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 doesnt 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 cant 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 youre 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 Im 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:
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 dont 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 and Protestant Christians, thus the Westerners,
on the one side and the Orthodox Christians on the other side 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 didnt want
Russia to copy the Western culture, but Russia had been doing it since
tsar Peter (the Great). Probably Dostojewskis 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?
|