How does Illuminism make you feel?
What is worth it about Illuminism?
What feelings does Illuminism give you?
What feeling do you carry with you if you’re an Illuminist?
What value is there to believe in Illuminism?
First let us discuss what valuable feelings we get from traditional Christianity. In Christianity, the feelings we have are about being forgiven for our sins by Jesus Christ, because we are born with sin, and born sinful. So, because we’re sinful creatures, the benefit of Christianity is that we can be forgiven for our sins and so this is a positive feeling, a bit of a relief to know that if we believe in Jesus Christ, we can be forgiven. And so we are supposed to have a very positive and happy relationship with Jesus because of what that relationship can do for us and our inborn problem when we believe in him.
However, belief in Jesus and the forgiveness of ours sins is actually a secondary, derivative belief in Christianity. Faith in Jesus is not the primary belief. The primary faith belief in Christianity is that we are sinful, and that we are sinners. The primary faith of Christianity is to feel very poorly of yourself. Why are we sinful sinners? Because that’s what Christianity tells us we are. We don’t find that idea in pagan religions or in native and aboriginal populations, and the original sin concept is quintessentially Christian. So the primary faith belief in Christianity is actually that we are sinners. This is the first belief. The second faith is that we can be forgiven by Jesus.
We are sinners because “God”, who is Jesus because “God” is a trinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, created us that way. So God/Jesus created man with sin, and then sacrificed himself to forgive that sin. God created man to be born with sin, and then let himself be crucified as a sacrifice to humanity so that the sin could be forgiven, for those that believe in him.
So, it feels very good to believe that we will be forgiven for the sins we were born with and into by believing in Jesus Christ. At the same time, believing in Jesus Christ and his sacrifice is only meaningful if you already believe you are sinner. So, the value of Christianity is in feeling like you are a sinner, an intrinsically bad person, and then also in the feeling that you can be forgiven for being a bad, unworthy person.
Now it comes to my attention that in a particular modern religion sect who believe themselves to be Christians, called Mormons, that the concept of original sin isn’t taught for them and also that their “heavenly father” wishes for them to have freedom of will and to gain knowledge. This obviously has nothing to do with traditional Christianity. It is actually almost synonymous with Illuminism, in *these* brief terms, and if we just replace “heavenly father” with our own higher soul and its higher powers, these terms become perfectly synonymous. Of course there are detailed differences in the pedagogy (i.e. teachings) because the Mormons must have an entirely different reason to believe in Jesus than the traditional Christians do, since they apparently do not subscribe to original sin and hence don’t absolutely require Jesus’ forgiveness.
But what feelings are associated with being an Illuminist? Illuminism is based on mathematics and pure logic and reduces to the concept of the immaterial dimensionless zero, which is identified as our soul. This comes out of rationally identifying, i.e. having figured out, what the basis of reality itself must be made out of, i.e. what the “substance” of reality is.
Well there are no feelings in that statement! To talk about what all of the logical and mathematical corollaries of this rational scientific discovery are takes, at current count, about 55 books, tens of millions of words, and years’ time worth of reading. Talking about Euler’s Equation and how it describes the nature of your soul and the plenum of reality via quantum mechanics and relativity theory, how Godel’s mathematical Incompleteness Theorem defines the existence of free will, the natural fundamental Hegelian Dialectic of the contradiction of something vs. nothing which is the basis of change, & etc., is devoid of feeling for all but perhaps a few thousand people on the entire planet of over 7 billion. For most people, no feelings are found in this as yet, let alone if they could be positive or negative feelings. Illuminists generally don’t think of their feelings because feelings don’t determine logical truths such as 0 = 0 and 1 + 1 = 1 + 1 = 2, & etc., which is what Illuminism is all about.
However, there *are* feelings associated with Illuminism.
Firstly, to make it clear up front, Illuminists are not atheists, but nor do they believe in the Abrahamic God, or Satan. They do believe in the concept of God, but this belief comes out of the pure logical understanding of reality that Illuminism has discovered, and so it is not actually a faith belief without proof like all other religions, but it is a rational knowledge “belief” similar to how someone would say they “believe” that gravity exists; this isn’t a faith belief but a rational knowledge belief (unfortunately the word belief is used too liberally and we have no good alternative as yet).
Illuminism doesn’t have original sin nor does it have any alternative style of intrinsic self-doubt. There is no a-priori (before the fact) reason for a human to be considered or to feel themselves sinful or to feel that they need to seek the approval of a higher spiritual power for their continued or improved existence now or in the after-life. The concept of worshipping another entity, whether it a “god” or another human, or even an animal if that’s the case, is a repulsive feeling to an Illuminist. The concept of worshipping another entity as an inevitable seeking for approval and blessings is a yucky feeling to an Illuminist because it means you are subservient, less-than, conditionally-approved, and in general this would be called a “slave mentality”. The nature of reality that Illuminism has rationally scientifically discovered shows that all souls are intrinsically completely free and intrinsically contain absolute free-will, and so Illuminism aligns itself with that knowledge in its teachings and its feelings.
Of course, absolute free-will means that souls are free to be subservient and to seek the approval of others. However, the Illuminist doesn’t find any value in this – this is not the practise of freedom and free-will that an Illuminist would choose to live and feel by, because if you have intrinsic and absolute free-will that has been mathematically proven, why choose to make yourself un-free by seeking the approval and/or blessings of others (whether it be other people or some idea of a “god” or “spirits”), which therefore makes you a slave to that seeking? This is not a rational way to practise free-will, and so an Illuminist feels absolutely free with no self-doubts about their existence and no need for it to be approved or blessed.
What about the God we said that Illuminism does rationally (not faithfully) “believe in”, i.e. have rational knowledge about? Where does it fit in because shouldn’t we be grateful to it for creating us? That wouldn’t be being a slave, it is just showing appreciation and gratitude isn’t it?
Well this question gets to the heart of the matter. There is no single creator God. What Illuminism has rationally scientifically discovered is that the basis of reality is the soul. The soul, being immaterial and dimensionless, has been mathematically identified with the rational concept of zero. Without writing 55 books right here to logically explain and demonstrate all of the mathematical details and proof of this, the essential element is that all souls are fundamentally equal in nature, and only different in character. All souls have absolute free-will and they all exist for the exact same logical mathematical reason; however, all souls have a different mathematical perspective and vantage-point in existence, the universe, and on planet Earth, and so each soul is unique and has its own character. The fundamental property of a soul, of all souls, which Illuminism has rationally scientifically mathematically discovered, is that they do not require creation – they have always existed, and are immortal. Souls can neither be created nor destroyed, they simply are, have always been, and always will be. Logically, if one soul can exist immortally due to entirely logical and inevitable reasons, than an infinite number of other souls can exist because that reason won’t arbitrarily stop at one soul.
Souls “are”, they are “being”, but because of their mathematically unique perspective and interaction with all other souls, i.e. existence, then the character of each soul is always changing and always developing, uniquely. Some develop fast, some slow, but they all do develop. In Illuminism, this is called “Becoming”, which is usually capitalized due the importance of the logical implication. The logic behind Becoming is called the Hegelian Dialectic.
The Illuminist asks, “What are we becoming”?
What we are becoming is more. Our character is Becoming, that is, developing, more and more. Our soul is immortal and so it keeps on experiencing more and more as time goes on, and so it inevitably Becomes more and more unique with more and more individual knowledge and experience and character.
Since the soul is immortal and indestructible, all of this “Becoming” is synonymous with *learning*, because the soul doesn’t and even can not forget anything that it has ever experienced and gone through. Becoming means Learning, and it never stops. Instead of saying that a soul is Becoming, we can equivalently say that a soul is Learning, if anyone likes that word better – but it means the same thing essentially.
If you simply extrapolate this into the future, the result is that what we all eventually Learn to Become is God. That is, if we’ve learned or become so much and for so long that we know everything that there is to know, and thus that we understand and can control everything that exists, and there remains nothing left unknown or to discover or that we must have control over, then this is the state of being God, and it is the inevitable state that all souls eventually reach because all souls are always becoming and learning.
When the final point is reached where all souls have finally made it to becoming God, the only thing left to do is for them all to Create. When all souls have become God, the period of discovery is over…the period of Learning and Becoming reaches its end. With no discovery left possible for any single soul, then the joy – and some today would call it battle – of discovery, ceases. With that possibility over and at an end, then the only thing left to do is to create something new to discover. This applies to all souls since all souls have at this point have ended the period of discovery because they’ve all become God, and so all souls collectively and simultaneously engage in an act of infinite creation.
The only substance that souls have to create with, is themselves, because souls are the only thing which make up existence! But because all souls have totally become God, then there is nothing left for them to create except the rediscovery of Becoming God once again itself. The collective of God-souls resets Becoming to the starting point, because the only thing that is possible to do is to Become, and so once you can no longer Become because you’ve become all the way and discovered everything to discover, then the only thing to do is to Become, Learn and discover once again.
This act creates universes; this act is what created the Big Bang, in infinite cycles that have always been cycling and always will, and the unity of all souls simultaneously engaging in this process is thermally imprinted on the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation which is the energy signature left over in our space-time universe of the creation event initiated at the Omega Point (end) of the last universe.
And so if we want to thank a Creator or to be grateful to it for our existence, then you have to understand what the Creator is: The Creator is us. The Creator is ourselves and it is all others. No soul is underneath any other soul and no soul needs to thank any other soul for its existence. Each soul is itself the creator.
The ultimate feeling that the Illuminist feels and carries around with themselves in their heart is a very positive happiness about the future. It is a strong idealism that we can, and will inevitably, overcome our problems and discover what we need to know to be our maximum expression. It is a comforting acceptance of their current character and their current situation in Becoming with the knowledge that at ANY time, they are absolutely free to change their character and their situation to make it whatever they want and whatever they desire, if they truly so desire and want it. It is the acceptance that life is Learning, and that all lessons in life will be learned, and more importantly and happily, that all lessons CAN BE learned, and that all learning is beneficial because there is nothing more beneficial than learning how to cope better and better and happier and happier as you Become God. As you learn what you learn you will be able to bring more joy and more happiness and more love and more peace into not just your own but also the lives of other souls.
In practise, being human, negative and unhappy feelings arise for the Illuminatus when they see a society of people who do not wish to learn, who have no interest in knowledge of themselves or of anything else important such as the basis of reality that they could learn the truth, when certain souls are drastically privileged over other souls due to non-spiritual worldly wealth like money instead of souls being privileged for their true intrinsic merit and value to other souls due to their intelligence and ability to spiritually help other souls become more, and especially, when souls enslave themselves to self-limiting ideas of their own worth, value, freedom, ability and blessings, that they seek merely to be told of or approved of from others instead.
Ultimately, the feelings and value of being an Illuminist is love and compassion, most of all for yourself, and also most of all for all other souls, especially the ones who are still struggling. But this only works for the Illuminatus because they have a severe, coldly logical, understanding of the rational scientific mathematical nature of existence, of what we are, and what we’re Becoming.
The ultimate unhappy enemy of Illuminism is ignorance of this truth.
Their ultimate joy is having learned it.
Climate of Sophistry 
Well let us all join hands and sing “kumbaya” or should it be “the soul is zero” …
It is interesting you equate the essence of self to zero, the definition of nothing. So we are essentially nothing. Well, to the universe at large, we are nothing. It is only our own arrogance and fear of our nothingness that drives people to give humans importance that we do not have.
Illuminism as described here is just another religious belief. The main difference is that it does not use guilt and fear to drive behaviours, which makes it more palatable than the Abrahamic religions, but it does not make it any more valid.
Let me know when you get back to physics …
Both arrogance and fear are ongoing dialectic processes within ones mind that will eventually evolve beyond only when we dare to push the limits.
TS read the actual books…this post was for people who can only think with their feelings. If you want to know the metaphysics and mathematics and science, you need to read. Zero is not just nothing. It is also something. See my previous post on the religious derivation of special relativity for an intro. Illuminism is based on logic, rationality, and mathematics, while any other religion is based on faith belief.
Get smart.
Nice comment Paul.
Reminds me of an episode from Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex, where one of the Tachikoma (robot tanks) begins talking to Batou (one of the main characters) about the individuality they had been developing on top of their basic operating systems as A.I.s
Joe,
(Illuminists:) “[They do believe in the concept of God, but this belief comes out of the pure logical understanding of reality that Illuminism has discovered…”]
Can you please explain exactly what ‘logical understanding of reality’ causes you to believe in such a concept?
@Max; except 55 books on philosophy, mathematics, and science can’t be reduced to something that simple. Understanding reality is the hardest thing to do, not the easiest. But once you see what the fundamentals are, then it becomes perfectly obvious and rational. 🙂
@Arfur, read 55 books.
http://www.amazon.com/Mike-Hockney/e/B004KHR7DC
http://www.amazon.com/Adam-Weishaupt/e/B004LXB8GW
http://www.amazon.com/Michael-Faust/e/B004LXBBUA
If you are an INTP or INTJ you will have luck understanding and reading these books. If not, you’ll have extra work to do, if you can do this type of work at all. The books only appeal to rationalist personality types and the rationalist personality types reduce to only the INT’s…everyone else gets too mired in their feelings and comfort zones.
http://armageddonconspiracy.co.uk/
Joseph, I saw a BBC presentation the other day that dealt with Nothing (the previous episode dealt with Everything). It came to the work of Paul Dirac, and the idea that “nothing” is full of activity. That activity is the creation and annilhilation of matter and anti-matter particles and this has been observered using lasers and a vacuum chamber and incredibly precise measuring equipment. So, mathematically speaking we have 1 – 1 = 0, or more precisely in a quantum sense, 0 = (+1) & (-1).
This lead to the conclusion that the Universe we perceive is just the one-part-in-a-billion left over from the “big bang”, a sort of rounding error of 0 = (near infinite matter) & (near infinite anti-matter).
It is not the power or the deep descriptive nature of zero or mathematics in general that I have a problem with. I absolutely believe that our best tool to describe the rational universe is the rational language of mathematics. A language I should point out is without emotion, which is why it is rational.
You are promoting membership of a group, an invitation to join others who have achieved a “greater understanding” of the universe. This is the sales pitch that has been used by religious groups since the beginning of human history. It has always been a sales pitch and will never be anything else.
Thinking,mental activity is mathermatics.
Psychology is the link, no one can tell you what to think.the best and only way is to study psychology is your own mind.there is no adventure quite like it.
Often feelings derive from sensory perceptions, false hoods and prejudices.
These come from group thinks ‘psych’ .hence religion is as much as a psych as atheism,they are mental activity.Mathermatics!
We are all blinded at ‘times’ by senses and feelings, as soon as we begin to question our induvidual ability to think and make independant choices from the inner perspective we are employing ‘Reason’over feelings.
Psych’s, group thinks, are everywhere there is no escape, science, materialism promotes its thoughts, so does religion so to micky mouse and donald duck.as soon as you discuss your ideas you are inserting it into a group think and promoting it….information is all there is, everyone who participates in life is promoting something.however information is free!
TS, you are so, so close …
Well, the guy who makes the series is a huge philosophy buff himself, for what it’s worth.
Hence the title, about questions like whether a cyborg or AI has a soul.
TS it is an invitation to read books. There is no “group”, or it is a group in as much as people who question the GHE are a group, or people who like Richard Dawkin’s books are a group, etc. Or as much as scientists are a group. If you want to give this group a name, more than “Illuminati”, it would be “mathematical rational idealists”, in the full philosophical meaning of the term. Read the books.
Your initial points are correct, except you make a mistake in following with the “rounding error” idea. You already had it. 0 = 1 + (-1), i.e. 0 = 0 or 1 = 1 or 1 + 1 = 1 + 1, etc, which all reduce to 0 = 0. ANY activity is possible within nothing, within 0 = 0, because all mathematical equations full of activity reduce to 0 = 0, i.e. 1 – 1 = 0 or or 0 = 1 + (-1), etc. Nothing is actually everything.
Then take Euler’s Equation. This is an equation that describes how all possible numbers relate to one another – positive, negative, real, and imaginary. This equation then derives relativity theory and is the basis of quantum mechanics. Euler’s Equation reduces to 0 = 0 but it contains wave activity and the behaviour of imaginary number and real numbers, etc.
Not only has no other religion in history been able to derive relativity theory from its fundamental tenets, science has never achieved what this Illuminism does either – deriving the basis and properties of reality from a-priori inevitable logic. In science, it just says “here are the Lorentz transformations”. In Illuminist mathematical rational idealism, we say “here is the fundamental basis of reality for these a-priori logically indisputable reasons, and then here is relativity theory in a few lines, and then here is how to unite it with quantum mechanics, and then here is the mathematical proof of free will, and this is how something comes from nothing, and here is why you can be self-aware in a mathematical universe, etc etc etc”.
If people can’t recognize the value in a religion devoid of faith, based on a-priori analytic logic, that then explains the fundamental nature of reality and derives modern scientific theories and logically fills in the gaps of what science denies or simply can’t explain (such as the existence of mind and free will, WHY the Big Bang occurred, how something could come from nothing etc), and gives human existence purpose and meaning by finding that purpose and meaning in the a-priori logic, rather than creating a faith belief to invent purpose and meaning, well then such people can’t recognize value.
@Max; Whether a cyborg or AI has a soul, first requires a definition of the soul! 🙂
You know it’s interesting that most religions don’t actually define the soul. We don’t find a definition of the soul in Abrahamism, other than that whatever it is, it doesn’t really belong to you!!! hahahahah…fucking assholes!
In mathematical rational idealism, we do define the soul, simply by finding within the a-priori logic, what the basic unit of activity of existence is. The basic unit of activity of existence, mathematically defined via a-priori analytic logic, is the thing we can label with the concept of “soul”.
Joe,
I just wanted your opinion. Answering me by telling me to read 55 books is just a cop out. You must have an opinion on what you see as the justification for your belief in the concept of God. I just wondered, out of interest, what that justification was.
As for the Myers-Briggs stuff, I wouldn’t necessarily be swayed by that. The tests may serve a purpose as a means of categorising groups of folk but they are not the be all and end all. I would be classed as an INTJ but it doesn’t make me any better or worse than anyone else.
I’m with truthseeker on this. I feel you are on a sales pitch. Any group that can state “Illumination is the most remarkable religion in history because it is the only one that convinces atheists that they are mistaken” just comes across like a cult. Making out that your religion is better than all the rest is just grandstanding.
I prefer to think for myself – and treat those two imposters Triumph and Disaster just the same, thanks.
But, on a more scientific note, I have now asked the same question of even more science forum sites and it seems most ‘scientists’ on these sites still think that cooler object B will heat warmer object A through thermal radiation (even if the net effect is the other way). I’m pretty sure Prevost is to blame for promoting this idea but a lot of text books still cling to it. No-one seems to be absolutely sure about what exactly happens to the cooler radiation as it hits the the warmer surface. Fascinating vagueness about the whole subject…
Actually being INTJ does make you better because it makes you more rational, I for one label “better” as that which is more rational, and “poorer” as that which is emotional and irrational. All of this is explained in detail in the books. There is essentially nothing that the books don’t touch on that isn’t important. How to understand ourselves, i.e. “know thyself”, is one of the most important things, hence we need to understand what personality types have to say about our mental and emotional characters, etc.
Please review this quote once again, it was for you:
Stop reacting to it emotionally, which is what you are doing, and start reading so that you KNOW rather have have meaningless feelings and suspicions about it. Read it all and then tell us where it is wrong; you can’t just say it’s wrong without knowing what it actually says. And yes you are damned right, this religion IS better than all the rest! haha! And it is even better than science because it logically explains what science can’t, but not by appealing to faith, but by using a-priori analytic logic with no belief, simply comprehension; a-priori analytic logic is not equivalent to faith or belief. Ask Spock if faith is equivalent to logic. It isn’t. Illuminism contains all of science because science is based on mathematics, but then goes beyond science because science doesn’t even recognize or admit that it is based on mathematics (and it is), and science can’t even explain itself. Science can’t even explain something as simple as where the laws of physics are stored; mathematical idealism can. Science can’t explain free-will; mathematical idealism can. Science can’t explain why something came from nothing; mathematical idealism can. The list just goes on and on. Modern science is actually a faith system even more irrational than Abrahamism.
There is no radiation from the cool hitting the warm. The term is “FLOW”. When you have the hotter FLOW being stronger than the cooler FLOW, which is of course all definitional, the FLOW is thus away from the hot. There is no FLOW from cool to hot because the flow from the hot exceeds the flow from the cold. It is just like two opposing forces on a block-diagram – the stronger force “FLOWS”, the weaker force flow does not increase the opposing stronger force flow.
In the Relativity post and in this one the basic justification for the concept of God was given. If you didn’t catch it then it would be helpful to do some reading. Start with the God Series by Hockney, starting with The God Factory.
Keep in mind, as in the quote above, that this is not some childish moronic stupid and absurd faith-based God as in Abrahamism and traditional religion. Not a God you externalize and have to worship or be less-than, etc., not some creator that you have to give thanks to, etc etc. In the simplest terms then, what is evolution capable of producing? Of course the standard materialist answer to that is itself based on faith; the mathematical idealist answer is a complete revaluation, based on logic, not on assumptions or faith.
So that’s the challenge then, and see if it works, if you like challenges. I do, especially mental ones that I just have to read about. See if you can answer our challenge, but you’re going to have to know everything about what our challenge is in the first place.
zeros, ones, words, phrases, thoughts beliefs, the act of thought and translating that spark of energy into creating an explanation requires a commitment of will to believe. That is faith.
Best to you!
0 = 0 is not faith, nor requires a commitment to believe it. It simply is. 🙂
the act of acceptance of what “is” is faith – the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” hugs!
I don’t believe in reclassifying thought itself as faith, or everything as faith. It is needless semantics that produces nothing. Acceptance of fact is not faith.
Additional thought – I agree that you are correct that one doesn’t have to believe or have faith in something that just “is.” We see that every day in human behavior. There are many “is’s” that exist – yet the ability to grasp that truth is not intersecting with the individual’s cognitive grasping ability.
“0 = 0 is not faith, nor requires a commitment to believe it. It simply is. :)”
Granted … however, 0 ^ 0 = 1 does require faith. And I refuse to believe it.
Ah clever, my friend! 🙂 The key is to understand what zero means, and which domain the mathematics must be in – frequency or material. 0^0 is a mental frequency domain operation. It is the key to understanding reality. The resultant 1 is the mental monad. All other powers of zero are material domain operations and so result in zero.
Hey Joe – thanks for the reply – it’s not the “thought” that I’m reclassifying as faith. It’s the inherent ability to be able to “attach” a thought onto the object. I liken it to Gödel’s thoughts about the provability of truth – there are some truths that can’t be proved – there’s a space between the two. To believe/accept what can’t be proved requires an act of cognition – of action – of faith.
I appreciate you, Joe! Even if we agree to disagree!
have a good day.
samm
.
Joseph – thanks for a thoughtful response to my (partially) whimsical post above. This dialogue intersects with my own musings related to what can be “known” without necessitating contortions of language. Plato’s Socratic dialogue, Meno, is representative of this notion to me. As you’ve said, we can know that 0 = 0, and as Socrates showed, we can “know” that a square is twice the size in area of another, regardless of attained knowledge. Through these musings, I’ve convinced myself that there is no physical characteristic of CO2 (or any other gas) that resembles the purported “greenhouse gas effect”. You have been providing the physics that support this claim. And each “known” truth that I’ve subsequently come to recognize in this regard, remains in compliance. To the contrary, the number of “celestial spheres” that are introduced to support the Greenhouse Gas Theory seems to be boundless.
Quite right Thomas! That’s a good way of framing things.
Joseph, the “rounding error” concept is not mine, but that of the presenter of the BBC episode. After all, if there was no “rounding error” from the big bang, there would be no universe, only the perfection of zero.
When you talk about the power of zero you are dealing with the very rationality of the universe. As soon as you go to the questions of “why” you are going down the same dogmatic path that every religion in history has already travelled.
You stated the truth when you said …
0 = 0 is not faith, nor requires a commitment to believe it. It simply is.
You do not have to believe in the universe, it simply is.
You want me to read the work of others. Well my response to that comes from Dr Tim Ball’s website.
Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumoured by many.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books.
Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.
Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations.
But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.
Hindu Prince Gautama Siddharta –
A number raised to the power of another number can represent a function on a plane, it is not continuous at the origin, so 0^0 is undefined there.
A number raised the power of another number can be taken as counting the ways you can map the first to the second, 1 doesn’t map to 0, so 1^0=0, 0 maps to itself, so 0^0=1.
Unfortunately both arguments don’t coexist nicely, so for cleanliness we generally define x^0=1.
TS, yes that is the mistake, whoever produced it. It is not a rounding error near zero, it IS the perfection of zero with positive and negative real and imaginary numbers all cancelling out to zero, as in Euler’s Equation. From this, you can derive relativity theory on an a-priori analytic logical basis. It is really quite amazing and everyone should be able to appreciate the power of that. Number IS energy, or if you just want to talk about energy so it is less upsetting, all positive energy cancels with an equal amount of negative energy. The result is the perfection of zero, but zero allows everything to exist around it.
TS we are not using faith to answer why, but logic. Ask Spock if faith is equivalent to logic. It isn’t. And yes, the truth WILL BE quite dogmatic for the simple fact that it is the single truth. Get it? Who cares what idiot faith-based religions have done to destroy the concept of truth…it IS out there in a singular form, as it must be singular. If there is no truth possible based on logic or if you can’t distinguish logic from faith, then either the truth doesn’t exist which means the universe isn’t rational, or, the truth simply isn’t accessible to you. The universe is of course rational or else it wouldn’t exist. It is also universally governed by mathematics, so, that tells you in what way it is rational.
The universe is existence and we can not simply say it “is”: what is the sufficient reason that it exists? What is the sufficient reason for existence to exist? 0 = 0 simply is. The universe…the universe is not simply is. You have to explain WHY a universe would exist, WHY free will seems to exist, WHY mind and matter exist, etc etc. You could just say “here is a rock, it is what is” which of course means nothing, just like saying the universe is what is.
You fucking moron TS. Why are you such an idiot? Do you not see how stupid your last comment is? How can you be such a dipshit?
The quote from Tim Ball would apply only IF you had read the work of others and evaluated all of it. YOU instead however are using the quote as an excuse TO NOT HAVE TO READ OR EVALUATE the work of others at all! You’re saying “you want me to read books”, and then your response is “I don’t want to because of this quote”, whereas it should have been to be logically consistent “I WILL read them because of this quote so that I can evaluate them.”
Get aware you anti-rational dickhead.
But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.
This is precisely what the books provide, via rationality and logic and criticism of our entire cognitive phase space of the human race. And it is the single truth because the single truth is based in logic, and logic is different from faith.
“A number raised to the power of another number can be taken as counting the number of ways that you can map the first to the second; 1 doesn’t map to 0, so 1^0=0; 0 maps to itself, so 0^0=1.”
Hey that’s very nice! 🙂 Great way of explaining it.
Joe,
Ok, I’ll accept your challenge at least in part. Which book would you suggest I read first? The Illuminati? I will caveat my acceptance by stating that anything one reads is just what someone else wrote. When it comes to accepting a reality I would prefer to use reasoning to get the answer. If what you say makes sense to me through reason, I will get there myself anyway. 🙂
As to the science, you say:
[“There is no radiation from the cool hitting the warm. The term is “FLOW”. When you have the hotter FLOW being stronger than the cooler FLOW, which is of course all definitional, the FLOW is thus away from the hot. There is no FLOW from cool to hot because the flow from the hot exceeds the flow from the cold. It is just like two opposing forces on a block-diagram – the stronger force “FLOWS”, the weaker force flow does not increase the opposing stronger force flow.”]
What evidence do you have that there is no radiation from cool B reaching warm A? I understand the concept of flow (or even FLOW) but what would prevent a photon (if it is that) from reaching A? Photons can pass through each other, can’t they? I can see that there would be no effect (EFFECT) of the radiation reaching A as A is already emitting that (wavelength) radiation, so no energy is gained by A, but I do not see why you would say the radiation would not reach A. Does that make sense?
Also, why do most of the text books that I have read in the past few months insist that there is absorption of the cooler B radiation at the surface of A? I intuitively agree with you but I wonder why more (astro)physicists have not come out to criticise these text books.
As an aside, to my practical and poorly-qualified brain, the single biggest problem with the AGW theory is what ‘they’ think happens at the instant of the ‘backradiation’ reaching the Earth’s surface. I would love to find some text which supports your view (outside PSI). Maybe I’m looking in the wrong places?
Ps, I’m glad you are posting again!
Arfur
Joseph,
You talk about how rational your beliefs are and then you go completely off the deep end. I may not have any training in the human psyche, but your last comment seems to show some sort of bi-polar disorder or extreme personality shift. You go from clear counter argument in the first paragraph followed by a logical progression of that argument in the second paragraph which concludes with a posed question in the third paragraph to a vitriolic, childish, irrational and unjustified diatribe of abuse and insults which have no place in a civilised discussion.
You have shown your true colours here. You are clearly a zealot, and zealots offer nothing of value to humanity and are definitely the “negative energy” of the human condition. As much as you seem to value rationality, you seem unable to conduct yourself in a rational way to someone who has offerred nothing but questions and alternative points of view.
My truth seeking will now go elsewhere. There is nothing of value for me here.
Truthseeker the change was because you last comment was so completely idiotic and logically inverted. Your quote meant you SHOULD be reading books you don’t know the content of, not ignoring them as you tried to imply. So don’t be such a fuckin retard.
You know what TS? Go fuck yourself. I don’t have any patience or joy for retards and mental degenerates any longer. The grace period is over and the stupid shall be judged. I’m done trying to educate the ineducable. They had their chance. As if you attempt to blame me for your own closed mind…me being “civil” to you or anyone else who rejects the possibility of greater reason has absolutely nothing to do with those people’s closed minds. You want the excuse to walk away? Here it is fucktard. Take it and run…run the fuck away.
Arfur, I would start with the God Series of books by Hockney, starting with the God Factory. They’re supposed to be read in order of publication date.
Does the weaker force from the left side of the block “reach” the stronger force from the right side of the block? In a way it does because the net force is the balance which creates action. So yes, sure, we can say that to create the balance for total net heat flow, the weaker radiation reaches the source of the stronger; however, this doesn’t transfer any total heat energy to the stronger because the heat is flowing stronger in the other direction. It doesn’t matter what we call it, absorption etc., whatever happens, the cool does not cause the temperature of hot to increase.
What happens with backradiation is the same as with “backconduction” – nothing, heat flows from hot to cool.
Oh and the other authors are Weishaupt and Faust.
Nice work joe….
Some general various insights if I may…
‘On robots’, robota, meaning ‘forced labour’.
There are many robot, a.i. story’s.
R.U.R’Rossum’s Universal Robots’written by Carel Kapek is another interesting robot story.
These are analogies ‘modern myth’ for conscience evolution.
some may find a book by Julian jaynes,’The Evolution of the Bicameral Mind’ relevant. And/or if you dare,”The Triune Brain, Hypnosis and the Evolution of Consciousness”.
As for artificial intelligence, IBM has been developing ‘Watson’..all it does is scan the internet for the ‘best’ possible answer, its getting better , but it can never ‘understand’the answers it provides, nor does it ‘feel’ dream and imagine.
‘On vapour’..
Water vapour is not quite ‘water’and not quite ‘air’.(meta-psychical elements)
In computing ‘vapourware’can be described as a program or function that does not exist, but appears as it does to demonstrate a project before being applied.
Try not to think about that too much.(ref.anaology).
I’m not to sure yet how to define the above with a mathermatical solution, but it involves unique concertrations of atmospheric water vapour,electricity, quantum mechanics fourier transforms, periphery vision and ‘waking’gnosis.
The computing, robots and a.i. approach is an interesting one, however a machine is not ‘alive’, it is ‘dead’ mathermatics, operating within space and time…the hu-man mind’thinks-computes’ outside space and time.
Oh, I must add to my previous post, in the flavour of the original topic.
Feelings, senses operate inside space and time.
Thinking, intuition operate outside space and time.
“It is not a rounding error near zero, it IS the perfection of zero with positive and negative real and imaginary numbers all cancelling out to zero, as in Euler’s Equation. From this, you can derive relativity theory on an a-priori analytic logical basis.”
Does the above mentioned exist at this site?
Joe, glad to see you posting again.
Traval your path to understanding, please be sure it “is your path”, not that of any other!
Learn of diferent concepts from others, then set your path, never seeking any goal except the next learning. This is dificult, with each learning, comes greater understanding of how little you know. Most give up because like entropy, stupidity always increases. ‘Tis part if learning!
All I have met highly skilled in some trade or profession, that will admit with pride, ” I have already forgotten more of my mistakes in learning this skill than any other likely will make”. This is the very human property of a balance between “pride and humility”, unfortunatly many try to balance “arrogance and stupidity” an earthling property noted as an IDIOT. Try to avoid that path!
Arfur Bryant says: 2014/02/25 at 9:03 AM
“Also, why do most of the text books that I have read in the past few months insist that there is absorption of the cooler B radiation at the surface of A?”
Arfur, This is “Nuevo Science” invented in the 1980s from falsities such as “all objects with temperature and emissivity must elecrtomagneticaly radiate proportial to its own absolute temperature raised to the fourth power, independent of any surroundings.
Prior to 1970 anyone with knowledge of engineering or science would hold such concept beond contempt. No such thing has ever been discovered, observed, or measured. Instead of treating T^4 as a potential, for radiative flux, the Nuevo science IDIOTS decided that it “was” the flux to an absorber at a temperature of absolute zero.
The 1988 idiot Creating Climate Clown nonsense, deliberatly, with malice aforethought ignored the concept of ” the two temperature terms inside the parentheses of the S-B equation are a radiative potential “difference”, creating a one way radiative flux. Instead with malice aforethought they split the S-B equation into two untenatible opposing fluxi. There is no observable thermal radiative from the lower temperatture in the direction of the higher temperature. Your Climate Clowns split the S-B equation in to an untenable two opposing fluxi which defy any meaning of flux. This was done to promote the political AGW fake concept of “back radiation”. You have been scammed, all of you bases are belong to us!
” I intuitively agree with you but I wonder why more (astro)physicists have not come out to criticise these text books.”
Joe is busy with the illuminati! I consider all of your Climate Clowns now on one aircraft in a flat spin. I am not about to tell them ‘full throttle, stick full forward, stomp on other rudder pedal”. I much prefer “Bye bye”! -will-
@It’s whatever 2014/02/28 at 1:44 PM
It is here: https://climateofsophistry.com/2013/12/22/a-religious-derivation-of-special-relativity/
Too much here to address, but just a helpful hint: Joseph, is Satan an intellectual? Does he know more than God?
Geran, Satan is synonymous with Yahweh/Jehovah/Allah, and he is clearly not an intellectual. He doesn’t even know as much as me! I am Satan/Yahweh/Jehovah/Allah’s (all names for the same psychological archetype/”being”) God, for all intents and purposes, as with any other Illuminist.
QED
Joe, I found your post most interesting. It took the mind of an aging Philosophy graduate straight back to hours of enjoyable wrangling with Theology students, many years ago. (I had started the course, as a mature student, hoping to get some sort of handle on the eternal verities. Graduated three years later with the appalling realisation that not only hadn’t I got any answers at all, I’d become uncomfortably aware of a virtually infinite universe of questions. You know the feeling, I think.)
I can’t agree with calls for you to “just get back to physics”. Your meditations fit in perfectly with a quote I’ve known forever – if ever you come across a reasonable verification of the originator PLEASE let us know, as it’s inspired me for years and I’ve never known who to thank. Asked what really interested him, his reply was “Everything. Any less would be an insult to my intelligence.” It’s the only way! 🙂
I’m surprised, in a way, that in numerous mentions of zero you haven’t mentioned Euler’s Identity. If you can pop four more fundamental constants out of zero “just like that” … It’s one of those things that sits there and looks at you, saying, “Go on. Explain me away, then.” I’m very aware of my mathematical limitations, but I can really appreciate the beauty of it – much as I can appreciate the beauty of the Mona Lisa, though I haven’t the artistic ability to draw the frame.
Per belief being too fuzzy a concept, agreed. Unfortunately, too many of the concepts central to extending and firming up one’s understanding are similarly ill-defined, and, regrettably, too prone to generating major problems when you attempt to “sharpen them up”, cf Russell’s Paradox. Mostly, I suspect, this is due to our human tendency to seize on a “near enough” word we think we know in some situation where we want to mention, say, soul, or spirit, so that over the centuries the word accretes layers of meaning around itself until it acquires an approximate, “near enough for jazz” meaning which is useful enough in day-to-day chat, but a right bugger when you’re trying to build a clean, rational underworks for your belief (not “faith”) system.
It doesn’t help either that, even when you think you’re getting a better understanding of something, shards of colloquial, connotational meaning tend to creep back unnoticed, so you have to be forever wary. It all adds to the fun, as far as I’m concerned – but then philosophers get their pleasures in strange (fortunately, mostly harmless) ways.
I must respectfully disagree with Gautama, above. While he says “when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it …”, I’d point out that, if it’s true, you have to accept it whether or not it’s “conducive to the good and benefit of one and all”. In fact, in strictly evolutionary terms, it’s probably more important to recognise the stuff that’s going to do you harm.
FWIW, my own appreciation of reality tends towards the Taoist, or, at least, as close an approximation as can be got by a Westener who doesn’t speak Chinese and has to rely on interpolating between as many “translations” as he can find. (My current favourite brain-stopper begins “The Tao that can be Taoed is not the eternal Tao”.) There are the same feelings of an anisotropy in the affairs of the universe similar to that implicit in your account of souls “becoming”, and of a sublime indifference which is just “there”. Like Euler’s Identity, reality just sits and looks at you, inviting you in.
If you dare. Look what infinity did for Cantor!
Fine blog, sir. Keep On Truckin’.
[Warning! Warning! Aging hippie alert!]
Forgot last night to include a link you might appreciate:
http://pbfcomics.com/111/
The History of the Universe in … three and a half? … frames. 😀
LOL at guy using quote as an excuse not to read. I don’t know you Joseph but I am sure we would get along fine, but you did kind of lose your cool there, its easy to do that on the internet. I have been reading AC and the kindle books for almost 5 years. It all started for me in high school calculus when I figured that infinite 0s (non dimensional points) fit into a line (1 unit). So if you think about 1 divided by 0 in graphical terms, i.e. insteading of asking what is 1 divided by 0, ask how many times does zero fit into 1, which is the same as division just worded differently, the output IS infinity and not ‘undefined’ as is taught in public schools. Later I figured that a second and third dimension can be added to form a three dimensional space which is also occupied by an infinity of zeroes, which I realized is what we occupy, a three dimensional space. Then I somehow stumbled on the AC site in 2009 and everything started making sense in terms of the OWO, capitalism, democracy, and backwards religions. It took a while for the math to be revealed, but thats what kept me coming back. Eventually they revealed the concept of the 6D universe, and later Euler’s Identity, it was the final piece of the puzzle in the foundation of my thinking. I was raised as a catholic which I rejected around age 12, and found atheism to have a jarring effect in my mind when I contemplated death. Illuminism explained how my mind worked, my out of body experiences, and confirmed my intuition that reincarnation was real, relieving me of my fear of death. Trust me, I understand your frustration, I watched someone once close who I hoped to join me on the path of knowledge switch from christianity, to islam, back to christianity, then to Illuminism, then BACK to christianity SMH, we had a falling out lol. My conviction that Illuminism is the culmination of human reason has only grown stronger, and I understand now more than ever the reality of the spectrum of intelligence. Like you said, some people truly are more evolved than most others. The world will inevitably become more efficient at generating rational human beings, a God Factory, but for now we only need to worry about those who will listen, and avoid clashing with opposing personality types. I had my stumbling blocks along the way and I am sure there are more ahead, I was obsessed with 2012 and hoped for a radical shift, and in ways it did happen, but for the most part I had deluded myself. My mythos mind in conjunction with my drug usage had a stronghold over my ability to be truly rational. I have not used drugs for almost a year now, I tutor kids and teach them music (I let them be themselves, but here and there I plant the seeds of Illuminism), I am going to school to study computer science which I believe will merge with quantum physics (quantum computing), which will merge with mathematics (Illuminism) and produce spectacular results and I hope to be at the forefront of such a revolution in computing. I am also cultivating my abilities as a musician as an outlet for my creativity and also as a memetic vehicle for spreading the ideas of Illuminism. There are other people who also spread Illuminism this way, such as Pho’, who has become a friend over the years and has used hip-hop beats and artwork created by me for songs and mixtapes. If you don’t know who Pho’ is, here is a link to him https://www.youtube.com/user/ThePHOSTER. Also here is a link to some of my music highasfx.bandcamp.com. I have not released any new music in a few months but I will very soon. Thanks to people like you, I’m proud to know that the Movement is still at it. I searched ontological mathematics on google and thats how I found you’re blog.
Reblogged this on Citizen Pariah and commented:
One of the better articles on Illuminism. An excellent summary and starting point for seekers.
Hi Joe, Ive been wading through the AC material including the Books for the last few months now, and would like to find out if there is any more new or updated information out there. You have a great insight into this subject, do you have a contact address? I just have one or two questions I would like to put to you and on here may not be the best place. We have spoken on here before, regarding Sin for Salvation, OBE’s etc.
Regards
Mark
Hi Mark,
Sorry, nothing new that I know of. Whoever or whatever all that was has evaporated into the aether.