to inflict others with it, some cannot see the truth at all, especially about themselves.
Having said that, I would like to thank you for your insights into Joe’s circular (maybe spiral) logic.
Joseph, I have no response to your response because you did not say anything. You went round and around in circles of your own devising and did not go anywhere. The universe is. We perceive it (imperfectly) and our best tool to describe it is mathematics. There is no deeper mystery than that. The universe itself is an infinite mystery that will always be there for us to discover.
Truthseeker says: 2013/12/26 at 3:40 PM
Will, once we separate ourselves by any means and create “humans” and “non-humans” we are starting down a bad road that only ends in tears. Arrogance is a human condition. Some of us can see the truth about ourselves and try not to inflict others with it, some cannot see the truth at all, especially about themselves.
TS I agree with your POV. I have a different POV In my POV “earthlings” enter the physical as featherless chickens, none identical. This infant makes many strange sounds, cluck cluck, peep peep, or wah wah. All translate to the same message. “WTF over”, have you ever had your head squeezed like that, I don’t want to ever go through that again, I would rather die first. (The first sign of intelegence and likely correct). To continue, the strange sounds are, Where am I?, What am I?, What is all else?, and finally I an cold! (welcome to thermodynamics!).
Whithin the next 6 months this infant must decide to become earthling or human based entirely on its closely coupled environment. The infant decides, always with grossly uneven odds, as to the result
You claim that arrogance is a human condition or trait. I disagree! Arrogance is an earthling
condition. Humanity attempts to transform arrogance to its complex congugate, “humillity”.
Does not work often! Th.ere are very few “humans” on this planet
TS, I know that I am getting as weird as JP. Do not believe!. You may wish to consider.
Have a Happy! Get some other fool to drive.
Sorry you could not follow that TS. If all aspects of existence can be explained mathematically from its origin, purpose, and end-state, then there is no reason to invoke some additional part of existence which is mysterious simply for the sake of creating something mysterious. This is a superfluous mental appendage with no logical basis or sufficient reason. Your last statement is itself based in mathematics – the infinite mystery always there to discover – this is captured by Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem and the principle of Becoming for the ontological zero.
Joseph, I think we can break it down like this.
You say that the universe is mathematics. I say the universe is described by mathematics. Mathematics is a language of rational description. That is all. There is no “why” to the universe or to us or to our ability to engage in rational (and irrational) thought. It is enough that we work out the “how” to our benefit and the benefit of others.
The question of why always becomes a religious one regardless of the premise.
Truthseeker,
You got it.
David
That’s the point TS – there is a why, because it is intimately related to the how. Why/How…it’s the same thing, and it explains our purpose, and it has an apriori logical mathematical justification. The why is also of benefit to others and knowledge in general, and it is indeed religious. The knowledge that explains what your soul is and what its purpose is is religious knowledge; the key is to base it on reason, logic and mathematics rather than faith and emotion.
Joseph,
There is no “why” to the universe in terms it has no purpose. The universe just is. There is no “justification” there is only understanding of how it works. We may choose a purpose for our own reasons, but the universe does not. Mathematics is just a rational, descriptive language. It is only a tool, not the object. The best and most rational thing we can do is work out the “how” of the universe. The worst and least rational thing we can do is to try and attribute a “why” to the universe.
Religion is dogma, regardless of the premise. Dogma is the antithesis of rational thought. The “why” always becomes a religious question and is never a rational one.
TS, it is only your faith telling you that existence has no purpose. If you can provide a proof that it has no purpose that might mean more, but as it is, it is only your faith saying that, as it is a simple statement of demand. You are demanding that existence has no why, no purpose; you have not proved it. On the other hand, the logical mathematical justification for the “how” of the universe also indicates the “why”, and they more or less become synonymous. There is indeed a why, which has a logical foundation that dictates itself. Your definitions are arbitrary and thus chosen to justify your faith. Dogma, such as “no why, no purpose”, is only irrational when based on emotion and faith and unjustified demand; dogma is rational when based in reason and logic, and when dialectical. “Why”, is intimately related to “how”, and it is proven mathematically and logically, rather than merely demanded. The mathematical answer as to how also specifies the purpose…our purpose.
Joseph, I do not have faith that existence has no purpose. Individually we can choose a purpose within our own constructs and surroundings, but they are individual choices that we make or not as we choose. I have faith in a lot of things, none of them are relevant to the universe at large. You are proscribing human traits to the universe itself, and you need me to provide proof? Wow, talk about using the circular arguments of the dogmatic.
What you have to come to terms with is your own insignificance compared to the universe as whole. The mathematical understanding allows us to understand more about the universe and use it to the advantage of ourselves and others. It is only arrogance that says that there is something deeper than what is.
You are making the same circular, religious and dogmatic arguments that priests have been making for millennia. It is unfortunate that you do not see that when you are making some real insights into the mathematics that can describe the universe.
TS, you keep stating that existence has no purpose, yet you have no proof of this, hence it is faith, your faith. The traits of the universe are mathematical, and this logic dictates both the nature of the universe and that of man, as man is part of that universe. As above, so below. The mathematical proof was basically provided at the OP, and the source material has it in more detail.
Again, it is your faith telling you of your insignificance. This is your belief. It has no proof. It is merely a choice of belief. It is reason, rationality, logic, and mathematics, all a-priori analytic, which says that existence is exactly what it is, and that it has a purpose, and that we are part of that purpose. If the mathematics didn’t say this then it wouldn’t be accepted; but mathematics and logic does say this, and so it is accepted.
You seem unaware of your blind-spots in faith and their attendant cognitive dissonances…particularly when you adulate mathematical insight into the nature of the universe but then deny that it means anything. Priests have been talking about faith, emotion, and fear for millennia; Illuminism is logic, rationality, and mathematics. It’s not comparable; the former is mythos, the latter is logos.
You have not proved that existence has no purpose and that we have no meaning. Therefore this is faith. And I will keep repeating that. The belief that existence has no purpose and that we have no meaning in it is a choice made without evidence or proof.
We have however proven that existence does have a purpose and that humans have a meaning within that purpose, by mathematics and logic; hence this is not faith, but acceptance of rational fact.
Joseph, you know very well that you cannot prove a negative, so asking me to prove that existence has no purpose is just as impossible as proving there is no God which is what religion relies on. You also use circular arguments to “prove” your view. Mathematics is rational, rational means purpose, purpose is the reason behind the universe, the universe is mathematical and around and around we go.
We give ourselves purpose within our context. My purpose is to enjoy the life that I have and try and make it a little better for those around me. That purpose means nothing to the universe but something to me. Only the very arrogant think that anything that a mammilian species on the third planet of an ordinary solar system in an remote part of an insignificant galaxy does has any importance to the universe at large.
Mathematics is our rational language to describe the universe. The is a real benefit to us to take that road as far as we can. Do not be under the illusion that it will mean anything to the universe.
The universe is either nothing or something. Since it is not nothing, it must be something. Therefore the universe is. Purpose is an entirely human construct and to attribute that human construct to the universe is purely a defence mechanism against our insignificance. Embrace the insignificance and marvel at the universe and use mathematics to describe it in a rational fashion.
TS, rationality is logical, not circular. It is surprising to find you claiming that reason is circular and therefore meaningless, because this would indicate that your own “reason” to determine that existence has no purpose is also circular and meaningless. And it is.
Mathematics is a-priori analytic, and this is a form of tautology, truth by definition, 0 = 0, 1+1 = 1+1, etc. So there is circularity there, indeed. And this circularity explains the origin, purpose, and destination of existence. Mathematics and a-priori analytic logic is the only place where tautology is valid, and there is logically and rationally nothing more fitting for existence to be based upon, and to come from. Existence appears mathematical because it is mathematics, because mathematics is the only thing that existence can base itself on. And there’s a formal proof for this. There is no logical justification for the universe to only appear mathematical, to only appear to be based on a-priori analytical logic. It can only appear that way because it is actually so. Claiming it is a coincidence or only “our” language is again a form of faith; science is the process of discovering the mathematics that underlies reality, because such mathematics is reality; if it was anything else, it wouldn’t have to coincide. Mathematics is not “our” language, it is the universe’s language, the language of existence.
You have no formal proof for your belief, as you admit, therefore it is a form of faith. Just as believing that there is no God is a form of faith, with no logical or even scientific justification. These things are items of faith. Believing that there is no such thing as God without logical or rational support is faith, just as believing in God without any logical justification is faith. However if mathematical logic and rationality dictates the existence or non-existence of God, then either position is not faith; as it is, such logic dictates the existence of God (though this has nothing to do with the faith-based and irrational, insane, and psychopathic “god” of Abrahamism). I do expect you to be able to rationally prove your beliefs, rather than merely stating them. As it is, you can’t.
It is your own belief system, arbitrarily chosen, your particular form of faith, with no logical or scientific support, which tells you that you have no purpose nor any meaning, and that your life is limited to what you have limited it to.
It is your own desire to marvel at your own insignificance. This is your religion, of faith. It is what you choose to believe based on the limited understanding of reality typical of materialist science. Mathematics describes what the something is, what its nature is, how we’re related to it, and thus what our purpose and the purpose of the universe is. Embrace your purpose, and marvel at the universe and your purpose within its purpose and learn mathematics to understand this nature in a rational, logical fashion. The belief that you are insignificant and meaningless is purely a defense mechanism against the potential of our own short comings and failures and unactualized potential, and lack of comprehension of, and lack of the ability to comprehend, our purpose and meaning.
JP, mathematics is our way of describing the universe in a rational fashion. It is useful for that purpose because both the universe and mathematics are rational. You say that I have “The belief that you are insignificant and meaningless …”. Let me ask you this, if a large meteor comes our way and actually hits this planet with enough force to extinguish all life on this plant, what will happen to the rest of the universe? The answer of course is precisely nothing. There is the proof of our insignificance right there. No reason for faith or belief, just rational reality.
I embrace our potential as a species, even have faith in it, but anything we believe in or do is by definition entirely within our own context and has no greater meaning than what we give it. We can choose a purpose as noble or as “divine” as we wish, but it is ours and only ours. To try and give this a meaning applicable to the universe at large is simply a modern caveman discovering the way to control fire and thinking that everything is now his to control.
Wishing you all the best for 2014.
WOW! Mathematics good…agreed. Religion is an artifact of man’s mind. Some say this proves there is a creator. OK, I don’t know or care. The sciences and government by/for the people are evolving rapidly and I think we are making progress. An elite will always smoke utopium leading to disaster but we’re learning how to deal with them. Hopefully without too much slaughter. You must admit that the US Constitution is a valid experiment to curtail the powers of the governing in a large society. I tend to side with Truthseeker. Enjoy your and his stuff.
Truthseeker and Joe,
Great discussion guys. Intelligent, polite and considerate. Kudos.
Happy New Year.
TS, that argument is not proof, it is arbitrary, and it is only your interpretation given the boundaries you have set for yourself, which seem to be those of scientific materialism. What it would mean to the universe is that the universe would no longer have a conscious species (that we know of) in it, and so there is your difference it would make. If you accidentally get killed in a car accident, it doesn’t mean you were meaningless – these conditions don’t intersect in any rational, mutual way.
The logical meaning and purpose of existence comes from mathematics and rationality, the purpose and meaning is dictated by these; it doesn’t come from faith and feelings, of course. The logic of mathematics and rationality is not a human imposition of meaning, it is the discovery of the purpose and meaning. All other forms of statement reduce to faith and have no intrinsic value. It begins with the discovery of what logically justifies the existence of existence, and what must then logically, i.e. mathematically, follow from that.
The US Constitution was an experiment to curtail the powers of the financial, monarchical, banking and other types of oppressive oligarchs, by forming a State which had the power and the strength to do that. The previous, anti-social, anti-democratic, oppressive rulers, were the ones who had their powers curtailed by the Constitution, but the Constitution is just a piece of paper that can not enforce these curtailments without a strong State, a State stronger than those who would seek to enslave the people, as the people had been enslaved. A state for the people, and by the people, rather than by the elite for the elite.
We must be very careful to identify who was actually having their power curtailed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. It was the bad guys. The good guys, the Founding Fathers and all those who supported them, created a state strong enough to protect the people from the continued predation of the elite “class”. There is nothing wrong with having a powerful “good” state, as the founding of the USA is testament to. A State operating for the general Will of the people. Now what has subsequently happened is that the bad guys have figured out how to take over democracy – by buying it out. Democracy is now sold out. The power which we wish to limit today, then, is the power which is being abused by those who have bought the government out, and those who have bought it out are the thieves who steal money until they break the nation and break themselves, and who then ask for socialized bailouts even though their whole supposed m.o. is supposed to be about private capitalism. There’s no capitalism, and there’s no free market, and there’s no competition and no merit in what these people are doing – all of it is theft. These are the ones who’s power we wish to, once again, limit, just as the Founding Fathers had to do long before, and once again, the only way We the People will do that is with a State strong enough to do it.
JP, just because you call my proof arbitrary does not make it so. You are also making arbitrary statements that the universe would no longer have a conscious species. It may have many and probably does which would also invalidate your premise. Our importance is only defined by us. The only purpose is that which we determine. Mathematics is our best tool to understand the universe, it is not the purpose of the universe and is not the “why”, because mathematics is rational and objective and purpose and “why” is always subjective.
wow, powerful stuff here. Too much to digest tonite.
Regardless, Happy New Year to all.
TS, it is truly arbitrary to associate the meaning of existence with the possibility of random accident – they don’t define each other or one to the other. Yes of course, the universe would no longer have a conscious species here. Any loss of any conscious species anywhere is a loss of development, of becoming, for the universe. Our importance is the same as any other conscious species, and that is in self-aware consciousness reflecting a very important stage in the dialectic underpinning the logic and mathematics of existence, that which explains both the reason for and purpose of existence, of which we are inextricably linked. Mathematics is the universe, mathematics is the only place the answer as to why something exists rather than nothing is found, because existence is mathematics; from there, all meaning and purpose follows. Meaning is individually subjective, but universally objective, both positions being a result of Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem, which is of course a result of mathematical logic. We can also say that while meaning is individually subjective, why is universally objective. We can also say that each of us has an individual subjective purpose, in the context of a single universal objective purpose. Our task is to each fulfill that purpose for our subjective selves, and this feeds in to the single universal objective purpose. All of this is underpinned by the a-priori analytic mathematical logic that justified why something exists rather than nothing, a question which can only be answered rationally. No faith system can ever actually rationally answer that question, by definition.
JP, mathematics is our best tool describe the universe because both are rational. The universe is. There is no deeper meaning than that. Whether or not there are conscious species in it is important to us, but not to the universe. There could have been none and still the universe would be. You continue to anthromoporphise the universe by giving it traits that are only relevant to humans. Mathematics is the way to the deepest mysteries that the universe has but is only a path, it is not the destination.
I have no different way of saying this and we seem to have come full circle.
I look forward to your enlightened views throughout 2014.
JP, I just went to the “Armageddon Conspiracy” site that you linked to. Wow, what a load of absolute crap. It started OK with the dissection of Abrahamism and illogic of God and Satan, but that is an easy target. Then it gets into the really loony stuff. Calling all members of a particular group “psychopaths” just shows how irrational this site is. For example, saying that all surgeons are psychopaths is beyond the pale. It is fundamentally wrong to put any group of people into the same simplistic categorisation. We do it because it is easier than having to make individual decisions about individual people, but it is still wrong. Individuals are complex. Turning them into simplistic characterisations is a way of de-humanising them and always ends in an irrational and evil outcome.
Stick to mathematics. That is rational. Simplistically characterising people is always irrational.
@Truthseeker,
I could not agree with you more. I went out to that site and read around for a while. Rarely have I seen anyone (all but the extreme left) write such incredibly stupid, made up bunch of bullshit. The author couldn’t be more wrong on virtually every front. What a load of crap.
There is one hard cold FACT (just like the law of thermodynamics), freedom and liberty CANNOT come from the collective, in ANY form. The two concepts are mutually exclusive and CANNOT, under ANY circumstances, coexist. How many historical examples does humanity need before people actually get this? My God man….
Joe, please stick to the physics and maths, you do that so very well!
Thank you!
Well you haven’t actually stated anything rational TS, and simply repeating some faith-based positions of yours which you then irrationally consider to be having come full-circle is not sensible. You have not proved that the universe is rational – why should it be, and why should it look exactly like a mathematical rational universe? This is an absurd, arbitrary, and irrational position that the universe and mathematics only appear to be identical when there is no a-priori reason why they shouldn’t be identical – mathematics is rational and logical but why would the universe be? You’re merely assuming it. Mathematics is the only proof that the universe should be rational, since it is only mathematics which justifies why something should exist rather than nothing. You’re leaving things unexplained, as all faith-positions must do. The God in the gaps. The Meaninglessness in the gaps. Fortunately ontological mathematics fills in all the gaps and it specifies what the meaning and the purpose of the universe is…rationally, logically, without assumption, without faith. The universe is itself mental, there is no such thing as material or matter, only energy, and energy is number, and number is mental. The universe anthropomorphises us. Purpose and meaning are not human cognitions – these are the basis of existence, the fundamental Will to Power of the dialectic logically intrinsic in the ontological zero – that is, in all of our souls, in the collective of souls of the universe. Conscious self-awareness is precisely what the universe teleologically develops and is part of its purpose and meaning, because the universe is a mental phenomenon in dialectical Becoming. The universe is not something separate, some independent entity, some external phenomenon, to ourselves; the meaning and purpose of the universe is inextricably linked up with anything which forms the universe, which the universe forms. Mathematics specifies the origin, the middle, and the endpoint. There’s just no requirement that everybody can understand it.
TS, all members of many particular groups have psychopathic elements. For example, all Jews, Christians, and Muslims have strong psychopathic elements, sometimes becoming absolute. And they’re all also mentally retarded – I mean that functionally, not humorously. It is fundamentally wrong to not categorize people’s insanity. It is characterizing the psychopathic element of the individuals who belong to a group. To not call out the psychopathy of beliefs and groups of people is being intolerant. It is intolerant to tolerate the intolerant, hence Jews, Christians, and Muslims can not be tolerated, because to tolerate them tolerates their intolerance and hence allows those groups to be intolerant, and thus you yourself are promoting intolerance by allowing intolerance. This is of course political correctness. But tolerance to intolerance fails logic, and is thus insane, just like political correctness. The only tolerant thing a tolerant person can do is to not tolerate the intolerant – tolerance is intolerance to the intolerant. Hence all psychopathic systems, such as free-market capitalist democracy, must be destroyed. It doesn’t matter if the psychopaths don’t like that their psychopathic systems are destroyed – we’re not all equal, humans aren’t all equal, as evidenced by those who believe in Abrahamism…these people are almost apes…and to pretend that all humans are equal is insane emotional faith that goes against the very definitions of rationality and individualism, and individual merit. Smart people are going to take over and irrationalism is going to go extinct; the only other outcome would be the extinction of the human species due to its psychopathy and faith idiocy.
Sure individuals are complex and some of that complexity comes from whatever psychopathic elements they might be holding. For example, your faith that the universe is meaningless, is on the psychopathy spectrum. You can’t prove it, so you merely state it over and over again. This is faith. And faith is irrational. Holding a position without evidence is insane, and there is likely a psychopathic element to the degree of denial required to believe that you yourself have no meaning or purpose, particularly when you have no evidence for that.
Read the books, all 50 of them, and the entire AC site. Then you can be qualified to criticize.
Mathematics is the only cold hard fact of reality, being as it is a-priori analytic. Mathematics is uncreated, eternal, indestructible, and independent – a-priori analytic. And it explains why something exists rather than nothing. Thermodynamics is of course nothing besides the mathematics of large numbers – numbers and math are precisely what thermodynamics is, thermodynamics is not something else yet separate from number, it is number.
Freedom is defined entirely by the collective. The US Constitution and Bill of Rights is a declaration by the collective, of the people’s rights, and then enforced by that same collective. But psychopathic people like to pretend that those documents were written by God, not men!! lol! Freedom, liberty, and the collective are inextricably logically linked; it is supposing that they are unlinked which allows psychopathic tyrants to rule over and enslave the collective. I’l repeat what I said earlier:
The US Constitution was an experiment to curtail the powers of the financial, monarchical, banking and other types of oppressive oligarchs, by forming a State (collective) which had the power and the strength to do that. The previous, anti-social, anti-democratic, oppressive rulers, were the ones who had their powers curtailed by the Constitution, but the Constitution is just a piece of paper that can not enforce these curtailments without a strong State, a Collective stronger than those who would seek to enslave the people, as the people had been enslaved. A state for the people, and by the people, rather than by the elite for the elite.
We must be very careful to identify who was actually having their power curtailed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. It wasn’t “government”. It was the bad guys. The good guys, the Founding Fathers and the collective who supported them, created a state strong enough to protect the people from the continued predation of the elite “class”. There is nothing wrong with having a powerful “good” state, as the founding of the USA is testament to. A State operating for the general Will of the people. Now what has subsequently happened is that the bad guys have figured out how to take over a Republic – by turning it into a democracy and then buying it out. Democracy is now sold out. The power which we wish to limit today, then, is the power which is being abused by those who have bought the government out, and those who have bought it out are the thieves who steal money until they break the nation and break themselves, and who then ask for socialized bailouts even though their whole supposed m.o. is supposed to be about private capitalism. There’s no capitalism, and there’s no free market, and there’s no competition and no merit in what these people are doing – all of it is theft. These are the ones who’s power we, the Collective, wish to once again limit, just as the Founding Fathers had to do long before, and once again, the only way We the People will do that is with a State strong enough to do it. This is how the collective makes itself free and gives itself liberty.
Do you want to give Goldman Sachs and the Fed Reserve more power over your life, or less? If you want less, and you do, then you require a stronger and smarter state than you have now. If you want a weaker state with a less powerful government, then you’re siding with the Fed Reserve and Goldman Sachs/etc elites by default, because they’ll be happy to continue controlling their “free” market to enrich themselves and impoverish you – the only thing free about it is that they’re freely in control of it and you’re free to be a wage slave consumer.
We’re going to need a smarter, stronger state, stronger because it is smarter, because it is returned to operating in the public collective interest rather than in the interest of the few elite. The only way the Collective can make themselves free and have liberty is to use the State to collectively limit the powers and freedoms of psychopathic individuals who wish to control the State and hence the Collective for their own ends. This limitation of freedom does not limit the freedom of the Collective, unless the Collective is almost entirely psychopathic and hence feels harmed by anti-psychopathic measures, and yes a vast fraction of society are in such a way; however, we’re simply going to destroy that fraction. They have as much of a right to control the state as we have a right to be controlled by them; their own logic dictates that the rational are free to eradicate them. It is inevitable that the smart will win.
Joe, “Mathematics is the only cold hard fact of reality” … on this I would agree, as for the rest, well… not so much.
JP says, ” Read the books, all 50 of them, and the entire AC site. Then you can be qualified to criticize”
Joseph Postma declares only “JP” is qualified to decide “who is qualified”! Get real!!!!
None need read any of the insane fantasy of your Armageddon Conspiracy, to be able to conclude that you have become deluded beyond rescue! Sad!
None of this fantasy was implied nor accepted by Pythagoras!
JP, the only way to preserve individual freedoms is by having power distributed as widely as possible. It is the concentration of power that causes the problem and power will always tend to concentrate because that is what those with power want, to concentrate it to their benefit. It is the same with markets. The only way to have a genuinely free market is to ensure that the commercial power is distributed as widely as possible and roughly equal between buyers and sellers. Again it is the concentration of commercial power either by government and/or by large corporations that cause the “theft” that you refer to, not the market mechanism itself.
As much as you are against analogies, I see a relevant one here between climate and society. Human society is made of many individuals which behave in a complex and chaotic manner, much like the climate. Trying to have a centralised power structure to administer such a thing is as about as useful and as effective as trying to develop a single climate model to understand and control the climate.
Will, it is important to know a subject material for what it actually states, else the discussion falls off the mark and wastes people’s time.
TS, if you wish to distribute power as evenly as possible between buyers and sellers, then you need a State to do that. And 100% inheritance tax is the way to help do it. It is a government run by thieves that steals, and hence it is not the government that steals but the thieves behind it. It is a government run by the Collective which ensures everyone’s freedom, and which prevents the thieves from taking the system over for their own benefit – that is how you get equality between buyers and sellers, rather than in the free-market system where only the rich and powerful eventually (and do) control the market. We don’t curtail the abuses of the rich and powerful by making the economy more free for them to control. We curtail the abuses of the rich and powerful by creating a strong State, representing the Collective (gov’t by and for the people…ever heard of that?), which functions in the interest of the General Will rather than in the interest of the few rich and powerful enough to control it outside of government via the “free market”. Commercial power left to the free market only means that the market becomes a system of control and enslavement by the few rich and powerful, of the general collective. There is no such thing as a “market mechanism” that exists outside of those controlling the market, so either the Collective controls the market with a powerful State to ensure equality of opportunity as best as it can (which therefore necessitates 100% inheritance tax), or, the few rich and powerful control the market for their own benefit at the Collective’s expense. Anyone who defends the “free market” and denies that the government and collective should have any say in regulating and controlling the market is ipso-facto a supporter of the 1%, a supporter of inequality, a supporter of nepotism, cronyism, and corruption, a supporter of those who are free to steal from the Collective of Individuals because they have no restraint fairly imposed on them by the collective. Anyone who wishes for a system where the rich and powerful are free to operate independently of the state and outside of the state laws is an enemy of freedom and humanity, and an Enemy of the State; a “free-market” means that the rich and powerful have a free hand to do whatever they want, and the State, the People, can’t touch them; this is just serfdom all over again. The one thing the US Constitution left out was to limit the power of the market; and so now, the “free market” controls government because the government has no provision to protect itself from the market; and so now, you have socialized losses, and privatized gains, outright slavery! – a product of the free market, of government without the power to control the market and control those who abuse it for their own purposes. The government is the bitch of the market, and the market is driven by greed. Anyone who defends this system is an asshole, a colostomy bag, and we’re going to take these fuckers out with 100% inheritance tax. The rational have something infinitely greater than greed and selfishness – we have intelligence…we have higher IQ, and stupid greed can not beat rational merit for long.
Quote:
If you’re not for government, i.e., “centralized power”, then you’re for being a slave, for having the Collective enslaved to those who use their power to control the market; if you’re against the government having the strength to protect the collective against the abuses and whims of the free market, then you’re for privatized gains and socialized losses – you’re a traitor.
There would be a single climate model that would describe and explain the climate…if that science was turned into good science from bad science – the “no science” solution, the one implicitly advocated by the claim that it is not possible to understand the climate, is simply antirational.
The government has to be more powerful than the market, to be a government at all.
Joseph E Postma says: 2014/01/02 at 4:01 PM
Will, it is important to know a subject material for what it actually states, else the discussion falls off the mark and wastes people’s time.
Joseph,
I have read some of your AC. I understand the theme! It is a power grab by those that think they know! If successful they get to choose who is “knowledgeable”. It is always themselves!
I reject it all. It is worse than the Scientology creatures. Such nonsense was started by a Bavarian Jesuit in the 1700’s. “Illuminati” was stolen from the word used by Pythagoras for the gifted! Those gifted were to accept the burden of rule only until they could transfer that odious task to a more gifted! This form of government was successful many times and now exists only in Jordan. Look it up.
JP. “There would be a single climate model that would describe and explain the climate…if that science was turned into good science from bad science – the “no science” solution, the one implicitly advocated by the claim that it is not possible to understand the climate, is simply antirational.”
Good God! Stop the AC bullcrap and again read the Ehrlich and Tuschner AGW paper, until you get to the part introducing Navier–Stokes nonlinear partial differential equations. Then read that carefully, as written by folk that understand the limitations Humans have on applying Mathematics to the physical! It is most rational!
As for economics I believe that many situations and systems can work, the problem as always is the psychopath meddling in any such system. Iceland has made recent progress in jailing bankers and wiping away onerous and illegal debts. Also pre- revolutionary America had a brief window of relative freedom when bankers were not on the scene.
Religion is rules, based on observed evidence. Faith is feeling, which may often be correct.
Morality is our highest calling as a species, unfortunately we are phasing ourselves out of existence by relying on machines, that presumably can be relied upon to perform logic better than us. If logic is king and our highest calling then why should we exist? Is that not psychopathy?
I am sorry Joe, but both of these quotes are absurdly false, and exactly backwards.
The State can never equally distribute power. This is precisely opposite of the natural tendency and motivation of the State. Just as the GHE is impossible. It impossible for the State to equally distribute anything (except perhaps poverty).
As for the government to be more powerful than the market, this is drop-me-on-the-floor absurd. If the government is more powerful than the market, then the market cannot exist. They are mutually exclusive and completely at odds with one another. If a government is more powerful than the market, then the government becomes the market and will entirely consume that market. You then no longer have a market. They cannot, under any circumstance, successfully coexist. Just look at our financial and market problems today. They are precisely because of this social/economic law. Government more powerful than the market is called “Cronyism”. Come on Joe … Joe, Joe, Joe. Just how many real word examples does one need to illustrate this? This has been done thousands of times, over many many millennia, and the outcome is always the same. Without fail. ALWAYS … What is it that Einstein said? “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result” (or something to that effect).
Look Joe, just teach me physics and math. Please leave the rest alone.
Thank you and God bless!
Will, knowledge can be measured, and those most knowledgeable, not the most greedy, should represent the collective general will.
And the climate is understandable, not ununderstandable.
James I would think that since morality is subjective then it can’t really be a calling. Morality is relative, but intelligence is not. We really are smarter than the animals, it is what makes us human, and some humans really are much smarter than most. Intelligence and rationality is our highest calling, it is what defines us. Any “morality” without intelligence is meaningless – consider a lion for example, who would consider it “moral” to murder the kin of the previous alpha, after having also murdered him. If we say that the lion is unable to determine what is moral since he doesn’t think, then this proves that it is thinking, rationality and reason, which creates human “morality”. If it is a condition of the lions life in the wild which determines his morality, then this is to imply that humans living in the wild could also behave like the lion and that such actions could then be considered moral; however, it is the human ability to think which prevents man from having to live like a lion. So any way we go about it, it is thought, rationality, which allows humans to even have a concept of morality, let alone morality. It is not “moral” v. “immoral”, or good vs. evil or good vs. bad, it is smart (i.e. good, moral) vs. stupid (i.e. evil, bad, immoral) – rational vs. irrational, sane vs. insane, social vs. psychopathic, aware vs. unaware, etc.
A machine doesn’t think, and it doesn’t experience. Why should we exist if logic is king and our highest calling? Why shouldn’t we? We can only exist because logic is king…the basis of reality via ontological mathematics. We wouldn’t exist if logic didn’t exist. Knowledge and logic are not psychopathy, the mythos fairy-tales of Abrahamism and the murder and genocide committed by that religion are psychopathic, the nihilist meaninglessness of scientific materialism is psychopathic, and on and on. These psychopathic things are not a result of logic and knowledge of logic, but exclusively are products of stupidity. Stupidity = evil = immorality = psychopathy = bad.
Yes indeed, the bankers and other financial parasites responsible for their own mess should be jailed and tried for treason.
Squid maybe you missed it. The only possible rational moral truth is that those quotes are true. Free market capitalists do not distribute power! They collect power to themselves at everyone else’s expense, until everyone else is enslaved. That’s the definition of greed and whole moral of the story of Atlas Shrugged! The motivation of free market capitalists and capitalism is greed! lol This is precisely the opposite of the Collective General Will, and of a state which represents that. The solution to bad government is not no government, but good government. Why is the government bad right now? Because market deregulation gave the free market capitalists freedom to run the entire system and break it so bad that they needed to get bailed out with socialism. The government is bad now because free market capitalism controls it, and since this creed proudly finds its basis in greed, that means that the public pay for the losses and the “free market capitalists” keep the gains to themselves. We have one of the most absurd systems of economy and government subservient to it that has ever existed, YOU ARE PAYING FOR THE LOSSES OF THE GREEDY CAPITALISTS, and you defend it!!?? Don’t be such a fucking slave you goddamned moron! You’re paying for the losses of greed because the government is not stronger than the market, because it deregulated it, and because people insanely believe that rich people should be in control of the market while they, somehow, happily pay for the losses of the rich! Are you fucking insane man? Are you a psychopath? Do you measure yourself by how much more greedy you are than others and you respect and defend the “right” of the rich to rule because they’re the greediest of all, as if you’re some deranged fanatical fan of Ayn Rand?
How many REAL-WORLD examples do YOU need to tell you of the abuse that the powerful psychopathic greedy will and always do inflict on the general populace? Let’s say – pretty much our entire human history!? Monarchy, serfdom, physical slavery, wage slavery, sweat shops, child workers, endless list. Holy f man! The only thing that has ever given the people power is a government to represent them, to represent the General Will, with the power to defend their rights against the “free market”. The supposed “free market” is proudly and boastfully driven by greed – psychopathic emotion! You defend living in a society underlayed by greed?
No, the free market and government can not coexist, exactly that, because the people do not want to be enslaved by those greedy and powerful enough to control the market for their private benefit; indeed, the market will be subservient to the General Will, the market will be a function of government.
Quote:
Cronyism: Cronyism is partiality to long-standing friends, especially by appointing them to positions of authority, regardless of their qualifications. Hence, cronyism is contrary in practice and principle to meritocracy.
You don’t even understand the definitions. Cronyism is what rich capitalists do, also nepotism, and this has nothing to do with people being independently voted in to government to represent the General Will based on their merit and what they can help do for society. The rich free market capitalists distribute poverty to everyone else but them.
Our financial market problems are exactly due to deregulation, hence, to the free market! Where the fuck have you been? The US taxpayer ended up paying these bastards trillions and trillions of dollars for the damage caused by their “free market”! Get your head out of John Galt’s shiny ass for a minute and do some actual reading and thinking. You couldn’t be any more backwards and in denial of reality. Who in their right mind defends a system based on GREED!? Where you get to pay for the losses of the greedy, losses they created by greedily playing with the economy? Only the psychopathic and insane.
We have something greater: Rational Merit. And what we have planned for the insane and stupid is something far, far worse than the beheading, burning at the stake, skinning alive, slavery, wage slavery, etc. that has been inflicted on the smart and the innocent by the religious and financial rulers for ages. Something far more drastic we have planned for them: their outright extinction – because we’re going to take away their money when they die, and then we’re going to make their children smart and then have to work for and earn what they receive. And all we got to do is wait for these idiots to destroy their own greed system beyond repair, as they’ve always done, and have done, and are in the process of doing; then the people will look to those who can lead and they’ll look to understand the source of the problem, and the source of the problem is the same as it has always been before any revolution: the greedy psychopathic rich “elite”.
And lastly, quit being so condescending by repeating my name over and over again, and don’t ever tell me “God Bless” to top it all off. Only Christians use that term and I despise Christians for their stupidity, their evil, and their idiocy.
Joseph E Postma says: Why is the government bad right now? Because market deregulation gave the free market capitalists freedom to run the entire system and break it so bad that they needed to get bailed out with socialism. …YOU ARE PAYING FOR THE LOSSES OF THE GREEDY CAPITALISTS, ”
=============================================
The recent financial crisis was caused by the government (Clinton) who interfered with the free market mechanism and created a huge mortgage bubble. Then later it came to the losses. You are paying for the losses caused by the “smart strong government”.
Greg good grief…deregulation of the market to make it more “free” is what happened. The free market is what creates bubbles and bust etc. The mortgage bubble wouldn’t have happened if the government had kept its regulations in spite of the demands of the free market capitalists. Even Paul Craig Roberts, creator of Reaganomics, has come around to realize and write about the need for govt regulation of the market.
Joe, the mortgage bubble happened BECAUSE of Clinton administration specific regulation.
Holy shit Greg. Clinton got rid of the Glass-Steagall regulation which separated commercial banking from investment “speculative” banking. Glass-Steagall was introduced after the capitalists has destroyed the US nation with the Great Depression in the 30’s which they, the capitalists, had created. Why did the capitalists want to get rid of Glass-Steagall in the 90’s once again? Because there was all this money sitting around in people’s savings and retirement accounts that the free market capitalists thought they should be free to trade around with each other since the money was sitting in “their” banks. And who put pressure on the government to do this? Alan Greenspan, avowed fan of Ayn Rand free market capitalism, basing his decisions on the matter specifically on that philosophy. Glass-Steagall is anti free-market and that’s why the free market capitalists wanted to get rid of it. And then look at what they did – they did the exact same thing they did in the lead up to 1929: speculative investments in worthless financial products that even they didn’t understand, and which many of them even knew to be fraudulent. But all for the sake of a buck right!? Greed is good! It was a de-regulated “free market” that caused the economic crash – just like it did with the savings and loans crash, like it did with the 1929 collapse, etc. We have Greenspan, telling the government to deregulate, because he’s a fan of Ayn Rand, and then the free market capitalists not only destroy the economy, but go on to ask for trillions and trillions of dollars to be paid out to them, via socialism, for their losses, their losses which were the Collective’s money, not even their own money to begin with. And then they gave themselves record bonuses for all this. Record bonuses for destroying the economy and using socialism to save the failure of irrational greed-based free market capitalism. You’ve got to be a complete moron to defend this. Not understanding it is forgivable, but insisting upon not understanding it is unpardonable.
Holy shit Joe smile 🙂 . Just stick to the mortgage bubble and apply some logic, and all this communists thing falls apart.
I guess, you are so deep in this shit already that it is almost hopeless. Someone said something like “it is difficult to fool an intellectual, but if it is done, it is almost impossible to “unfool” them”, but I’ll give it a try, because I like you. So, the point is, that smart strong Clinton administration changed the rules and harmed the market and the capitalists. Apparently Clinton administration was not run by all those “evil capitalists” themselves. Does not fit the concept you like.
Joseph, you said …
“And the climate is understandable, not ununderstandable.”
If “un” is a negative, then “unun” is a double negative and cancel each other, so should not the last word in this sentence be “derstanable” … just saying …
Sorry Joe, I was not intending to be condescending.
As for the rest of your reply … what a bunch of bullshit … wow … quite revealing
Joseph E Postma says: 2014/01/03 at 1:06 PM
“Will, knowledge can be measured”
Knowledege cannot be measured nor even evaluated as there is no reference, only opinion.!
The 4 year old that “KNOWS” not to piss mommy off “right now”,! is likely the most knowledgeable individual on this planet, “right now”.
” and those most knowledgeable, not the most greedy”,
Weehu! In a nice planet or place, it is always open season on greed. Best if others thank you for eliminating that “greed” On this planet it is a target rich environment. Even those with no weapon, only a snare can getn a bag limit! Unfortunatly they never taste very good.
Not the most unmeasurable knowledgeable, but the most gifted in governance need be encouraged to govern.
“should represent the collective general will.” What does that mean? ][\
‘That the stupid shall controll?
“And the climate is understandable, not ununderstandable”.
Maby. Climate now has so meny versions that there is no definition. I like:
” Climate is what you want, Weather is what you get”:
To me Weather is a deterministic but chaotic ;process with many interacting limit cycles, ranging in period from 12 hours to 300,000 years. Also with the Weater at any location on this planet non-linearly dependent on the weather of every other location on this planet.
That is my best description!!. Is that understandable, or ununderstandable”.?
To me it is only ” Fuck it all”, lets go have a beer, watch the girlies , and hope we can recover from this rediculouse excursion into the realm of the Philosophic. I am glad that Mathematics and Logic, does not reside only `in the land of the Philosophic.
Joseph E Postma says: “The supposed “free market” is proudly and boastfully driven by greed – psychopathic emotion! You defend living in a society underlayed by greed?
No, the free market and government can not coexist, exactly that, because the people do not want to be enslaved by those greedy and powerful enough to control the market for their private benefit; indeed, the market will be subservient to the General Will, the market will be a function of government.”
==============================================
About “greed”. Without going deep into details and disregarding the negative terms “greed” and “psychopathic emotion”, yes, the economic system needs to be driven by desire to produce and distribute more goods and services in exchange for more money. Those who do that have to consider the consumers needs and wishes. Competition is a vital part of it. Independent banking system is a vital part of it, too. Some regulation is needed, of course.
Government run planned economy is such a mess, examples are well known. The standard of living in such countries was/is very low, despite mostly good education and resources available in some cases. This apart from totalitarian suppressing and killing machines there. A lot of people there would have been happy to become “enslaved” by “greedy capitalists” in capitalist countries.
Truthseeker says: 2014/01/03 at 4:43 PM
Joseph, you said …“And the climate is understandable, not ununderstandable.”
If “un” is a negative, then “unun” is a double negative and cancel each other, so should not the last word in this sentence be “derstanable” … just saying …
Thank you! between your precision in expression, the precision in mathematics , and the precision in true physics., We can now illustrate the magnitude of the CAGW scam with no handwaving, .buit only how we have been “insulted” with deliberate and intentional lies.
Time for lotsa pitchforks and simple torches. Many will die, perhapa more on the other side.
I think I derstand.
Allen Eltor says: 2014/01/04 at 8:15 PM
I think I derstand.
Good, Do you think JP derstands the un-derstandable now?
How much can any of us derstand ever? Much more is always un-derstandable!
So much for Philosophy or climateofsophistry!
Joseph, the easy way to get around your 100% inheritance tax is simply to transfer title and ownership to your siblings before death. It is too unenforceable to be practical.
Truthseeker says: 2014/01/05 at 7:25 PM
Joseph, the easy way to get around your 100% inheritance tax is simply to transfer title and ownership to your siblings before death. It is too unenforceable to be practical.
How do you do that, when “you” have decided, that some or all of your siblings are not worthy of such wealth? Are we having pfun with Pfilosophy yet? Do not go there!!, filosophy will eat your pface off!
For those who need a good laugh: http://www.spiritofmawson.com/
Greg (2014/01/03 at 4:15 PM), the rules Clinton changed were to favour the free-market capitalists, which meant less government regulation, which meant less government involvement in the market. That decision came from Greenspan, basing the decision on his Randian philosophy. Then they got bailed out by socialism because the free market is irrational and directionless, and based on emotion, not reason, and is inherently unstable. It was a formal proof that the government needs to regulate the market.
Squid (2014/01/03 at 5:34 PM), if you enjoy bailing out the people who’ve already stolen from you – in fact you bailed them out because they stole from you – well I’m sorry but you’re not going to be free to do that any more 🙂
TS (2014/01/05 at 7:25 PM)
Enforcing things is what government does for the sake of the freedom of individuals in society. Such things would be illegal. Also, people would soon not even think of doing that, because there would be no need to. It would be understood as being anti-social, as trying to control ownership beyond your death and irrationally to your own bloodline.
Joseph E Postma says: “Greg (2014/01/03 at 4:15 PM), the rules Clinton changed were to favour the free-market capitalists,”
===========================================
I am afraid this is not correct. The Clinton administration put pressure on the banks forcing them to grant mortgages to people who were not likely to pay back. Thus a huge financial bubble was created which ended up in 2008 crisis.
This free online course looks interesting….
http://www.exeter.ac.uk/climatechangecourse/
Here’s a flavour of some of the surprising questions we’ll be asking:
Why is the Greenhouse Effect a bad metaphor for the process of atmospheric warming?
Why is one of the biggest threats to humanity – as a result of climate change – a tiny fungus?
Why might the Sahara Desert be transformed from arid sand into lush vegetation?
How exactly could the climate be engineered to put a stop to global warming?
Examining the challenges of climate change and developing solutions that mitigate its risks requires a whole range of different skills. That’s why we have assembled an inter-disciplinary team of geographers, mathematicians, biologists, marine biologists, meteorologists and glacierologists from both the University of Exeter and our partners at the UK Met Office.
What? No physicists?
Might be interesting to see the lines they take.
Yes, that is a good thing Joe. The “Government” should not be bailing ANYONE out. If private industry wants to bail something out, that is one thing, but stealing my money (“Government”) and handing it over to those that the government chooses … is, well, ummm … CRONYISM! … sheeesh… Government IS the problem. Well, one of a few problems, but by far the largest of our current problems. Centralized planning and collectivism may work on an ant farm, but they will not and cannot work on a human farm. It’s been tried, ad-infinitum, and always, without exception, fails in utter travesty. Always, without exception. period.
Greg House says: 2014/01/06 at 2:25 PM
Yes, and further Greg, they (government) forced the junk bond market onto the banks and Wall Street. It is true that some deregulation occurred (not just the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act), but Joe is wrong as to why that occurred, and further, what real effect it had. Look no further than the junk bond market. It was an avenue that was opened to force the banking industry to take on risky loans and bundle them into a bubble market. Banks did not want to do this, they were forced to do it when they were forced to take on loans that could not be repaid. So, what did the banks do? They bundled and sold junk, as it was the only profitable avenue they had to deal with junk loans, and that avenue was expressly, and purposefully opened by …. wait for it … The Government. This is all well documented.
The housing bubble is a perfect example of the failure of government and central planning. It is a perfect example of Cronyism. It is a perfect example of what happens when government is allowed to run markets, choose winners and losers, and manipulate financial systems. One would be hard pressed to find a better and more clear cut example of what can go wrong at the hands of the government.
I’m sorry, this is not necessarily true. We are seeing something even worse unfold before our eyes right now … Obamacare … Yet another glaring example of the failures of government, centralized planning and collectivism. It is truly sad that I have to point these things out, to anyone, let alone anyone that is supremely educated. We are in very serious trouble….
You know, the more I think about this, the more absurd it truly is. Under the sort of “big government” collectivism that Joe is proposing, Joe not be able to run this blog. A government of that sort of control would never allow Joe to publish contradiction to the GHE (just as one example). For the refutation of the GHE is counter to the meme set forth by this government. It is counter to the will of this government. If they had the control that Joe is suggesting, Joe would never be allowed to express these views, truth or no truth.
Further, Joe would no longer have any personal value. As soon as you adopt the “collective”, everyone becomes a number, nobody retains personal value and can be used and/or discarded at will. Joe speaks of meritocracy, which is a seemingly good concept, however, at the hands of the government, if you do not exhibit useful (to the government) merit, then you also have no value and become waste that must be rid of. Mao comes to mind here, as well as other similar regimes. You have no immediate value, you become a waste product.
Joseph E Postma says:
2014/01/06 at 1:10 PM
TS (2014/01/05 at 7:25 PM)
Enforcing things is what government does for the sake of the freedom of individuals in society. Such things would be illegal. Also, people would soon not even think of doing that, because there would be no need to. It would be understood as being anti-social, as trying to control ownership beyond your death and irrationally to your own bloodline.
————————————————————————————–
Wow, welcome to the worst collectivist nightmare I can think of. You are saying that people cannot transfer ownership of their own assets at a time of their choosing. Wow, the stupidity of that beggars belief. Also people will always think of that because they want to give their offspring the best start they can. Of course people will just transfer assets before their death, and there is no way you can regulate against this without taking all financial freedoms away from people for ever. I will take the existing mess over that nightmare every single time.
Now it came to pass in the days when our friend Joseph ran off the rails from too many egg nogs and started screaming about totalitarian communism being the only true answer, we all made tee shirts that said, “I don’t know him when he’s drinking” and we all hid our shirts when Joseph was around; for we told him someone came on his site impersonating him and, that as far as we know, being arrested nude while intoxicated trying to climb the flag pole at work after crashing his car into the flower bed, was pretty much, all that happened.
Illuminism is a religion based on mathematics.
Ruthless greed and mythos (such as the Abrahamist religions) rules over a horrific world, with all joy at the pain it inflicts, with no comprehension of its poverty of reason.
Fundamentally, love and joy and hate and anger all come out of a mathematical property of existence called Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem, and then also out of the internal dialectic of the Becoming of Zero. The subjectivity of love or joy wouldn’t be possible without the Incompleteness Theorem, i.e. the Incompleteness Theorem is what allows love or joy to be experienced at all, and the dialectic of the Zero (the monad, your soul soul) becoming God is what gives rise to the particular instances of subjectivity – love or joy is the individual monad’s interpretation of an increasing of power.
When the monad mind begins to become rational, the comprehension of power goes from being emotional and bestial – selfish, greedy, Ayn Randian, enslaving others for your own benefit, etc; to rational and refined and what we call civilized – communitarian, social, ethical, but most importantly mathematical and logical and philosophical, control over one’self rather than others, etc.
This is why a singular truth is what eventually gets discovered by your soul: Ontological Mathematics. There is no subjectivity or alternative interpretations of 1 + 1. Mathematics is a universal objective truth that provides for subjective subsets of itself. It is in fact reality itself, hence why mathematics explains what the soul is, why something exists rather than nothing, and what the purpose of existence and the universe and our lives is.
Mathematics is, basically, God. The mathematics that underlies reality isn’t just the language of God’s mind, it is God’s mind. The language of God’s mind is God’s mind. God’s mind must be omnipresent, and mathematics is of course omnipresent. Hence by knowing mathematics, you know the mind of God. That we can understand mathematics, and that mathematics tells us what we are and where we’re going, shows that we will be God, and even are currently becoming God, as well. If you begin to understand God’s mind, which is mathematics, then you begin to become God yourself.
Mathematics is the basis of science and it is the only thing there is available for understanding everything about the nature of reality around us. Science is the process of discovering the mathematics that underlies reality: this is precisely and everything that science reduces to – discovering the mathematics of reality. And so, of course mathematics also has to explain your mind, your feelings, and ultimately, your Soul, what your Soul is, and what your Soul is doing, and what your Soul is becoming.
Libertarians think that “The Market” is a God that regulates itself for the best opportunities for all, that all you need is to have free access to a free market and then freedom will ensue. Brilliant logic right?
It doesn’t matter if you have an independent public currency if the means of production are still owned by elite greedy bastards. The market is NOT free. The market is always controlled by those with the power to control it. In our time, the currency is controlled by the private central banks, the international bankers a.k.a the Rothschilds and those type of people. So sure, you have a free market but your only freedom is to be a wage slave consumer! Like everyone was “free to have any colour Ford Model T they wanted, as long as it is black” – quote from Ford founder.
But it is not just the currency that is controlled it is also the means of production, and whether you price goods and food in federal reserve notes or Bitcoin, the price is SET by those who are FREE to control the market, because the market has to remain free for them to do so, God forbid any state involvement of the market.
The people have had a state subservient to the free market for a few generations now – which means that the free market is the state! The government is nothing and ineffectual if it doesn’t control the market, and it doesn’t, because people think the market should be superior to the state. Libertarians make the market their state, and even their God. But it is a free market based on greed (hence totally irrational) and it only APPEARS to be free – it is actually controlled by the financial elite, outside of government.
The convenience of this setup is that when the market fails, DUE TO free-market shenanigans, then the market controllers blame the government! We literally have people thinking that the 2008 crash was due to government! We literally have these idiots defending the socialized bailout of the losses of the free-market in 2008, and the privatized gains kept only for the elite! Insanity.
Then look at the quote from a Libertarian:
“It’s not that I want you to buy drugs, it’s just that I think you should have the freedom to do it.”
What does that even mean? If you have the freedom to do drugs but no one does drugs because they’re bad for you, then what difference does it make to make them illegal? And why should people be free to harm themselves, since this harms the state?
The truth is that these libertarians have two main platforms: 1) the legalization of drugs, 2) the legalization of prostitution (this is another frequent thing they’ll discuss – since we should be free to do drugs and use our body how we want, women should be too). What are these people then? They’re morons, consumerist materialist hedonistic morons. Animals.
Civilized men and women create civilized states. We do not have a civilized state we literally have despotism, because the market is superior to the government which means there is no real government. We have despotism and the Libertarians want to get rid of what’s left of state power and regulations so that we can “be free” to totally devolve into some steam-punk hedonism, and live like “savages”, with all the drugs and prostitutes you want.
Isn’t it amazing that libertarians (almost what, 99% male?) don’t talk about the freedom to educate women? No, they talk about the freedom to have drugs and prostitution!
These libertarian men imagine doing drugs, and then having sex with prostitutes! And that’s their political platform…
Libertarianism is fundamentally sexist and masochistic. And simply idiotic.
Greg, Squid, everyone else: You need to do some reading:
Armageddon Conspiracy
Mike Hockney
Michael Faust
Adam Weishaupt
Reading all of this work will increase your IQ by about 25%. Once you do that, then please come back to discuss.
I don’t want to have to keep repeating that it is bad for society to be raped by free market capitalists destroying the economy, while you keep saying that this “right” should be protected. You’re wrong about that.
Meritocracy is right.
(I’m gonna have to put your comments on this thread into moderation so that I don’t have to spend more time on these points 🙂 It has been good and fun though! 🙂 Now, Become Illuminists and discover the purpose of existence, and of your Self!)
let’s see how much further I can reduce it:
Euler’s formula is the most fundamental identity in mathematics. It is an equation that describes how all numbers relate to one another.
If existence is number, as postulated by Pythagoras and explained by the AOI, then the equation that describes all possible number has to describe the behaviour of the number plenum, which we perceive as space-time (our perception of existence).
And so, Euler’s equation derives relativity theory, which is precisely the theory that describes the behaviour of space-time, which we can now recognize as the number plenum.
Euler’s formula proves Pythagoras’ postulate.
Joseph E Postma says: 2014/01/07 at 11:41 AM
l”et’s see how much further I can reduce it:
“Euler’s formula is the most fundamental identity in mathematics. It is an equation that describes how all numbers relate to one another.
If existence is number, as postulated by Pythagoras and explained by the AOI, then the equation that describes all possible number has to describe the behaviour of the number plenum, which we perceive as space-time (our perception of existence).
And so, Euler’s equation derives relativity theory, which is precisely the theory that describes the behaviour of space-time, which we can now recognize as the number plenum.
Euler’s formula proves Pythagoras’ postulate”.’
What arrogant religious fake nonsense! Better to say “beats the shit out of me”. a humble expression, and likely. to represent your own knowledge of this mathematics. Euler’s equations do indeed validate the Pythagorean theorem, but only in two dimensions, in any other
number of dimensions they both are complete nonsense!
Joseph, you have much more mathematicle knowledge than I. Please consider that no-earthling has any measurable knowledge of mathematical concepts, compared to all of mathematics.
As far as the illuminati, please state your current concept of “the Holy Grail” As presented The question is similar to ” describe the known universe?”, Give three examples? Please give three orthaganal concepts of the Holy Grail. If you do not have at least three, you are completely lost!
There are infinite mental avenues to occupy oneself. Endless theories to muck through. All in all, we are all heading toward self realization – nirvikalpa samadhi.
Glad to see you distinguish between big-L Libertarians and ones like myself, anarchists who are of course for liberty, and thus small-l libertarians.
Oh, got a question answered on that ask Van page from a ways back:
http://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=25333
Max™ says: “Oh, got a question answered on that ask Van page from a ways back: … leaving the net T about 10°C hotter than it would be for an ideal black body. Adding more infrared absorbing gases (mainly CO2 and methane) increases the warming effect.”
===========================================
Such an increase in temperature is physically impossible.
Will there are basically only two dimensions – that of space and of time. However, space and time are complimentary and balanced so that each real dimension has an imaginary counterpart, i.e. each space dimension has a counterpart in time.
Can You state what the Holy Grail is?? 😉
Max,
From that link, these two sentences appear to be mutually exclusive:
[“Since the radiation frequency spectrum depends on T, the partial absorption can change that balance, although it never reverse the direction of the net energy flow.”]
and
[“Adding more infrared absorbing gases (mainly CO2 and methane) increases the warming effect.”]
I agree with Greg, such a warming effect would be physically impossible.
Oh, I know I started all this. I have stopped trying to get sense from that bloke (Mark W), especially as he is so rude. He states that my question (“Is it possible for radiation emitted from a cooler energy source to heat a warmer energy source?”) is dishonest, and yet he presumably thinks his statement (“Yes. Radiation from B to A always warms A, regardless of their initial temperatures.”) is somehow honest!
Would anyone like a nice cup of tea?
I said “LoL Hooah!” to Arfur but it disappeared.
Joseph what’s precipitating this sudden urge to renounce the honest people catching these government employees in all this crime, and declare government employees are going to have to band together and wipe out all of us who pay taxes to give government employees, jobs?
Joseph E Postma says: 2014/01/11 at 1:23 PM
Will there are basically only two dimensions – that of space and of time. However, space and time are complimentary and balanced so that each real dimension has an imaginary counterpart, i.e. each space dimension has a counterpart in time.
Perhaps!
IMHO “Time” is orthogonal to all earthling physical dimensions, of what is! Currently that is 3 or 4 dimensions, depending if you consider (temperature, brightness, radiance) orthogonal,
AFAIK there are more than 20 physical dimensions of what is. Time remains orthogonal as il
has negible relationship to what “is” . Time is but a one way sequence. Time sometimes demonstrates the process of “before`to now”. but never the process of “now to later”
All depends on the state of those other >20 dimensions. Please understand that later (or next) is way less than 3.14157 picio seconds.
Can You state what the Holy Grail is?? 😉
I cannot communicate such! I have one for “me”. but not for you.
The Holy Grail is, as far as I can understand is any “path” of learning,
never a destination or goal. Your mileage may vary.
All the best Joseph. -will-
Joseph E Postma says:
Many maybe things from the Illuminati, wich is only political, never physical.
Please leave the political to such as Greg House, who is a good but iineffectual on any “real”:
political.
Joseph, You are gifted in explaining what “is”. Thank you!! Stick with what you know, rather than politics, wich is only what others should do..
The “understanding” is “maby” what others may say about what “I” must do.
Polite regards -will-
Joseph E Postma says:That’s why it’s critical for all sensible people to be ready to speak with a single voice and promote a single clear agenda.
Not at all! + you are describing A herd of cows, earthlings are much .more like many kittycats Try to herd those. For each the only viable government is a benevolent monarchy. ” One” that is all powerful, and all knowing. How you get there for earthlings or kittycats is a way different question. All the best! Joseph -will-
O/T but this is a very interesting post about IR absorption…
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/01/25/history-repeats-itself-3/comment-page-1/#comment-312874
AB
Joseph, With the Ukraine uprising starting as a protest against their governments corruption, I hope you’ll see the truth in what the liberal‑cum‑socialist Pierre Joseph Proudhon said in the 1850s and rethink your strong state Marxist ideals.-
To be governed is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law‑driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be governed is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorised, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be placed under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolised, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonoured. That is government; that is its justice, that is its morality.
Westy for God’s sake, the uprising in Ukraine is being fomented by Nato and the US because they want to install their capitalist banks to do the same thing there that they did in Cyprus, Greece, etc. Also they want to wrest the Ukraine into Nato so that Russia’s power is reduced. You have literal neo-Nazi fascists running this uprising and they even have support from the western-funded (i.e. capitalist funded) Syrian rebels who’ve left Syria and been funnelled into Ukraine with help of the US Ambassadors.
Are you so fucking stupid? Are you people such fucking retards? You want banks in control you fucking dipshits? You want private capitalist banks and Wall Street in control of your freedom you fucking morons? Cause that’s what you’re getting with free market capitalism and when the last semblance of government rule BY THE PEOPLE finally evaporates, it will be straight to serfdom once again. The government is fucked because 1) free market capitalism is above it because the government isn’t allowed to regulate it and hence those in control, i.e. the private banks working for THEIR OWN interest, are in control of government (who got Obama elected? Goldman Sachs), and 2) people are fucking idiots are play right into the capitalist hands because they’re too retarded to understand their own freedom – free market capitalism fucks up government and then the idiot people blame government, when government was never able to regulate it the thing wrecking it.
The solution to bad government is not no government but good government. Least of all those fucking IDIOT AMERICANS should be able to be understand that! Ever hear of George Washington shit for brains? Ever hear of the US Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights? That’s GOVERNMENT! So the solution to having psychopathic selfish “free-marketers” corrupting government is to just let those people take everything over completely? Like we need our house prices to rise or fall just because some shitheads want to speculate? Like we need food to cost 5 times the cost of production just because some assholes like to speculate on it so that they can skim from the profits?
Look here’s what we’re doing: My friends and I we’ve broke the code. We’re going to destroy this slavery system. If it isn’t slavery to Yahweh/Jehovah/Allah moron humans want then it is slavery to the environment, and if it isn’t slavery to the environment then it is slavery to banks that people want, and if it isn’t slavery to banks people want then apparently they just want to live in anarchy with the psychopaths free to reign. Republic government was and is instituted to protect the people from the psychopathic elite, and now we’ve come full circle with people begging to have the psychopathic elite take control over everything. How can you be so stupid? How can you be so stupid as to think that “no government” means you’ll be free? Government DEFINES rights. Your rights COME FROM the government. There’s no such thing as “God given rights” because there is no God that bestows rights. Animals in nature have no rights amongst each other, so where’s God giving them their rights? Society DEFINES rights, a society of men and women who desire certain rights and freedoms or lack thereof establish those rights in a Government. The idea is to institute rights that protect the masses from the psychopathic rich, just as they thought up in ancient Greece. People thought it up again in the US, and the US was supposed to have a national bank controlled by the government and hence the people to issue a currency and further funding for national infrastructure. This national bank was soon destroyed by the British Capitalists to install their own private system, and hence the US government lost control of its power over the currency, and hence over the nation because as a Rothschild said: “Give me control over a nation’s currency and I care not for their laws.” So now these people are using government to ruin government but the people are too stupid to realize it. It all originates back to Britain’s control over America, once again.
For all the “God given rights” you idiots think you have, those who WISH to rule have one greater right: the right of force. You think you can just say “I have a God given right not to be forced controlled or enslaved by you”? BULLSHIT. Those who wish to rule you HAVE THE RIGHT to force you to obey! Free will is an absolute right and in an anarchy those who wish to rule WILL rule you, whether you like it or not, because they have the right of force. Oh sure you can say “no they don’t”. Well FUCK YOU…they believe THEY DO, and all they have to do is the simplest thing in human existence – to claim and utilize the right of force, for their own interests. And so, a society of learned men and women create a government, a state, to protect themselves from those who would use force to rule. They create a greater force in the form of a national government.
How many of the conspiracy theorist libertarian idiots are aware of the Federal Reserve and who’s behind it? All of them are aware of it. So instead of wanting to get rid of it and return the currency back to the US government and hence to their own control of the people, they want to get rid of government! Well you’re still going to need currency after the government goes away, and who’s going to provide the currency? THINK ABOUT IT IDIOTS!
So look we’re leaving stupid people behind. You either do some reading and get educated on reality, start caring for each other and desiring a more equitable system where reason is in control rather than absolute selfish desire as it is with capitalism, start thinking of a more social system in which government benefits everybody except for the greedy selfish and antisocial psychopathic, start thinking of projects humanity can collectively engage in to produce a Utopia on this planet, or you’ll be left behind to be free to have your psychopathically selfish capitalist masters enslave you. You don’t win this game by being greedy. You win it by working together. You can claim all you want that you have intrinsic “God given rights”, but those who wish to rule for their own benefit, such as the free market capitalists, also claim the right and freedom to murder you.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/02/i-crashed-a-wall-street-secret-society.html
First of all I don’t believe I, or anyone, has God given rights. But I do believe we are all entitled to exchange our ideas, talents and labour with the rest of humanity. So free markets.
I see all Government as only a necessary evil that should be kept as small and unobtrusive as possible. Your strong state, nationalising property, demonizing the rich, running what it believes are essential services / business and setting prices for the common good does not work. But of cause you have a multitude of angelic like people, with no self interest, ready to run everything correct? This is the result of what you propose –
http://www.policymic.com/articles/82777/this-is-what-s-happening-in-venezuela-right-now
For the opposite result look at gift the British gave China, Hong Kong. The system has strong property rights, limited government, minimal regulation, free trade, open markets, low taxes and the bulk of the population are well off. If you’re looking for large prosperous middle classes you’ll find them all at the top of this economic freedom index –
http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking
Real world facts and history are on my side. Chile, now seven on the list is a turn around story. In the seventies they had a Marxist president, can’t recall his name, but the population were among poorest in South America so ended up under the military dictatorship of Pinochet. Unable to improve the economy, and in desperation, they turned to some American free market economists who had studied under Milton Friedman. Strengthening property rights and privatising the state pension system are given credit for turning it around. Although optional, over 90% of the population chose to manage their own pension funds, the result was capital flowing into the country’s businesses, workers empowered as they now had an interest in the businesses, funds flowed to the most productive parts of the economy. Amazingly since then they have been able to keep the government sector relatively small. A rising tide of wealth that lifted all, the rest is history with the average retiree in Chile now having more wealth then those in the USA.
Ineptocracy: A system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers. Starts when the state, trying retain power and privilege, attack the rich until there are none, then it’s onto the middle class until there are none. Then with most of the populace poor it usually takes blood to remove the power hungry.
And you are wrong about the Ukraine. It started as a protest against corruption, same as in 2004. Government debt, population being squeezed.
The fed was formed to stop the boom bust and runs on the banks that were prevalent in the US, they had different interest rates in different parts of the country as needed, it was quiet successful until government gained influence making them use their debt instead of the private they had been using to stabilise the system. Now it’s just a state whore.
A short clip for you –
“But I do believe we are all entitled to exchange our ideas, talents and labour with the rest of humanity. So free markets.”
You have a very limited understanding of the definitions and terms. Being able to exchange our talents with the rest of humanity does no in any way equate to the free market monetarist capitalism. And we can institute governments to do much more than any single individual can do.
Also, please get aware of the Ukraine. The US and the CIA are all about that.
Yes indeed ineptocracy…that is why we should go for a meritocracy and that automatically rules out free market monetarist capitalism since that is all about inept stupid people. Selfishness is not a virtue. It is merely the only thing to subscribe to if you live in a psychopathic society run by psychopaths…which we of course have. So instead, get smart and create something sane.
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/02/23/yanukovych-captured/
You’ll also find a detailed monetary of the world.
Well we’ll see how or if Putin responds to the Western-funded coup. As IF indignance at corruption was the reason the CIA got involved…bwahahaha. No matter though, the plans are already afoot. Selfish rule by psychopaths will come to an end soon, and then we’ll start doing sane things like developing society for the benefit of all non-psychopaths once again. You like your retirement money being available for bail-in for the psychopaths so you can keep worshipping how much more wealthy they are than you? Yes, you can go with them 🙂
Your blog Joseph but it’s safe to flick the tin foil hat. If the protesters were funded they should have used something better then their bottles of petrol. Of cause Putin, the action man will be trying to get the old Russian capital city back. Splitting the country could be be the best outcome. I don’t know but it has the potential blow up big time.
I’m with you on the bail in. Unbelievable the socialists think they can use everyone’s hard earned to cover their, plus cronies, fuck ups. Best of luck in the challenging times ahead.
Except it’s the capitalists thinking they can use everyone’s hard earned money to cover their screw ups…not the socialists. What happened is that capitalism had to be bailed out by socialism – privatized gains, socialized losses – that’s an invention of capitalism, because it makes sense to the greedy capitalist.
I’m just tired of money being the goal of life, with the Wall Street capitalists representing the height of that pursuit, where all they really do is produce nothing tangible and steal off of the tip of monetary inflation. If you create the inflation then you get rich because you spend it first, but that reduces the purchasing power of everyone else following afterwards.
I mean people actually talk about how much money they can leave their kids after they pass on. Isn’t that kind of sick? Isn’t that kind of morally degenerate, especially if you’re religious, and even if you’re not? My kids won’t need or care for my money. First, why would they need any money I have, and second, why would I want them to remember me for my money? Money has nothing to do with life or the value or remembrance of a human. I seek a State where, eventually, money is abolished; the ability to amass large amounts of money by trading animal passions on Wall Street has nothing to do with merit or value – if you succeed in that situation it simply means you’re a greedy psychopath, not a valuable human. Such a paradigm should not be outside the control of the people’s government, and should not control the people’s government.
Production capitalism was about producing valuable durable goods. This however only produces monetary profits once because once the market is saturated with the product, no one’s buying any more. Hence the move to consumer capitalism where products have a life-cycle, time of life, built-in obsolescence, etc. We could make razor blades that last a year, but this wouldn’t produce much profit, so we make razor blades that last a week.
Only by having the state in control of the economy do the people stand a chance at having rational people and rational goals in charge of it, rather than simplistic and individual irrational feeling-based greed. Greed is not a virtue and it never has been. Altruism is a virtue, and there are altruistic people. We are simply few but the people should look to them to lead, rather than the greedy.
People DO WANT altruists to lead – look at Obama. Everyone believed in his advertised altruism, that he was there to do good. Well of course the people didn’t understand that he was controlled and was a simple puppet for the greedy Wall Street capitalists, the banks & etc. That whole debacle was capitalism destroying the concept of altruistic & rational government, to remove such a concept from the people so that the only thing left to do was to look out for yourself. And of course the Wall Street capitalists and banks are the masters of the universe at looking out for themselves, so that’s the paradigm they want everybody else under too. The concept of a state oriented to altruistic and socially beneficial goals with such people in control is pure anathema to Wall Street and the banks. I mean look at the US – every president who was good for the people and rational development was either assassinated or the attempt was made to assassinate. That’s not a coincidence.
Anyway, monetarist banking and Wall Street capitalism will be abolished, because it doesn’t produce anything real. It produces profits for a small group of greedy people on the leading edge of the inflation of the money supply, since they’re in control of the money supply, and this impoverishes everyone else.
People still have to be rewarded for productivity and invention of real tangible goods and products and services, but this is production capitalism, not monetarist capitalism, and I think even you would agree that no one should get stinking rich for doing nothing but usury and trading animal passions in a monetarist “investment” market – they’re not trading value, they’re trading their passions, and the suckers are those who’s passions go different from the herd, and various other options schemes etc…that’s all that it is. There is no intrinsic value in Wall Street, or in the Federal Reserve system.
The U.S. needs to return to issuing National Treasury Notes, and the Glass-Steagal law separating “speculative investment banking” (i.e. Wall Street) from commercial banking (main street) must be reinstated SO THAT the greedy capitalists are once again, and permanently, prevented from bailing themselves out (socialized losses, privatized gains) with the people’s, main-street’s, money and savings etc. The state can simply never allow Trading Guilds or Banking Guilds to become so large as to become a threat to the stability of the entire state itself, or to become so powerful as to control the state itself. This is not in the people’s interest because the people are the state. Returning to US National Treasury Notes (instead of the usurious and private Federal Reserve Notes) and the Glass-Steagal Law will cut out the cancer of the greedy bastards trying to own the system for their own benefit and fun.
From a friend of mine living elsewhere:
Pingback: Eulerian Relativity | Climate of Sophistry
Pingback: Ontological Mathematics for the Lay Person – Part 1 | Climate of Sophistry