461) Arminius, 17.05.2014, 08:39, 19:13, 19:37, 19:37, 20:15 (1140-1144)

It is not possible to rule and govern the world population (today: about 7 billions) democratically, it is not possible to rule and govern the population of the EU (today: about 500 millions) democratically, it is not possible to rule and govern the population of the US (today: about 300 millions) democratically in the long run. Merely populations which numbers are not higher than the number of a village or a polity (ancient Greece) can be ruled democratically in the long run.

So, what happened in history when former small populations growed and became controllable? The form of government changed! Democraties changed to monarchies. De facto the European nations are only 10%- or 20%-nations because they depend on the EU (correctly also called: EUSSR), and this political monster is not ruled democratically. Those who believe in a „democratic“ EU or other lies have no idea how power, rule, goverrnance, authority, command, leadeship, control work, especially in the long run.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Dr. Barrie Trower: Experimentation on the Public ...“ **

Interesting. Do you know Barrie Trower?

Obe, do you believe in „instinctive knowledge“?

James S. Saint wrote:

„I think that I have actually learned something from this thread.“ **

Really?

According to his own statement Dr. Barrie Trower has given information about his job as an agent. That is dangerous.

462) Arminius, 18.05.2014, 12:22, 12:48, 16:32, 16:48, 21:53 (1145-1149)

James S. Saint wrote:

„Intelligence is a dangerous business.“ **

Of course, it is, James.

The human beings will change very much because the interest are mainly concentrated on controlling. Replacement by the machines of their rulers on the one side and genetic influences caused by the military, the intelligence services, or the secret services of their rulers on the the other side will either lead to the complete replacement, thus the elimination of all human beings, or to the partial replacement and complete genetic change in the direction of the „Eloi“ (and the difference between them and the „Eloi“ of the film will merely be an aesthetical one).

Obe wrote:

„Intelligence is dangerous, but it is, necessarily, not just a thrown away commodity. The fallout of effected confusion is perhaps necessary to keep those, who would do us harm, at bay. James, the red scare had some truth to it, and the only way people would believe it was, to embellish it. I would be willing to bet, the government did not anticipate the snowball, of that runaway train. The ontological meltdown started on a collision course of ideological in-distinction: the public could not discern the difference between 3 models of socialism, up until the ending days of ww2, the fascistic democratic socialism, the communist socialist communal paradise, and the capitalistic correlate of human rights. At this point the lack of awareness was not due to suppression of information, but, to lack of wide spread incentive to go ahead to search for the dynamics below the platitudes.

Granted, the landscape has irredeemably changed since then, but the dynamics remain pretty much the same. There are no more either/or prospects as to guidelines how publicly delineate such arguments, since forward revision of policy can only be unraveled, with an anti logic of attempting differentiation of variable elements, which have morphed, and can not be prone to any viable analysis. The exclusion of morphed terms is not even within the realm of possibility of the most acute intelligence.

The above argument may be one out of many, as a form of justification for an intuitively grounded intelligence, which at the present time may be hard pressed to evaluate such concepts of human need, as »each to his need«, or, the right to the enjoyment of happiness. These are 18th century concepts, awash with contingent hypothesis, such as with Spengler, and Adam Smith. Politics, like law, could only keep abreast of political landscapes, by augmentation, and not by direct involvement. The government has been run on the fumes of dissipating and politically biased opinion.“ **

Again: Do you believe in „instinctive knowledge“ (**|**), Obe? What do you exactly mean with „an intuitively grounded intelligence“, especially in your sentence: „The above argument may be one out of many, as a form of justification for an intuitively grounded intelligence, which at the present time may be hard pressed to evaluate such concepts of human need, as »each to his need«, or, the right to the enjoyment of happiness“?

Relating to „instinctive knowledge“: What about food? What about basic goods? What about time preference which actually and exactly means preference of the present time?

But „the right to the enjoyment of happiness“ does not belong to an „instincitive knowledge“. You know what I mean?

Amorphos wrote:

„Abrahamic religions made the world a worse place to be in spiritually.“ **

And why?

Amorphos wrote:

„Anyways, lies and hypocrisy don't achieve much imho [e.g. all pagans are the baddies], so its time people took a second look at their ancestral spiritual birthrights.“ **

Lies and hypocrisy are what power is made of.

Cassie wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»So in your thesis (›Why the Nazis actually won ...‹) is much truth, if you don't separate globalism from nationalism / national-socialism because globalism is nationalism / national-socialism in global dimensions.« ** **

Except not the kind of socialism like the germans had based on kinship feeling around common language and heritage values. Today's global socialism has only one kinship feeling, the weak and the disinherited joining together. Nothing unites them but their shared sense of resentment at the »well-offs« and their victim culture.“ **

Therefor „victimism“ with its „victimology“ is already in use.

There is an „instinctive knowledge“, an „intuitively grounded intelligence“, there are „products of common sense, but there is fear too, and fear is used or misused in order to convert traditionally real evaluations into virtually unreal evaluations. The business with fear is a lucrative business, but not the only one.

463) Arminius, 19.05.2014, 11:42 (1150)

Religion is certainly both a collective and a personal issue, but the collective side is more powerful and retroacts to each person, so that one doesn't really know, whether one is religious because of personal or because of collective decisions, interests, motives and so on. I think most people don't believe what they want to believe personally, but some do. Most people believe what the rulers want them to believe, and merely some people believe what they want themselves to believe.

So for the most part religion is political. De jure and de facto religious freedom is merely those people guaranteed who live in states with a judical and collective guarantee of religious freedom, protection of minorities. So if you want to be a heathen (again), you have to know whether your state, if you have one, does guarantee you your heathendom, your heathenish life. If you live in a Western state, then your heathendom, your heathenish life is guaranteed. If you live in a Non-Western state, then your heathendom, your heathenish life is not guaranteed.

Is there still (or again?) any heathenish state in the world like it was in ancient times, for example in the polities of the ancient Greece, the ancient Rome, the ancient Carthage and so on?

464) Arminius, 20.05.2014, 21:24 (1151)

India is also an example for the fact that the whole globe is influenced by the Western culture.

465) Arminius, 21.05.2014, 21:24, 22:23, 23:02, 23:10, 23:12 (1152-1156)

The word „culture“ has different meanings, and unfortunately the history of the English language elimintated some of this different meanings. Nowadays the word „culture“ merely means „education“ and the state allocation of „literature“ „music“, „theatre“, „science“ and so on, but not „literature“, „music“, „theatre“, „science“ on their own (by themselves!), and also not religion. In the German language the word „Kultur“ is used in both ways, so when I used the word „culture“ in my last post (**|**), I meant both (a) „education“ and the state allocation of „literature“ „music“, „theatre“, „science“ a.s.o., and (b) „literature“, „music“, „theatre“, „science“ on their own (by themselves!) and religion.

70% OF HUMANS WILL BE REPLACED BY ROBOTS WITHIN 3 GENERATIONS ?

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Wernher von Braun was a Nazi - have you forgotten that? -, and after the World War II he was blackmailed: „either you help the USA or you will be put in prison“! His crew were also blackmailed. They all preferred to help the USA because they did not want to be jailed.

Other German scientists, technicians, engineers etc. were treated similarly - not only in the USA, but also e.g. in the USSR.« ** **

Do you have any references for that? (not that I seriously doubt it)?“ **

Yes, I have. And there are also documentary films and the fact that all these Germans came to the US in May 1945 and lived there in a city which was founded just for that reason. Google for example this: Operation Paperclip or Operation Overcast.

104 German rocket scientists (aerospace engineers): Wernher von Braun and his team at Fort Bliss in Texas, USA, 1945.

Operation Paperclip was the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) program in which more than 1,500 German scientists, technicians, and engineers were brought from Germany to the United States for employment after the World War II. It was conducted by the Joint Intelligence Objectives Agency (JIOA). In other words: It was a criminal act, one criminal act of the other crimninal acts of the greatest raid of all time.

B.t.w.: Nearly similar the number of the German scientists, technicians, and engineers who were brought in the Soviet Union (USSR) after the World War II.

James S. Saint wrote:

„The »service economy« was declared for America back in the 60's.“ **

Would you mind telling more about that „service economy“?

James S. Saint wrote:

„The East is to be the manufacturing economy. Thus the West is to be female and the East is to be male ..., until they each get completely replaced with machines (women are no longer needed once there are no men).“ **

„The East is to be the manufacturing economy“? „Thus the West is to be female and the East is to be male ...“?

466) Arminius, 23.05.2014, 00:04, 00:05, 00:08, 00:09, 00:10, 00:15, 00:17, 00:29, 13:36, 14:46, 14:55, 15:14, 16:16, 16:46, 23:42 (1157-1171)

According to the definition of culture I prefer culture doesn't have to be merely a national one, but it is a phenomenon that usually or mostly includes many nations / countries. For example the Western culture includes not all, but the most European nations. The borders between cultures are nearly always congruent with those of religions or confessions of religions.

Europe with its very old tradition is about to disappear because of the immigration (capture, the immigrants say!) of people who belong to foreign cultures (especially to the islamic culture). The Western culture will disappear because it has never been islamic (the islamic exceptions in the south-east of Europe have never been a part of the Western culture).

My theory is that in our universe bodies move in a spiral-cyclical way.

The orbits of both moons around their planets and the planets around their stars, and even the stars around their galactic center clearly do not describe circles or ellipses, but spirals. For example, while our Sun spirally orbits the center of our galaxy, the Earth spirally orbits the sun, and our Moon spirally orbits the Earth. For bodies that move around bodies, which also move around bodies, do not move two-, but three-dimensionally. They move spirally and thus also cyclically, more precisely said: in a spiral-cyclical way. If something moves around a body or a point which does not move to another body or point and is not moved in a different way by external forces, then (and only then) can this (and only this) motion be two-dimensional.

James S. Saint wrote:

„With only a 130 day orbit, that has to be a pretty cold Sun.“ **

Yes, of course, because that sun is a red dwarf star.

Energy and mass are equivalent, they are interconvertible.

My theory is that in our universe bodies move in a spiral-cyclical way.

The orbits of both moons around their planets and the planets around their stars, and even the stars around their galactic center clearly do not describe circles or ellipses, but spirals. For example, while our Sun spirally orbits the center of our galaxy, the Earth spirally orbits the sun, and our Moon spirally orbits the Earth. For bodies that move around bodies, which also move around bodies, do not move two-, but three-dimensionally. They move spirally and thus also cyclically, more precisely said: in a spiral-cyclical way. If something moves around a body or a point which does not move to another body or point and is not moved in a different way by external forces, then (and only then) can this (and only this) motion be two-dimensional.

„Dark matter“ is one of the excuses or alibis for a false theory.

If age and wisdom really beat technical know-how, why can technical know-how be more powerful than age and wisdom?

People with age and wisdom are more „conservative“ or „reluctant“ than people with technical know-how, and the latter are not allowed to be „old“, old-fashioned, thus also not „conservative“ or „reluctant“. People with age and wisdom often have also technical know-how because of the definition of wisdom, but people with technical know-how often have no age and no wisdom. That's the problem.

Dragon wrote:

„Niall Fergusson, the historian, referred to the way that cultures around the world are losing their uniqueness and becoming more and more the same as one of the great paradoxes of history. In other words, historians recognise the phenomenon but cannot explain it.“ **

I don't think that they „cannot explain it“. Cultures come and go. Maybe that the time will come for a new kind of human culture - similar to that time when that kind of human culture started which we have been knowing for about 6000 years, namely as different cultures, not as one human culture. Maybe in some years, decades, or centuries a new kind of human culture will appear as merely one human culture, probably after a very strong depopulation.

James S. Saint wrote:

„In Reality, there is no limit to smallness. And no absolute zero.“ **

Why is there no limit to smallness? And why is there no abbsolute zero?

Moreno wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Dark matter“ is one of the excuses or alibis for a false theory.« ** **

How do people know this?“ **

This question assumes that „people know this“. Before one asks how people know this, one has to ask whether and, if yes, how many people know this. Most people don't know anything about the „dark matter“, and among the few people who know something about the „dark matter“ are many people who don't know wether „dark matter“ really exists or not.

The physicists can not explain why the matter „refuses“ the expansion of the universe so much, so that their calculations are no longer correct. Therefor they have two „solutions“: (a) „re-launch“ / reintroduction of Einstein's constant; (b) introduction of dark matter. They have decided against Einstein's constant.

If there were no dark matter in the universe, the whole matter would tear away because of the expansion of the universe which is stronger than the aggregation of matter.

Because of the fact that the physicists don't really know, whether their hypothesis of the „dark matter“ is right or wrong, they prefer to say it is right. And therefore I say: that is an excuse or an alibi.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Actually, although I do agree that Science over-uses excuses to an extreme, in this case, I can verify the necessary existence of „dark matter“ (unless they foolishly define it wrongly as they did with aether).

Dark matter is actually a gravity field without a mass object presumed to be the cause of it. In reality, mass does not create a gravity field, but rather a gravity field creates the mass object. Dark matter is the field before it has created the mass. And it might not ever create that mass because it requires an extreme accumulation and concentration for particles to form to produce matter.

Within a vast cloud of dark matter, there are very probably small particles, possibly even rocks, merely too small to see from a great distance. But the particles are not required for the gravity effect to still be present. So Dark Matter is simply a cloud of gravity field or better known as a large cloud of „Affectance“.“ **

Instaed of „»Dark matter« is one of the excuses or alibis for a false theory“ (**|**) I better should have said: „»Dark matter« is one of the excuses or alibis for a probably false theory“.

Moreno wrote:

„Socratus wrote:

»Nature and Infinity.
=.
There are two separate infinite substances that exist in Nature:
„infinitely big“ and „infinitely small“.
The infinitely big substance is Zero Vacuum: T=0K.
(spacetime continues forever)
The infinitely small substance is Planck’s constant –
- quantum of light - ( h, h*).
These two constants are fundament of creation everything in Nature.
....« **

Planck's length has, well, extension, it is not infinitely small. You could come up with a smaller number rather easily. Not saying it is a real limit or not, but it not infinitely small.“ **

According to the currently valid theory the Planck’s length is the smallest measurable length, but not infinitely small.

The same is to be said of the other Planck-units.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»My theory is that in our universe bodies move in a spiral-cyclical way.

The orbits of both moons around their planets and the planets around their stars, and even the stars around their galactic center clearly do not describe circles or ellipses, but spirals. For example, while our Sun spirally orbits the center of our galaxy, the Earth spirally orbits the sun, and our Moon spirally orbits the Earth. For bodies that move around bodies, which also move around bodies, do not move two-, but three-dimensionally. They move spirally and thus also cyclically, more precisely said: in a spiral-cyclical way. If something moves around a body or a point which does not move around another body or point and is not moved in a different way by external forces, then (and only then) can this (and only this) motion be two-dimensional.« ** **

Yes. And interestingly, if our Sun were to suddenly stop orbiting the galaxy, the Earth would fall into the Sun.“ **

If our Sun were to suddenly stop orbiting the center of our galaxy, the Earth would either fall into the Sun or would be thrown out of the solar system.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Energy and mass are equivalent, they are interconvertible.« ** **

Both mass and energy are properties.
Mass is a property associated with inertia.
Energy is a property associated with ability to affect through time and distance.

Inertia is an inverse measure of something's ability to be affected over time and/or distance (affect / speed).
And energy is a measure of the ability to affect something through time and/or distance (affect • speed).

So naturally inertia has a relationship with energy, the ability to affect. The more affecting that is already involved (the more energy), the less affecting can be added and thus the more inertia is present (the inability to be affected). And the more inertia involved (the inability to be affected), the more affecting is present to be redistributed (energy). What is interesting is that it is the speed of light that defines that relationship.

The speed of light is what it is because it is logically impossible for any affect to propagate faster. It is logically impossible because the propagation of light is what determines what we call distance (the separation of affects) as well as what we call time (the measure of relative change / affect). If the universe were to instantly alter merely the speed of light, everything throughout the universe would expand or contract and speed up or slow down accordingly and thus there would be no perceptible change. The propagation of light is the »god« of time and distance, »speed«.

What E=Mc^2 is saying is that if you take the measure of ability to affect something through time and distance (energy = affect * speed) and divide out the speed (time and distance) you are left with merely an amount of affect independent of speed of affect,
E/c = A.

And if you take the measure of something's inability to be further affected over time and distance (inertia = affect / speed) and multiply it by the speed of affect, you get that same amount of affect as before,
M•c = A.

Thus;
E/c = M•c
E = M•c²

{{Brought to you by Affectance Ontology}}

So for you the equation E = mc² is not false, isn’t it?

Because for you the affect is given by E / c and by m • c.

In other words:

You use Einstein’s equation in order to show what your theory is all about. For you affect is energy and matter in relation to speed.

Fuse wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»My theory is that in our universe bodies move in a spiral-cyclical way.

The orbits of both moons around their planets and the planets around their stars, and even the stars around their galactic center clearly do not describe circles or ellipses, but spirals. For example, while our Sun spirally orbits the center of our galaxy, the Earth spirally orbits the sun, and our Moon spirally orbits the Earth. For bodies that move around bodies, which also move around bodies, do not move two-, but three-dimensionally. They move spirally and thus also cyclically, more precisely said: in a spiral-cyclical way. If something moves around a body or a point which does not move around another body or point and is not moved in a different way by external forces, then (and only then) can this (and only this) motion be two-dimensional.« ** **

Like this: Http://rhysy.net/solar-system-vortex.html ? “  **

Yes.

Thank you for that link - well done, Fuse.

Fuse wrote:

„That's a great theory, because it's right.“ **

My whole (natural and cultural) theory is based on spiral-cyclic motions - almost all changes and developments, also all evolution and history.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»So for you the equation E = mc² is not false, isn't it?

Because for you the affect is given by E / c and by m • c.

In other words: You use Einstein’s equation in order to show what your theory is all about. For you affect is energy and matter in relation to speed.« ** **

From what I understand their E = Mc^2 is not actually precise. They do not define mass or energy very precisely by my standards, so I don't presume relations that they profess. Affectance ontology is about affectance and logic and from that, I derive what their »energy« and »mass« must mean. But those are not terms in AO. AO has its own terms and units of measure. So I have to translate.

Things like »gravity attraction«, »charge attraction«, and »forces« don't exist in AO, but what does exist in AO reveals why those things have been noted and named. Energy is almost exactly equivalent to Affectance. But there is no equivalence for »mass« in AO. In AO, a sub-atomic particle is merely a spot of high density affectance with no discernible borders. In AO, there are no forces pushing or pulling on anything. Things move only due to the affectance field being uneven and particles migrate through the gradient field due to the fact that they are under constant reconstruction and they reconstruct more readily in a more dense field than less dense, not being aware of another particle anywhere (no forces). A particle is just a spot of electro-magnetic noise.“ **

If a particle is merely „a spot of high density affectance with no discernible borders ... and ... a spot of electro-magnetic noise“, as you said, then it would be a bit difficult to define a particle like physicists usually do. Because in that case „no border“ means that there is no difference between a particle and its environment (visible, cognizable), and „electromagnetic noise“ is just energy with a medium.

467) Arminius, 24.05.2014, 00:12, 00:47, 01:27, 02:04, 02:15, 02:41, 02:52, 03:14, 03:37, 12:15, 12:47, 13:02, 13:49, 14:53, 21:43, 22:11, 23:10, 23:26 (1172-1189)

Machines care for elderly.

Japan, which has the world's oldest population, has allocated 2.39bn yen (£14.3m) in the 2013 budget to develop robots to help with care.

BBC wrote:

„Toyota is developing devices to help carry the elderly or provide mobility support and Toli Corp has created a mat with a wireless sensor that can track and deliver feedback if an elderly person is moving around.

A special robot with 24 fingers has been developed for hair washing and head massage, useful if a person has limited arm movement. It is something Panasonic has also tried out in Japanese hair salons.“ **

Let's look to Japan in order to see what will happen also in North America and Europe soon. How man more people will than become redundant, unemployed. The maintenance area, the area of caretakers, which is currently booming in Europe, will then be mechanised.

The robots of care (**|**) and the robots of death (**): guess what the two could have to do with each other.

James, the following video fits to your video that you have recently posted (**).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDXBpQ8Dlug

Nuclear bombs are also a possibility, although perhaps not a sufficient one, to end the history.

Maybe that the „dark matter“ exists, but who really knows? And because of the fact that they know nearly nothing about the „dark matter“, I may say that the hypothesis of the „dark matter“ is false.

When the servants have reached a certain percentage or even a majority of the population, they can not be stopped anymore. This is proved by life experience.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»If a particle is merely ›a spot of high density affectance with no discernible borders ... and ... a spot of electro-magnnetic noise‹, as you said, then it would be a bit difficult to define a particle like physicists usually do. Because in that case ›no border‹ means that there is no difference between a particle and its environment (visible, cognizable), and ›electromagnetic noise‹ is just energy with a medium.« ** **

Ab = »Ambient Affectance Level«

True, and also they presumed that a particle is always of a fixed size. But in reality, a particle chooses its size based upon its ambient environment

And this is what you wrote:

„This is a little anime to give a visual for the size and shape concerns of a particle relative to its ambient affectance:

The small green spikes represent MCR occurrences gauged by probability, exponentially increasing as the affectance level increases. Each of those spikes would actually be reaching for infinity. While MCR points gather into a center for a particle, they inherently form a maximum change density, MCD. A monoparticle's center is at that density. The density then drops off in three dimensions by the Lorentzian equation.

I was expecting the Gaussian (Gaußian; HB) to be the final equation realized, but for some reason it seems to be inaccurate at far distances from the particle. I can't get positive proof of the exact equation because I require a particular surface integral that it seems not even Mathematica has in their library, which has to be the largest in the world. So I check the equation using the old fashion method of merely incremental estimations.

To verify the equation, I assume an extremely small sphere around every point throughout the region and take 50 million sample measurements of the density on the surface of the sphere, average them, and check it against the center of the sphere. A stable particle must have every point's affectance level equal to the average of the surface of a differential sphere about that point. And when I do that, the Lorentzian turns out to be more accurate than the Gaussian (Gaußian; HB) except in the very center of the particle. That indicates that either the density isn't exactly a Lorentzian (perhaps a Viogt is better) or the verification method isn't accurate in that region. A Lorentzian produces a little sharper point at the center, so I would expect my verification method to be less accurate. It surprised me to find that the Gaussian (Gaußian; HB) has considerably more error at far regions where the density is relatively flat.

As the ambient affectance level (the density) gets high, new particles can spontaneously form. If they do that, especially close to the original particle, the region's affectance level increases more than merely the addition of the two. And if the second particle is very close to the first, it is likely to spawn a third which would be enough to begin a Black-Hole of ever increasing mass/affectance. I would like to find the exact equation for that, but I seem to have limited resources. A professional mathematician would of course help.

A Black-hole doesn't actually have a peak center but rather many peaks within a center region, all in great turmoil. So the mass or affectance density distribution changes from that of merely a monoparticle. The mass distribution (and thus gravity) around a Black-hole is different than that of merely a very large particle. But until I can get a more accurate means to verify the exact equation, I'm not really interested in finding out what equation would suit a Black-hole and its gravity field.“ **

1178

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Maybe that the »dark matter« exists, but who really knows?« ** **

I know (even more certainly than they guess).

It certainly exists, but I can't say that it is the cause of what they are talking about. I am not an astrophysicist.
Yes, but the cause of what they are talking about is just the main point when it comes to argue like them.“ **

Yes, but the cause of what they are talking about is just the main point when it comes to argue like them.

What I was trying to say with those two sentences (**|**) was that nobody or nearly nobody (who knows?) really knows what the „dark matter“ really is, and that in that case, and because of the fact that physicists are no gods (who knows?), they should not say that they know what the „dark matter“ causes because they use / misuse the hypothesis of the „dark matter“ in order to support the theory of the „big bang“ and especially of the „inflation of the universe“!

According to that „dark“ theory the „dark energy“ causes the „ever“ increasing acceleration of the expansion speed.

Dark energy: about 70%,
Dark matter: 25%,
That what we can see: about 5% .

According to that „dark“ theory the „dark energy“ functions similarly to the cosmological constant.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»When the servants have reached a certain percentage or even a majority of the population, they can not be stopped anymore. This is proved by life experience.« ** **

And that is why religions and races play "the numbers game" with peasants.

Androids play into the numbers game by removing all human races out of the servant position. But by doing that, the androids become the new race.“ **

But we should not say „new race“ because androids are not human beings, but machines of human design.

James S. Saint wrote:

„A race is a race. It doesn't matter who made the runners of it.“ **

Then you mean it not biologically, but culturally. It depends on the semantics of a language, and in both the German and the English language both is possible: (1) „Rasse“ / „race“ with a biological meaning and (2) „Rasse“ / „race“ with a cultural meaning. When I said „we should not say „new race“ because androids are not human beings, but machines of human design“ (**|**), then I meant the word „race“ with a biological meaning, in a biological sense.

In German you can say someone „ist rassig“ („is racy“) or „hat Rasse“ („has race“), and that is an example with both meanings due to the fact that someone is racy or has race because of (1) biological attributes, or (2) cultural attributes, or even both.

Machines are a product of human beings, they are not biological, but cultural. They don’t evolve biologically, but culturally. A technique / technology of a certain culture produced, produces, and will produce them, and that includes that machines can also be produced by other machines which are produced by human beings or by machines which are produced by human beings ... and so on.

Monad wrote:

„What's wrong with robots? They haven't committed any crimes and aren't likely to be religious, political or hypocritical liars. Why give them a resume of evil before their careers even started.“ **

Because of the fact that this development is irreversible, especially then, when the machines take over. Don’t open box!

Monad wrote:

„Since there is so little empathy by humans for humans and robots unlikely to feel hate assuming there is no human contamination, I can't really object if that became the future. Far preferable to Muslims with Koran in hand taking over most of Europe in fifty years who are creating their own little robots programmed according to scripture.“ **

Yes, but don't forget Pandora's box!

Moreno wrote:

„I do not want human made - read:flawed - empathyless, neutral machines to have a tremendous amount of power.“ **

Yes, but please don't forget that emotions have two sides: a good side and a bad side!

Empathy belongs doubtlessly to the good side, but can easily be changed in its contrary.

Moreno wrote:

„They might kill everyone because it seemed logical to them.“ **

Yes.

James S. Saint wrote:

„It all seems to be in an effort to maintain a religious belief in early thermodynamics (which kicked off the Secular religious movement).“ **

„Religious belief in early thermodynamics“? Would you might going into details? „Secular religious movement“? Which one you mean, James?

James S. Saint wrote:

„I take it that „Gaußian“ is the German for „Gaussian“, which would mean that „Gauß“ would be the German for „Gauss“?“ **

Yes, that's right. His name was Carl Friedrich Gauß (1777-1855). In German the „ß“ may also be written as „ss“ in most cases, but Gauß himself wrote probably „Gauß“, and that is what I respect.

Gauß contributed significantly to many fields, including number theory, algebra, statistics, analysis, differential geometry, geodesy, geophysics, electrostatics, astronomy, and optics.

Sometimes referred to as the Princeps mathematicorum or „the foremost of mathematicians“ and „greatest mathematician since antiquity“, Gauß had a remarkable influence in many fields of mathematics and science and is ranked as one of history's most influential mathematicians.

Carl Friedrich Gauß was the greatest mathematician of all time.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Carl Friedrich Gauß was the greatest mathematician of all time.« ** **

That is quite possibly true. I was impressed long before I knew much about him simply from the few formulae that were attributed to him. I remembering thinking at the time, »damn, whoever envisioned this had to be seriously sharp«.

But most geniuses come and go without notice. It is good when one gets a little attention by being in the right place at the right time.

And since I don't have the »ß« key, and it reminds me too much of a »B«, forgive me for continuing to use the »ss«).“ **

I forgive you, but I don’t know, whether Gauß forgives you.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Besides, I suspect that the »ß« was actually merely his script for »ss«?“ **

Phonetically and phonologically there is no difference between „ß“ and „ss“or even „s“, but merely orthographically.

The following signature is the signature of the 17 yeear old Carl Friedrich Gauß from Braunschweig (Brunswick) in Germany:

For 2150 years Euklid had been the greatest mathematician of all time, but then - at the end of the 18th century - Gauß replaced Euklid on his throne because Gauß became the greatest mathematician of all time!

James S. Saint wrote:

„Ahh ..., so it really was a double »s« ..., »Ss«“ **

Yes, that's right - a great, nearly huge „S“ and a small „s“, that’s the „ß“ (scharfes „s“ = sharp „s“).

The reasons for the „ß“ are merely orthographical ones, no syntactical, semantical, morphological, phonological, phonetical ones.

Monad wrote:

„The best thing one can say about humans is that they themselves are nothing more than malfunctioning machines.“ **

Are you a misanthrope or even a misanthropist? I reverse your sentence and say (merely in order to show both sides): The best thing one can say about machines is that they themselves are nothing more than malfunctioning humans.

I’ve expected this answer. Now I know more about your evaluation of thermodynamics. I mean that the 1st law of thermodynamics (J. Robert Mayer, Hermann Helmholtz), the 2nd law of thermodynamics (Rudolf J. E. Clausius), the 3rd law of thermodynamics (Walther Hermann Nernst), and (partly) also the 4th or 0th law of thermodynamics are important fundamental laws in physics and applicable in all of the other natural sciences. That’s great, isn’t it?

468) Arminius, 25.05.2014, 00:10, 00:31, 02:25, 02:45, 03:03, 10:46 (1190-1195)

James, when exactly in 1961 and where did John F. Kennedy say that (**) ?

How do a heathen live his life?

How has he to live his life?

Cp. thou shalt or thou shalt not.

Moreno wrote:

„I don't think Islam will in the long term withstand »Western« Culture, just as Christianity and every other religion is falling to modernism, physicalism, capitalism, consumerism, »I am my surface«-ism, modularism, and then transhumanism which is the fart at the end of this indigestion. Not that I am rooting for Islam. In general we are supposed to choose between bullies with poor and damaging Weltanschauungen.“ **

And what about the religion? Do we need a religion, and, if yes, which one in order to prevent that choice? Can heathendom help us thereby? Or is just the reverse true?

My two questions again:

How do a heathen live his life?

How has he to live his life?

1193

Thank you for that link, and here comes the Economic Collapse:

„The Robots Are Coming, And They Are Replacing ....

47 percent of all U.S. jobs could be automated within the next 20 years.

47 percent?

That is crazy.

What will the middle class do as their jobs are taken away?

The world that we live in is becoming a radically different place than the one that we grew up in.

The robots are coming, and they are going to take millions of our Jobs.“ - The Economic Collapse

Moreno wrote:

„Heathen is too broad a term. It more or less means, not Jewish/Christian and I suppose Islamic.“ **

That's correct.

Moreno wrote:

„So heathens lead all sorts of kinds of lives.“ **

But not a monotheistic one, right?

Moreno wrote:

„I am not sure he has to live it in any particular way. Those heathens who might resist the current winning worldview also do this in a variety of ways.“ **

Yes, but how exactly?

Moreno wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»But not a monotheistic one, right?« ** **

If only technically.“ **

Instaed of „monotheistic“ one could also and perhaps more correctly say „henotheistic“.

Moreno wrote:

„How should a heathen live to bring freedom back? (is that the question?)“ **

The question is more how they really live their life religiously!

Moreno wrote:

„It depends on what lines of causation one believes in. Which varies from heathen to heathen.“ **

What's your answer?

Therefore my questions. I wonder why those members of this forum, who call themselves „heathens“, don't answer my questions. I asked them repeatedly (for example here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here), especially Maia who calls herself „heathen“. .... No answer!

You are no heathen, aren't you?

469) Arminius, 26.05.2014, 01:31, 03:09, 12:18, 12:55, 13:09, 13:31, 13:38, 13:53, 14:48, 15:56 (1196-1205)

Monad wrote:

„Old hat!“ **

That doesn't matter.

What do you have against old hats?

Monad wrote:

„When haven't jobs been lost to new technologies? It's not that which causes economic collapse.“ **

It can also cause economic collapse. Replaced humans do not be automatically uneconomical - overnight - just because they are replaced (for example: by machines). The replaced humans belong furthermore to the economical system. Of course they do!

Monad wrote:

„It's the absolute stupidity of governments ....“ **

Yes, it is - very much.

Monad wrote:

„It's the absolute stupidity of governments - what they qualify as expediency - and the massive rampant greed of corporations who are »too big to fail« though fail they should, who get bailed out every time at the expense of main street, the producers. That's what completely distorts economics not new technologies which usually have the opposite effect, though admittedly, there is an adjustment period. One of the most technological countries on the planet, Germany where robotics are rampant, don't seem to be suffering under a huge unemployment problem.“ **

Germany is not suffering under a huge unemployment problem - compared with the present western average of unemployment.

Here comes the 3rd interim balance sheet:

For comparasion:
1st interim balance sheet (**|**),
2nd interim balance sheet (**|**).

James S. Saint wrote:

„I'll change my vote when I see four holy men passing notes.“ **

„Four holy men“?

Do you mean (1) J. Robert Mayer, (2) Hermann Helmholtz, (3) Rudolf J. E. Clausius, (4) Walther Hermann Nernst?

Tyler Durden wrote:

„I seem to recall me saying in this thread that if the international elites have their way that they will initiate programs where machines virtually replace everybody on all levels of civilization Arminius. Abstention?“ **

I've only tried to get an answer from you (you remember? [**|**]), and now I have at least a response from you.

Ah, yes, you will have to forgive my slow responses.

Sure, I forgive you.

Tyler Durden wrote:

„Work nowadays takes up a majority of my time and soon going to school at the same time will also.“ **

I'll reply to that post and thread later. I haven't forgotten.

If I may answer anymore of your other questions let me know.

Oh, there's no hurry.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Imagine that you have a completely blank notepad and you are not going to write anything at all onto it until what you write is absolutely certain to be true, »incontrovertible«. At that point, most people give up for a variety of excuses already. But the reality is that it actually can be done despite that irrational proposition that "I am absolutely certain that nothing is absolutely certain ....«“ **

The problem is that they don't know whether the reality is irrational or rational.

1202

1203

Poisoning the well, poisonous water - worlwide! But don't forget the poisonous air - worldwide!

Living beings drink poisonous water and breathe poisonous air!

Living beings feed on poison!

Living beings live on poison!

How long will that last?

1204

Tyler Durden wrote:

„Will the elites themselves eventually get replaced by their very own creations? An interesting question.“ **

Those who answer the question whether machines will completely replace all human beings with YES (**|**) also say that the elites will be replaced, if they say elites will be human beings when it comes to replace them. All human beings! Completely replaced!

So, Tyler, do you want to change your vote again?

1205

So you think that thermodynamics is largely science history (? [! {?}]) ! 

470) Arminius, 27.05.2014, 02:22, 02:51, 03:53, 03:54, 04:11, 12:18, 13:21, 22:14, 22:54, 23:19, 23:49 (1206-1216)

James S. Saint wrote:

„Humans replace humans with a race of androids = »too late« to save the species.

Reality has limited forgiveness.“ **

„»Too late« to save the species“ reminds me irresistibly on this:

Http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZlxhD-yt8k

„Too late too late to be saved.
(Too late to save the species.)

Too many people living in the same old way (replacing too many people)
could'nt pull the handle.
....

Too late ....

If only time could tell me what I had to do
I wouldn't have to hurry (I would stop replacing).
....

Too late ....“

1207

James, I recommend you to open a thread: AFFECTANCE ONTOLOGY.

1208

Topic: Universe and Time.

One of the basic facts of our life is that the future looks different from the past. But under a cosmological point of view this asymmetry of time is perhaps only a local phenomenon.

The universe looks somehow not as it should. That sounds strange when one considers that cosmologists have little to compare with. How do we know how the universe should look like? Nevertheless, we have developed over time a strong sense of what is „natural“, and the surrounding universe does not meet this claim. Mind you, the standard cosmological model describes - more or less successfully - the consistence of the universe and how the universe develops. Approximately 14 billion years ago the universe was hotter and denser than the interior of a star. Since then the space has been expanding, cooling, and losing density. Although this model explains virtually any observation made so far, but a number of unusual properties, especially of the early universe, suggests to us that we do not yet fully understand the development of the universe.

Perhaps there is symmetry of time in our universe.

1209

Therefore I have just opened a thread (**|**).

1210

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»James, I recommend you to open a thread: AFFECTANCE ONTOLOGY.« ** **

Really?

Realize that Affectance Ontology is a very precise ontology of ALL existence. It covers the fields of Physics, Psychology, Sociology, Economics, Religion, Governance, Intelligence, Consciousness, All Sciences .... It is a different mindset, more fundamental than what Man has been using (as well as being more precise). It isn't merely a university course. It is at least an entire university curriculum. One should expect to get a PhD in merely one facet of Affectance Ontology. So where to begin?

What part of reality would you want to focus on?
For what purpose would you be interested?
I need something to narrow down the topic, else it is a thread on »ALL EXISTENCE«.“ **

That's right, James. So I recommend you to begin with the physics - of course. That's - in addition - the part or field I would like to focus on. The purpose for what I would be interested is the cosmology.

James S. Saint wrote:

„What does »symmetry of time« mean?“ **

„Symmetry of time“ means that past and future are symmetric.

The rules of physics - the basic laws of physics - are time-symmetric. They apply to forward and backward running time equally. So the past and the future have to be the same.

We experience time as asymmetric. We say that in our universe the time of an ordered initial state to a disordered final state.

The time asymmetry violates the basic laws of physics. Perhaps the asymmetry of time is just a local problem.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Cosmology or astronomy is not a field that I have much interest or great knowledge about.“ **

Oh!

Never mind! We can choose another field, but it should be a field of physics!

James S. Saint wrote:

„Why are you interested in it?“ **

A theory must be well-founded, and this is merely possible in two scientific directions:

1. In the direction of natural science, and the foundation of natural science is physics and chemistry, especially physics!
2. In the direction of cultural science, and the foundation of cultural science is mathematics and philosophy, especially mathematics!

James S. Saint wrote:

„I haven't been terribly interested in cosmology ....“ **

Oh!

James S. Saint wrote:

„During the next 500 years, so much more will be known for certain ....“ **

Probably not!
Compare :
- Thinking about the END OF HISTORY (**|**),
- Will machines completely replace all human beings? (**|**).

James S. Saint wrote:

„And you did read The Fundamentals page, right? Do I need to repost that whole thing, or was there any particular part of interest or question concerning it?“ **

You don't have to repost that whole thing.

1213

Obe, please be careful with Malthus and Malthusianism! There is much propaganda! Please be careful with concepts like „Malthus curve“, „Malthusian dilemma“, „Malthusian catastophe“, „Malthusian crisis“, „Malthusian nightmare“ and so on ....

Is the population always rising at a geometric rate? Is the food always growing at an arithmetic rate?

Do you know how the food has been growing since the industrial revolution?

In addition: Many of the demographic „informations“ are „disinformations“.

Already during his lifetime „Malthus was criticized severely. His fellow clergymen thought he was crazy; politicians and journalists called him a heretic. But others, especially a famous economist of the time named David Ricardo, made much use of the Malthusian theory. Let’s delve a little more deeply into why Malthus came up with such heretical ideas. We will see that although his theories didn’t describe the industrial society of his own time very well, they did do a good job of describing preindustrial Europe (and perhaps certain less developed countries today).“ - Economics Today.

Reversal of causality.

Probably you know what that means.

What about the arrow of time?

„The past is different from the future. One of the most obvious features of the macroscopic world is irreversibility: heat doesn't flow spontaneously from cold objects to hot ones, we can turn eggs into omelets but not omelets into eggs, ice cubes melt in warm water but glasses of water don't spontaneously give rise to ice cubes. We remember the past, but not the future; we can take actions that affect the future, but not the past (we can't undo our mistakes). We are all born, then age, then die; never the other way around. The distinction between past and future seems to be consistent throughout the observable universe. The arrow of time is simply that distinction, pointing from past to future.

Why is there such an arrow?

Irreversible processes are summarized by the Second Law of Thermodynamics: the entropy of a closed system will (practically) never decrease into the future. It's a bedrock foundation of modern physics.

What's »entropy«?

Entropy is a measure of the disorder of a system. A nice organized system, like an unbroken egg or a neatly-arranged pile of papers, has a low entropy; a disorganized system, like a broken egg or a scattered mess of papers, has a high entropy. Left to its own devices, entropy goes up as time passes.“ - Sean Carroll.

Do you believe in Sean Carroll's point of view?

For those who don't want to read Carroll's texts:

• Http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvFFNkg7Mvo
• Http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oaiuZev4RWE

Do you agree with him?

Flannel Jesus wrote:

„»The time asymmetry violates what we think are the laws of physics.«“ **

The laws of physics are always thoughts, thus: what we think. That is tautological.

==>