Obe
wrote:I almost hate myself to coming to the realization,
that unfortunately, Arminius, the percentages we have been pre-occupied with all
along this forum have ALWAYS been as such, there seem to have always to have been
such breakdown. Aristocracy was a long standing political stance, and perhaps
that is the way society breaks down in almost predictable ways, based on inherent
powers? This, incidentally is very Kantian, and categorical, so again, we come
to the threshold between the pseudo idealism of Leibniz and the ethical 'practicality'
of Kant. And the more i think of it, the more it seems that the 'should' of Kant
has reserved a sustenance of a continuation between himself and Leibniz. So in
a sense, he foresaw the either/or problem in a historical continuum of consciousness.
That his logic is flawed, is another matter. But for his time, it was passable.
**
Why
do you call Leibniz' idealism a pseudo idealism?The
Artful Pauper wrote:How did the historian come into
this? **
Come
into what, please?The Artful Pauper wrote:I didn't
make any implication of historians changing facts that I'm aware of, only individuals
acting to influence history. **
That's
right.
James S. Saint wrote:
At the time they came up with the laws
of thermodynamics, they had no idea that space itself is filled with energy, actually
made of energy. They didn't know that atoms and particles were made of turbulent
energy being exchanged with that space. They had no way to know that it is a physical
impossibility to truly isolate an atom from the energy all around it (other than
thinking more than they did), and thus neither could any object be isolated from
such energy exchange. But now in physics, even common physics, they are aware
that there is nothing that anyone could do to truly isolate a molecular system
from energy exchanges. RM:AO explains exactly why that is so. **
1.)
Why should it not be possible that energy and matter are isolated from each other?
I know that according to RM:AO it is impossible because existence is that
which has affect (**).
2.) If it is right that it is a physical impossibility
to truly isolate an atom from the energy all around it (other than thinking more
than they did), and thus neither could any object be isolated from such energy
exchange, is it then also not possible to Isolate anything at all according
to RM:AO? Are you isolated from me?James S. Saint wrote:I
think that I had mentioned that back in 1972, I designed a molecular level device
with no mechanical parts that directly broke the second law of thermodynamics
by perpetually converting the chaos of heat energy in a molecularity closed system
into more orderly gas flow that could be used to create mechanical motion or electric
current flow. Other than the converted output, the entire system was a »thermodynamic
system« that allowed its internal gases to both increase and decrease their
level of entropy. The system could provide either an eternal constant flow of
gas from a prior stagnate gas chamber or a regular pressure buildup and release.
**
Are
you sure that that really was a closed system?James S. Saint wrote:The
energy that drove the system was simply being absorbed from the ambient environment
and sent back out into it. Other than by totally freezing the gas, that system
could not be isolated. But even a single atom represents a »system«
of perpetual motion and that can never be isolated from the energy of its environment,
no matter how »cold« is gets. Isolation from energy flow is impossible.
**
Yes,
but again: If it is right that it is a physical impossibility to truly isolate
an atom from the energy all around it (other than thinking more than they did),
and thus neither could any object be isolated from such energy exchange,
then there is only one system possible (which is either an open or a closed one),
thus an isolated closed system (isolated from that only one system) is not possible.James
S. Saint wrote:So something can be isolated from mechanical
or molecular interference, but never from energy exchange. No nation actually
needs to purchase energy from any other except in the form they want it to be
stored in. And with today's technology, they can change any form into any other
on their own. **
But
mechanical or molecular interference is also energy.James
S. Saint wrote:The
following is a small crude anime to display »empty space«, from which
nothing can be isolated.The program generating that wasn't nearly complete so
it is crude and you have to forgive the extra accumulation around the borders.
There was a mysterious programming glitch causing that effect, having nothing
to do with the emulation of portions of EMR, »Afflates« = ultra-small
»charged, virtual-photons«: blue = relative positive, yellow = relative
negative, both relative to the total average (coincidentally showing as green).That
is a pic of an area of space perhaps 1000 times small than a single proton presuming
that one could actually see EMR in color and at the level. It uses 8000 small
afflates, which isn't anywhere near enough for a good approximation. Anything
less than 50,000 at that level isn't very accurate even when the programming is
complete. The pic is merely to relay the general idea of the random affectance
in even the smallest bits of space.And although it might look like the afflates
are swirling about, they are actually traveling linearly through a 3D cube of
more of themselves, »space«. And I placed a large »stationary
positive afflate« in the center just for future reference.And a »mass
particle« forms automatically when that field of afflates gets too dense.
The afflates aggregate into a »charged particle« that is constantly
exchanging its afflates with the surrounding region yet remaining a stable aggregation,
»clump«/»cluster«/»traffic jam«. ** Is
that to see in the picture?Obe
wrote:Leibniz has a milder form from that of the classic
versions, but far less so than Kant's. **
Yes,
but that doesn't justify to call his idealism a pseudo idealism, does
it?James
S. Saint wrote:The superior species is the one that
does that which more greatly supports/enhances itself, not that which replaces
itself with something even greater than itself (I suspect even Nietzsche knew
that much). The »final species«, the »Ubermensch« is the
one that knows the difference.If you explain to a man with a drug addiction that
it will kill him, does he quit? Very seldom. Technology, creating machines, androids,
and cyborgs is an addition to modern day governments. They can't stop even when
they believe that they really need to. **
We
should all join together and change the world! That sentence is a term of
those who believe in progress as an eternal process without any return or other
direction than straightforward.The world has been changed enough;
it is important to protect it from those who want to change it!Unfortunately the
changing of the world will not stop because they can't stop even when they believe
that they really need to.James
S. Saint wrote:Arminius wrote:»Is
that to see in the picture?« **
**
Is
what »to see«? The mass particle? No. That is just a crude example
display of »empty space«. **
But
the space is not empty!
James S. Saint wrote:
Arminius wrote:»1.)
Why should it not be possible that energy and matter are isolated from each other?
I know that according to RM:AO it is impossible because existence is that
which has affect.« **
**
That
is why. Both energy and mass are affects. They are merely different degrees
of the same thing. Although even in physics, there is »potential energy«
and also »actualized energy« (kinetic, radiant). In RM:AO those are
PtA and Affectance (»actualized energy«). What they call »mass«
is merely a cluster of radiant energy giving the appearance of not radiating because
the cluster as a whole is not radiating, although it might be moving (forming
»momentum«) - »energy in a clump«. **
Arminius
wrote:»2.) If it is right that "it is a physical
impossibility to truly isolate an atom from the energy all around it (other than
thinking more than they did), and thus neither could any object be isolated from
such energy exchange", is it then also not possible to Isolate anything at
all according to RM:AO? Are you isolated from me?« **
**
Physical
things are only isolated through time and any dispersal that might take place
as they propagate to each other. If we do not move from where we are, the constant
stream of energy leaving from each of us, in some minuscule way reaches each other.
All physical things have less than absolute zero affect upon all other physical
things, but only through time. **
Arminius
wrote:»Are you sure that that really was a closed
system?« **
**
It
is »closed« in the way that they meant it. My point was that radiant
heat energy, especially on an ultra small sub-particle scale, cannot be blocked.
They weren't looking any further down than molecular vibrations, which can be
isolated merely by a vacuum of particles. Later they realized that radiant heat
energy had to be blocked too, through reflection or absorption. But me, looking
on an even much smaller scale than that, I know that there is nothing at all that
can block »sub-particle radiation« or »afflates«. It doesn't
really reflect (reflecting »surfaces« could not be made on that scale.
Surfaces don't exist on that scale) and any absorption is temporary. It is the
lowest, smallest form of energy and occupies all space regardless of what is in
that space. Everything is made of it, so there is no escape from it. And it doesn't
stick around, but propagates always, merely getting delayed more or less which
is what gives form to particles and objects.
Arminius
wrote:»If it is right that it is a physical impossibility
to truly isolate an atom from the energy all around it (other than thinking more
than they did), and thus neither could any object be isolated from such energy
exchange, then there is only one system possible (which is either an open
or a closed one), thus an isolated closed system (isolated from that only one
system) is not possible.« **
**
And
again, it was only »closed« in the way that they meant when they said
»closed«. In reality, there is no such thing as »absolutely
closed«.
Arminius wrote:»But
mechanical or molecular interference is also energy.« **
**
It
is a particular type/form of energy that can be prevented from moving too close.
One can stop a baseball from getting to ones head, but one cannot stop affectance
radiation from getting anywhere it happens to want to go.Arminius wrote:»But
the space is not empty!« **
**
I'm
still not understanding what you are asking. **
No
wonder because I was asking nothing! James S. Saint wrote:There
is no such thing as actual »empty space«. What we call »empty
space« isn't empty at all. That is what the anime was showing, »space«
is a very busy place. **
How
busy is the space?James
S. Saint wrote:Well
that anime shows how busy it is when there is »no-thing« in the space
and near a large mass such as Earth.But if there is a particle in that space (»some-thing«)
and falling toward a black-hole, the following would represent how much of that
same "noise/busy-ness" would be in that space: But in that graph,
the particle never reaches the black-hole. The »Ambient Density« is
a rough measure of how close to the black-hole it is.The simplicity of RM:AO is
that EVERYTHING is simply different concentrations of Affectance and situated
such that potentials for altering the amounts and locations of the concentrations
arise. **
So a particle can grow and become a black hole.You are saying that physical
reality has no such thing as a force (**).
What do you think about Newtons laws? 1)
First law: When viewed in an inertial reference frame, an object
either remains at rest or continues to move at a constant velocity, unless
acted upon by an external force. The first law states that if the net
force (the vector sum of all forces acting on an object) is zero, then
the velocity of the object is constant. Velocity is a vector quantity
which expresses both the object's speed and the direction of its motion;
therefore, the statement that the object's velocity is constant is a statement
that both its speed and the direction of its motion are constant. The
first law can be stated mathematically as:
2) Second law: F = ma. The vector sum of the forces F on an object is
equal to the mass m of that object multiplied by the acceleration vector a of
the object. The second law states that the net force on an object is equal to
the rate of change (that is, the derivative) of its linear momentum p in an inertial
reference frame:The
second law can also be stated in terms of an object's acceleration. Since Newton's
second law is only valid for constant-mass systems, mass can be taken outside
the differentiation operator by the constant factor rule in differentiation. Thus,
where
F is the net force applied, m is the mass of the body, and a is the body's acceleration.
Thus, the net force applied to a body produces a proportional acceleration. In
other words, if a body is accelerating, then there is a force on it.
3) Third law: When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second
body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction
on the first body. The third law states that all forces exist in pairs: if one
object A exerts a force FA on a second object B, then B simultaneously exerts
a force FB on A, and the two forces are equal and opposite: FA = -FB.The
Artful Pauper wrote:Arminius wrote:»That
sentence is a term of those who believe in progress as an eternal process without
any return or other direction than straightforward.« **
**
Do
you think you're making a Nietzschean statement here about affirming eternal return?
**
No.The
Artful Pauper wrote:Nietzsche thought there was a progression
to be made from Christianity to nihilism to the affirmation of eternal return.
If you think it is Nietzschean it is ridiculous. Nietzsche affirmed existence
as all becoming. You might be more comfortable with the eternal forms.
»Den
Conservativen ins Ohr gesagt. Was man früher nicht wusste, was
man heute weiss, wissen könnte , eine Rückbildung, eine Umkehr
in irgend welchem Sinn und Grade ist gar nicht möglich. Wir Physiologen wenigstens
wissen das. Aber alle Priester und Moralisten haben daran geglaubt, sie
wollten die Menschheit auf ein früheres Maass von Tugend zurückbringen,
zurückschrauben. Moral war immer ein Prokrustes-Bett. Selbst die Politiker
haben es darin den Tugendpredigern nachgemacht: es giebt auch heute noch Parteien,
die als Ziel den Krebsgang aller Dinge träumen. Aber es steht Niemandem frei,
Krebs zu sein. Es hilft nichts: man muss vorwärts, will sagen Schritt für
Schritt weiter in der décadence ( dies meine Definition des modernen
Fortschritts
). Man kann diese Entwicklung hemmen und, durch
Hemmung, die Entartung selber stauen, aufsammeln, vehementer und plötzlicher
machen: mehr kann man nicht. « (Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, Götzen-Dämmerung,
1889 **).
**
Das
ist nicht das, was ich meinte.
Do you know German?
The Artful Pauper wrote:
You admit that you would like history
to end:Arminius wrote:
»The
world has been changed enough; it is important to protect it from those who want
to change it!« **
**
No.
That sentence is directed against the following sentence of Karl Marx: Die
Menschen haben die Welt nur verschieden interpretiert; es kommt aber darauf an,
sie zu verändern.The Artful Pauper wrote:And
I said,
The Artful Pauper wrote:»I
am not looking for easy answers (like some joyous burst of inspiration we
should all join together and change the world!).« **
We
should not change the world because the world is changed enough (see also above).Arminius
wrote:The world has been changed enough; it is important
to protect it from those who want to change it!Unfortunately the changing of the
world will not stop because they can't stop even when they believe that they really
need to. ** **
The
Artful Pauper wrote:Arminius wrote:»Do
you know German?« **
**
No,
but I had reason to believe you do, and if you were going to reread that passage
I'm sure you would enjoy it most in its original language. **
Yeah.
Well done, Thank you.The Artful Pauper wrote:Arminius wrote:»Aber
das ist nicht das, was ich meinte.« **
**
Das
ist nicht das, was ich meinte = That is not that, what I meant.The
Artful Pauper wrote:The Artful Pauper wrote:Arminius
wrote:»That sentence refers to the following sentence
of Karl Marx: Die Menschen haben die Welt nur unterschiedlich interpretiert;
es kommt darauf an, sie zu ändern.« **
**
Is
it then only from the influence of Marx you would like to protect the world?
**
No.
Like I said: it is the influence of all those who believe in progress as an eternal
process without any return or other direction than straightforward. I don't believe
in such an eternal progress without any return or other direction than straightforward.The
Artful Pauper wrote:Arminius wrote:»The
world has been changed enough; it is important to protect it from those who want
to change it! Unfortunately the changing of the world will not stop because they
can't stop even when they believe that they really need to.« **
**
I
personally think there is reason to desire change in the world from the way it
is. I am less concerned with changing the whole world than I am clearing a pathway
through which I can move and continue to create (create by acting, being, not
representing). I don't think a world revolving around the production and consumtion
of (many) useless objects will continue anyway, why not at least attempt to influence
the direction society moves?
Because of the backlash; the
probabilty for the opposite direction is too high. Please tell me what you exactly
want to influence?The Artful Pauper wrote:I'm
sure you could kick my ass in German philosophy (almost the only country worthy
of the title (philosophy)). **
Thank
you.The Artful Pauper wrote:After all, I spent
most of my youth crying over The Idiot, and that was only a few years ago.
**
Crying?
Really?James
S. Saint wrote:Well, this is where you need to understand
what an ontology is. Every understanding of existence is an ontology. There is
either the reality itself, or an ontological understanding of reality. That is
all there is. Reality itself has no words or concepts to it. It is simply what
it is, no actual forms or properties. An ontology categorizes issues of concern
into abstract concepts. The concepts don't actually exist in physical reality,
but in order to communicate and think, the mind chooses such categories, else
it could never keep track of anything nor communicate anything.One common
issue of concern can be the concept of pushing or pulling, »force«.
In normal life, a person sees himself pushing on something in order to make it
change relative location. He »applies force«.In Newtonian
physics, that concept of applying force is given a means of measurement. That
was a very useful thing to do (and the only reason you even know his name). But
let's say a different guy, Jacob, thought in different terms. Jacob
considered such actions, not as »forcing«, but »inspiring movement«.
In both cases the person is causing a change. But the concepts are a little different.
Newton pushes things to move them. Jacob inspires things to move. Newton implies
that Newton is doing all of the action and the object is just receiving his effect.
Jacob implies that Jacob merely initiates an action that is carried out by the
object. The end result and by all superficial appearances, the two are the same.So
the difference between Newton and Jacob is merely one of the ontology they are
using in order to describe the same reality. So in reality, was the object pushed
or was it inspired to move?Newton formed a standard for measuring push.
But Jacob didn't establish a standard for measuring inspiration. Thus common physics
used Newtons pushing concept, »force« rather than Jacob's inspiration
concept. But which one is »REAL«?In a sense they are both
real, but you won't find any physicist talking about objects inspiring other objects
to move, but rather forcing them to move. It is just an issue of language and
inferred connotations.In RM:AO, I get into the extremely ultra minuscule
happenings even below the level of sub-atomic particles. In such an environment,
there are no »things« to be pushing anything or to be pushed by anything.
There simply is no pushing or pulling to be found. The concept doesn't apply.
In order for the concept to apply, »things« have to form and then
acquire a means to push other things. At that point, I could then talk about »force«
as the average end effect of the infinite number of smaller occurrences that brought
about that end effect. So »force« is a concept that can apply on a
macroscopic scale, but not on a pico-scopic scale.So in order to stay
consistent, because a force makes no sense on the smaller scale, I (like most
people) just say that »the larger concept thing doesn't really exist.
It just appears that way«.Science does that same thing on many
issues. Science says that »pirits don't exist«. The reality is that
it is just a matter of ontological construct. A »spirit« is merely
the interaction of a group of things or the behavior of the group as a whole.
When Science says that »spirits don't exist«, it is saying that there
is no interaction within a body. But what do you have if you take out the interactive
processes within a body? You have a dead body, exactly what the spiritualist was
telling you, the spirit is no longer in the body = »the interaction processes
are no longer in the body«.So do spirits REALLY exist? It is just
a matter of ontological language. In the language of Science, no they don't. But
Science will agree that behaviors exist. You just have to use the right word for
the same concept.Atheists love to proclaim the non-existence of many
things so as to promote Secularism when in fact, they are just using a different
language and declaring that the other language is fantasy, even though they are
actually speaking of the same things.In the case of forces, something
is implied that truly has no place on the ultra low scale of reality. Everything
that is attributed to forces is understood without any lower level of force existing.
Thus when I say that »forces don't exist«, I am not merely changing
language. I am stating that when you get down to the very bottom of reality and
what makes things work, there is nothing that you could rightly call a »force«.
And when you raise the level up to the point where you could speak of forces and
make a little more sense, nothing new has come into the ontology, no new element
to be called »force«, but rather merely a combination of a great many
smaller non-force actions, »inspired migrations«.So in RM:AO
ontological understanding language, Jacob was right and Newton was wrong (sort
of). Things are »inspired to move«, not really forced. They move because
of changes within them, not because of pressures on their »surface«.
On the lowest level of reality, there are no »surfaces« either. And
that is why nothing can actually be completely isolated from anything else - except
through time.Of course keep in mind, that reality itself doesn't care
what anyone is calling anything. We choose our language for our own subjective
issues. Our concepts never »actually exist«. The mind can never grasp
actual existence, only a map of categories of affects in the terrain, a terrain
that the mind will never actually know, only estimate.To think about
reality one MUST choose an ontology and stick with it. Conflating ontologies creates
confusions, conflicts, deceptions and fantasies = »the LACK of understanding
reality«. It is the same as trying to speak two languages at the same time.
It doesn't work to communicate. And mixing ontologies doesn't work to form understanding.So
in RM:AO, forces don't exist. But that doesn't mean that in common physics they
don't. And it doesn't necessarily mean that either is wrong (but it just so happens
that forces cannot exist, even in common physics, on the ultra low level of existence).Newton's
laws were macroscopic principles, not principles of universal physicality. RM:AO
is truly universal. **
The
main problem is a linguistical one, thus a problem of words. But what do you think
about the mathematical equations? Are Newton's equations according to RM:AO as
problematic as Einstein's equations which are perhaps false? And one
more question: What do you think about the four-dimensional
space, also known as Riemann's continuum (cp. Bernhard Riemann), and about Minkowski's
or Einstein's world (cp. Hermann Minkowski and Albert Einstein), thus Einstein's
theory of relativity; especially the famous E = mc²?Jeder
Grieche hat einen Zug von Don Quijote, jeder Römer einen von Sancho Pansa
- was sie sonst noch waren, tritt dahinter zurück.(Oswald Spengler,
Der Untergang des Abendlandes, 1917, S. 50 **). Translation: Each
Greek has a trait of Don Quixote, each Roman has a trait of Sancho Panza - what
they were otherwise, recedes behind that. (Oswald Spengler, The Decline
of the West, 1917, p. 50 **).Who
could be a Don Quixote today? Who could be a Sancho Panza
today?The Artful Pauper wrote:I understand
this idealism (a projected good) that can drag us down. It can even make us mean
and nasty when we believe we are the embodiment of all that is good. But this
is also why I am always trying to bring philosophy down into myself and deal with
it there.Do you think that having this view from above it all is another
idealism?To put that question in a very different way, do you think that
the ones we call the masters (or the 1%, or 20%, etc.) have acted in all innocence,
or have acted out of an idealism, just an idealism that isn't fooled by a false
conception of what others call »good«? **
I
think, they do exactly that what is typical for humans or for Occidental humans.
Have you read the book Faust by Johann Wolfgang (von) Goethe, or The
Decline of the West by Oswald Spengler? No one could ever describe Faust
as accurately as Goethe and Spengler. The Occidental humans (and only they) are
Faustians, their (and only their) culture is a Faustian culture.I recommend
that two books, first Goethe's Faust, then Spengler's Decline
of the West.Geographically the Occidental culture means the North,
West, Central, Southwest, and some Western parts of East Europe. In the following
maps you can see the Eastern border of the Occidental culture as a black line
in the left map and as a White line in the right map: Grenze
des Abendlandes = Eastern border of the West (Occident).Abendland
(= West / Occident) means the Western part of Europe, especially Germany,
England, France, Italy, and the Iberian peninsula. The German word Abendland
literally means evening land.The
author of The Idiot was a Russian, and Russia has never been
a part of the Western culture. All Orthodox Christians have never been
a part of the Western culture. The border (see above) between the Catholic (incl.
Protestant) Christians, thus the Westerners, and the Orthodox Christians has been
existing as border since the 4th century or earlier because the Roman Empire had
been declining since the 2nd century. Dostojewski believed in the Orthodox
Christianity and didn't want Russia to copy the Western culture, but Russia had
been doing it since tsar Peter (the Great). Probably Dostojewski's
books were based on that two aspects. Do you agree?You
spoke of the Einstein era as if it had ended. When will the new
religion be complete? First of all they had to create a new theology
because they had to create some gods, divinities, godhoods. But after that they
had to create that new religion, and that has more practical aspects
that we have been noticing for so long. Spirit is a taboo, although science is
not possible at all without spirit. They are forcing more and more in their religious
system. But obviously it is inevitable. The new religion is not finished
yet. There is going to come something more to us.Is
your relationship to philosophy substantially or even only determined by aesthetics? |