501) Arminius, 04.07.2014, 00:32, 00:44, 01:03, 03:08, 03:47, 04:12, 14:14, 15:56, 16:38, 16:39, 18:04, 22:37 (1450-1461)

„Absolute zero difference, infinite homogeneity, in any qualia cannot exist.
a) Absolute infinity cannot exist simply because by definition more can always be added.
b) Absolute zero is merely one divided by absolute infinity and thus cannot exist either.“ **

Here we would have a litte difference which is similar to the difference we have relating to the nothingness.

Because of that definitions both beginning and ending of the universe are also impossible.

James S. Saint wrote:

„So you still think that nothingness exists?“ **

No, my answer was, is, and will be: maybe.

But okay, that is not relevant here.

So maybe you can tell a little bit more about „absolute zero“ and „infinite homogeneity“.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Then all things are possible, which means that nothing is possible, because nothing is possible until something is impossible.“ **

Do you remember that I told you I am also sceptic?

Arminius wrote:

„For the most part I believe in an objective reality - like a scientist. But I am also sceptic. I partly believe like a scientist and partly like a philosopher; in other words: I believe like a sceptic thinker, a sceptician, who believes scientifically and philosophically in a sceptic way. To me scientists have always to be sceptic because if they do not be sceptic, they will sooner or later be corrupt. To me philosophers do not have to be, but should be sceptic.“ ** **

We are talking about your ontology. So let us continue ....

„Absolute zero difference, infinite homogeneity, in any qualia cannot exist.
a) Absolute infinity cannot exist simply because by definition more can always be added.
b) Absolute zero is merely one divided by absolute infinity and thus cannot exist either.“ **

Would you mind going into details?

Due to the fact that the money economy, also known as monetarism or finance, is too much in line with energetic resources we would have a very much better economy, if it were more in line with knowledge, wisdom, information than with energetic resources.

Another point is the relation of production and reproduction. All fertility rates have to be almost equal, and after that (not before and during that) the rich and the poor will also become more equal, not equal - because that is impossible -, but relaitively equal. That is a fair deal. Else the result will be: Stone Age or even extinction!

But the more the machines are successful the more the human beings are threatened with extinction.

So we have three great modern human errors or mistakes: 1.) the disproportionate and thus wrong/false input of machines; 2.) the disproportionate and thus wrong/false demographic policy (population policy); 3.) the disproportionate and thus wrong/false concentration on energetic resources (instead of knowledge, wisdom, information) by the money economy.

Actually the liberals say „everyone is free“, which is impossible, and the egalitarians say „all are equal“, which is also impossible. So they have to find a synthesis, if they don't want to constantly fight aginst each other; and the fact that they have found one is the reason for the fact that they say thesis („everyone is free“) and antithesis („all are equal“) together.

Hyperbolism, hedonism, utilitarianism, individualism and all the other nihilisms are those problems, which became as much bigger as the attempt to control them in order to prevent chaos, anarchy, and - last but not least - overthrow, downfall. It's a vicious circle.

So a solution of the three great modern human errors or mistakes seems to be impossible: 1.) the disproportionate and thus wrong/false input of machines; 2.) the disproportionate and thus wrong/false demographic policy (population policy); 3.) the disproportionate and thus wrong/false concentration on energetic resources (instead of knowledge, wisdom, information) by the money economy.

No one wants to take responsibility!

Do you have any suggestion?

James S. Saint wrote:

„I believe that everyone should have a degree of self-doubt, else they cannot correct their own errors. But to believe that;
»No-thing might be equal to Some-thing«, »Not-A ?= A« is to blatantly doubt the simplest logic.

Without confidence in logic, a mind has no choice but to believe only in its direct perception or in whatever it has been programmed to believe. There is no other escape from mis-perception or programming. That is how human drones are made. Logic is the only freedom from programming. And dealing with drones on the internet takes a whole, whole lot and generally isn't very pleasant with dubious results.

If nothing might be something, then anything might be nothing. Anything I might say or you might think, might be nothing at all = zero confidence. Thus there isn't much point in talking about anything that isn't already believed until programming updates. Logic is meaningless, and RM is ALL about Logic and what can be known because of it. There is no room for doubting if »A is A«.“ **

What makes you think that I doubt the logic? That's not true!

When someone says to me, he believes in - for example - „nirvana“ because it „exists“, then I would probably say „maybe you are right, I don't know“. That's all. It doesn't matter whether believing in „nirvana“ is false or true because I don't know whether it is false or true, and it doesn't matter as well what I believe in that case. That's all. That is no doubting the logic!

I am interested in your ontology, James. But I can't promise in advance that I believe in your ontology because I don't know it in any detail.

It is the same reason why I have been being interested in your ontology and why you now misunderstand me. I am not saying that „»no-thing« is »some-thing«“, but I am saying, if we - the human beings - are not able to perceive and understand our world (universe, multiverse, ... or whtever), then we shouldn't always say that we know our world. That's all what I am saying. If I were saying different stuff then it would be more probable being not interested in your ontology. I am open for philosophising. You too? So I have to be open for rational and irrational stuff like a mathematician because he can merely then work rationally with irrational numbers, if he is open for irrationality.

Do you understand what I mean?

What you are saying about me (indirectly) in your last post is not true.

I merely want to reserve a right. That's all. It has nothing to do with your ontology.

And I have told you that repeatedly. So you know that. I don't understand why you are now responding in that way?

We two are pretty similar spirits, James. So why should I „doubt the simplest logic“? If I did, you would do it as well.

My interest in logic began probably when I began to think. Was it still in the uterus? I can't remember my time in my mother's uterus, but I know that I began to think very early, to be interested in logic.

Idioticidioms wrote:

„I think you both are more on the same page than you realize.“ **

I know that, but I think that James doesn't know that.

At least James' reaction indicates that he doesn't really know that we are on the same page.

What James is critisising is not important for what we are talking about: his ontology. My skepticism does not refer to logic - James has completely misunderstood that -, but my skepticism refers to something else: to the arrogance of human beings, who believe in omniscience.

The real scientist knows and says that there is no possibility for omniscience, and if it were, it would be no science but religion. Our science is already partly a religion. I have no interest in helping it to become more religious.

Most of the current scientists are so corrupt, that the word „scientist“ is not the right word for them and their profession. They are saying what the rulers want them to say - and that has nothing to do with science, but very much with religion, with being obedient to ideology as modern religion.

Idioticidioms wrote:

„One is saying part of the argument while the other is bringing the counter and both become necessary. There should be a balance between doubt and confidence in everything you do to ensure that you are learning as much as possible and continue to push your self to constantly be sure of what is possible and what is not and to keep checking your work in case you were wrong. All of our conversations here are meaningless when you get right down to it as we're only sharing information that any one of us could acquire and bring out through our subconscious connections to conscious communications.

Realistically, we'll never prove any bit of this beyond a shadow of a doubt; not the way that many would want us to. It's like if a person believes in God and they're talking to someone who doesn't; they have to try and explain why they believe in God. At some point, proof is asked for that can't be given and the person has to revise their statement to 'Well, I can't say for sure if God exists or not'; if they're smart; but they still know that God exists, as does every single person even though they may doubt it from time to time.

We will never prove God, because that isn't how it works. We shouldn't have to prove God and it shouldn't be our lifes passion. God proves himself to each of us over time regardless of how many people refuse to acknowledge the seeming coincidental ways he reaches us and the prayers he answers; ignoring those things because they are so easily ignored and unprovable; but everyone still knows.

There are just some things we can reasonably come to know and understand and make use of that people will never be able to prove. Instead of wasting time trying to prove it to others, perhaps you should prove what can be done with it, instead. You have to keep in mind that you're not just fighting the ideas of other people, but their fear as well; in this case, James' fear. I think you did a pretty good job.“ **

What do you mean with „James' fear“?

Idioticidioms wrote:

„James S. Saint wrote:

»Without confidence in logic, a mind has no choice but to believe only in its direct perception or in whatever it has been programmed to believe. There is no other escape from mis-perception or programming. That is how human drones are made. Logic is the only freedom from programming. And dealing with drones on the internet takes a whole, whole lot and generally isn't very pleasant with dubious results.

If nothing might be something, then anything might be nothing. Anything I might say or you might think, might be nothing at all = zero confidence. Thus there isn't much point in talking about anything that isn't already believed until programming updates. Logic is meaningless, and RM is ALL about Logic and what can be known because of it. There is no room for doubting if ›A is A‹.« **

But logic isn't all there is. He is right, one should have confidence, but there will always be doubt and should always be doubt. It's not confidence in logic that's the problem. People feel perfectly comfortable with their logic when they decide to believe what they believe however blindly. Their logic guides them to trust the seemingly better logic of others.

To have logic complete, one must take into account emotion and every other bit of faulty programming to override it, which means there is every point in talking about everything that isn't already believed because the programming has yet to update. Logic is the only freedom from programming? Logic is part of the programming; so there is still no freedom.

The very argument is based in fear of some sort or another; troubles and emotions stirring that have probably been repressed; whereas you show yours openly even while still being afraid because he's seemingly arguing against you because his thoughts are slightly off-kilter.

As for Omniscience; I don't believe the idea to be at all implausible. We only ever know what we need to know when we need to know it, though. The concept of a being with omniscience; a greater consciousness; isn't so silly. The idea that that idea is silly is based on another idea we have that if we can't do it, nothing else can; which has gotten more than a few people into some really tight spots..“ **

I meant the omniscience of the people in general.

My skepticism refers to the arrogance of human beings, who believe in omniscience.

Because of the fact that I have told that to James repeatedly, he has known it since then and not since the time of this post (**|**).

We don't know what the nothingness exactly is, so we also don't know whether the nothingness exists or not, but we can think the nothingness, so the thought of nothingness is in our mind, and for that reason we can't say that we know nothingness doesn't exist, but we have to say that we don't know, whether nothingness exists or not.

So we must consider the irrationality and not give up the rationality. Nothing of the rationality, logic. Nothing!

We should do what mathematicians do!

James S. Saint wrote:

„This is simple guys.

Is nothing something?

It has been proposed that such »maybe be« true.

If that is the case, then the very essence of logic is doubtful, »not-A ?= A«. If one doubts that not-A is NOT-A, then nothing said changes anything. No confidence can be gained from anything. And in a state of no-confidence, rational decisions cannot be made and the person becomes nothing as well (which seems to be the intent driving such thoughts).

RM is solely about finding what it is that one CAN have 100% confidence in. Any fool can doubt all things for all of their short lives.

Is 2+2=4 ??
»Well, I don't know really. It might, might not. We really don't know anything for sure.« - Because »we« are absolute sheepish morons.“ **

That has nothing to do with what I am (or even we are) talking about, James. We can agree with each other that doubt and doubtlessness can coexist. I don't have to doubt that nothingness exists or that nothingness does not exist. Terms like „Not-A = A“ or „2+2=4“ are a lttle bit different from terms like „nothingness = part of existence (special case)“ or „0 = part of the numbers (special case)“.

Nothingness is a special case. One can compare it with the number „0“ (it is a part of the realm called „whole numbers“ and [either] not [or sometimes even also!] a part of the realm called „natural numbers“). Both „natural numbers“ and „whole numbers“ belong to the realm called „rational numbers“.

502) Arminius, 05.07.2014, 00:33, 01:27, 01:31, 03:08, 03:31, 14:41, 15:59, 17:46 (1462-1469)

Zinnat wrote:

„James,

I agree completely as far as the Physical Particle is concerned but not completely with the explanation of the Communal particle.

A communal particle or community does not necessarily has an enemy to survive. Theoritally, it can survive without it also, though cannot expand.
An invidual human is also some sort of communal particle but it can survive without an enemy.“ **

That does not correspond to what life experience teaches. Life experience teaches that an enemy is necessary to survive. (Compare all living beings.) If a living being, especially a human being, survives without an enemy, there is no expanding, as you rightly suggested, and if there is no expanding, then in the long run (in the long run!) there is no life anymore. In the long run living groups (for example: packs, prides), especially human groups (for example: tribes, communes) decline and die out, if they have no enemy. They die out because of too much energy, wealth, hedonism, „individualism“ and other nihilisms, and one of them is the ism of „having no enemy“, „world peace“, „universal peace“ ... and so on.

Due to the fact that the money economy, also known as monetarism or finance, is too much in line with energetic resources we would have a very much better economy, if it were more in line with knowledge, wisdom, information than with energetic resources.

Another point is the relation of production and reproduction. All fertility rates have to be almost equal, and after that (not before and during that) the rich and the poor will also become more equal, not equal - because that is impossible -, but relaitively equal. That is a fair deal. Else the result will be: Stone Age or even extinction!

But the more the machines are successful the more the human beings are threatened with extinction.

So we have three great modern human errors or mistakes: 1.) the disproportionate and thus wrong/false input of machines; 2.) the disproportionate and thus wrong/false demographic policy (population policy); 3.) the disproportionate and thus wrong/false concentration on energetic resources (instead of knowledge, wisdom, information) by the money economy.

Hyperbolism, hedonism, utilitarianism, individualism and all the other nihilisms are those problems, which became as much bigger as the attempt to control them in order to prevent chaos, anarchy, and - last but not least - overthrow, downfall. It's a vicious circle.

So a solution of the three great modern human errors or mistakes seems to be impossible: 1.) the disproportionate and thus wrong/false input of machines; 2.) the disproportionate and thus wrong/false demographic policy (population policy); 3.) the disproportionate and thus wrong/false concentration on energetic resources (instead of knowledge, wisdom, information) by the money economy.

No one wants to take responsibility!

Do you have any suggestion?

Copied post in another thread.

„Willpower“ does not mean „will to power“. „Willpower“ means a kind of power, namely a „power of will“, but „will to power“ means a kind of will, namely a „will which tends to power“.

So both „willpower“ and „will to power“ are more different than many people think.

Barbarianhorde wrote:

„Nietzsche says the world is willpower and nothing aside.“ **

No. Nietzsche said the world is will to power and nothing aside.

Laughing Man wrote:

„I personally blame the aliens. Those bastards!“ **

Yes, and some of the Cyanophyceae, for example the evil Tolypothrix:

Dan wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»That does not correspond to what life experience teaches. Life experience teaches that an enemy is necessary to survive. (Compare all living beings.) If a living being, especially a human being, survives without an enemy, there is no expanding, as you rightly suggested, and if there is no expanding, then in the long run (in the long run!) there is no life anymore. In the long run living groups (for example: packs, prides), especially human groups (for example: tribes, communes) decline and die out, if they have no enemy. They die out because of too much energy, wealth, hedonism, "individualism" and other nihilisms, and one of them is the ism of ›having no enemy‹, ›world peace‹, ›universal peace‹ ... and so on.“ ** **

The commonly known psychology that battles and enemies retard the developing mind of a child shows that what you are saying is wrong.“ **

Rhetoric?

I didn't say anything about a child, but about groups of those living beings (including human beings) who survive or not survive in the long run - in the long run! Therefore I marked that term already in my last post. A „child in the long run“ is no child anymore. In the long run a child is already an adult. A child is no adult. Children need protection, so they don't need an enemy, except when they play adult roles, but that's merely a play. Life, especially life in groups (for example: tribes, communes) - and I merely spoke of groups in my last post (**|**) -, needs an enemy in the long run. Without an enemy groups can't survive in the long run.

Your conclusion, which is a result of a complex comparison, is false.

Notice the term „in the long run“ which means for a person about 30 years and more, and for a group (for example: a tribe, a commune) - and I merely spoke of groups in my last post (**|**) - about 100 years and more.

Here in this thread we are talking about „the communal particle“ (title of this thread), not about a person, not to mention a child. A life of one person lasts about 80 years (on average), a childish life lasts about 14 to 16 years (on average) - that's too less when it comes to the long run of a group (for example: a tribe, a commune): about 100 years and more. In addition: children need protection, and if they are not protected, they die (in the most cases of living beings) or become diseased. And pleace notice that an enemy for a living being doesn't necessarily always be another living being. Forces of nature are often also experienced as enemies. And not seldom they are challenges in order to form and justify cultures (compare the theory of Arnold Joseph Toynbee).

Besides:

Whatever psychology is (do you know what „psyche“ really is? [Compare the Ancient Greek mythology!]), it is no science of children - a science of children has to incorporate all realms of science (because of the complexity) - and it merely shows statistics, manipulated data, manipulated information, mainstream statements, political correctness, thus the ideology of the rulers. I am not very much interested in ideology (modern religion).

James, I have been knowing your ontology for a long time, but I don't know all of its details. So if I want to know more about the details of your ontology, I have to ask you by „coming“ from outside of your ontology or by playing a role, for eaxmple the „uninformed informer“ (I didn't play that role) or so. The first problem we two got was the word „existence“. Many philosophers, especially the existence philosophers, have been being very engaged in the word „existence“.

However, „existence“ is a word. How came the meaning of something like the word „nothingness“ into the mind of the early human beings? Because of the meaning of something like the word „existence“? Or was it reverse? It was because of something like the word „existence“. Human beings perceive, notice, make experience with their ambience, environment; they become more intelligent by using more words and thoughts and by improvements and reforms of the older experiences with their ambience, environment; it is a spiralic development. Linguistically something (!?!) like „nothing“ or even „nothingness“ has been derived from something like „existence“ in the early times of human beings. So now we can also derive „existence“ from „nothingness“? But should we do that?

What does a mathematician do with the word „nothingness“? Mathematically „nothingness“ is „0“. But do mathematicians say that „0“ is not a number because it is „nothing“? No, they do not.

503) Arminius, 06.07.2014, 03:01 (1470)

Obe wrote:

„Your circular reasoning makes sense thus, but it is an ellipse no? The viscousness of the circle sucks in more information but gathers it in it's hungry mouth of a singularity, and seems to swallow it whole. But is this what happens?“ **

Probably it is an spiralic ellipse, in any case a spiralic (spiral-cyclic) development.

What could be the „singularity“ you mentioned?

504) Arminius, 07.07.2014, 19:49, 21:41, 22:52 (1471-1473)

Carleas wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»... disproportionate and thus wrong/false ...« ** **

Can you say more about your use of the word »thus« here? What are these things disproportionate too, and why does it follow from that that it's wrong? If a family serves dinner proportional to the size of each family member (so big Jamie the football star gets more than little Elmer who is 3), the distribution would disproportionate relative to human-ness (which would dictate exactly equal servings). Why is either distribution false/wrong as a result?“ **

The word „thus“ means something like the word „consequently“.

The disproportion between: (1.) machines and humans to the disadvantage of humans; (2.) population of poor and population of rich countries to the disadvantage of about 99% of all humans; (3.) energetic resources and other resources to the disadvantage of non-energetic resources. That is what is meant by the three great modern human errors or mistakes: (1.) the disproportionate and thus wrong/false input of machines; (2.) the disproportionate and thus wrong/false demographic policy (population policy); (3.) the disproportionate and thus wrong/false concentration on energetic resources (instead of knowledge, wisdom, information) by the money economy. In the long run that will lead to something like a suicide of all humans.

A more fair distribution can follow then (and only then!), if those three great modern human errors or mistakes have been disappeared or at least demagnified. Else the unfair distribution remains, the unfairness increases exponentially.

We have to correct the three great modern human errors or mistakes (=> 1., 2., 3.). We must slow down.

Please look at the following Venn diagram:

The subset „A“ could be your ontology. The set „B“ could be all ontologies.

Please look at the next following Venn diagram:

The intersecting (red) betwen two sets could be the common definition of „existence“ of two different ontologies. It could also be the common definition of „nothingness“ of two different ontologies. It could also be the number „0“ between the positive numbers and the negative numbers.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Black means »no light/color«
Zero means »no quantity«
Nothing means »no-thing«
Existence means »thingness«
No-existence means »no-thingness«.
and thus,
Nothingness means no-existence.“ **

You can also say (for exampe):
„The color of my pullover is black.“
„Zero means not the pure quantity, but quantity or not quantity in the sense of a special case.“
„Existence doesn't merely mean thingness, but being, namely both real being and ideal being.“

James S. Saint wrote:

„Does your »nothingness« have affect upon anything?
If not, how would you know it was there?“ **

That's not my „nothingness“ because I have not any.

All jokes beside:

I don't know whether nothingness is there or not, so I also don't know whether it has an affect or not. So I can't say both „it is there“ or „it is not there“ because I just don't know it. But to some philosophers nothing and something have to come together in order that being can become, or to other philosophers being is nothingness and nothingness is being ....

We can think the „nothingness“, so it is possible that nothingness exists. But I don't say that „it exists“ or that „it doesn't exist“. In that case I am as agnostic as a scientist.

Why is there this huge disproportion between (1.) machines and humans to the disadvantage of humans, (2.) population of poor and population of rich countries to the disadvantage of about 99% of all humans, (3.) energetic resources and other resources to the disadvantage of non-energetic resources?

The first impression may be that there is no disadvantage of humans (=> 1.), of about 99% of all humans (=> 2.), of non-enegertic resources (=> 3.), but is that really true? The paradox is that the past, present, and some of the future advantages will change to disadvantages in the (long run) future. So we can interpret this „advantages“ as „short advantages“, or as „pretended advantages“, or even as „disadvantages“ because the prize is to high, and the prize has to be paid by all humans: the probable extinction of the humans because of a very short moment of wealth for very few generations of the humans!

So if we want to keep wealth, we have to correct the three great modern human errors or mistakes (=> 1., 2., 3.). The only alternative to that correction is the extinction of all humans.

We must take another direction and slow down.

505) Arminius, 08.07.2014, 00:19, 15:37, 16:28, 16:28, 17:59, 18:49 (1474-1479)

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»You can also say (for exampe):
›The color of my pullover is black.‹« ** **

That is why one must choose his language and stick with it. Do not use one language if the other person is using the same words for a different language. What language is chosen is arbitrary as long as all parties agree to use the same meanings for the associated words. Be consistent. And a language is merely an arbitrary set of chosen definitions.

Arminius wrote:

»›Zero means not the pure quantity, but quantity or not quantity in the sense of a special case.‹
›Existence doesn't merely mean thingness, but being, namely both real being and ideal being.‹« ** **

That is Your language.“ **

No, that's the English language in a philosophy dictionary.

James S. Saint wrote:

„In my language;

zero
n, pl -ros or -roes
1. (Mathematics) the symbol 0, indicating an absence of quantity or magnitude; nought. Former name: cipher
2. (Mathematics) the integer denoted by the symbol 0; nought
3. (Mathematics) the cardinal number between +1 and -1
4. nothing; nil

noth·ing·ness (nthng-ns)
n.
1. The condition or quality of being nothing; nonexistence.
2. Empty space; a void.
3. Lack of consequence; insignificance.

con·se·quence (kns-kwns, -kwns)
n.
1. Something that logically or naturally follows from an action or condition. See Synonyms at effect.
2. The relation of a result to its cause.

Thus a »Lack of Consequence« is a Lack of Affect (or Effect).“ **

That's okay, if the language convention is accepted, and it is accepted.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»James S. Saint wrote:

›Does your 'nothingness' have affect upon anything?
If not, how would you know it was there?‹ **

That's not my ›nothingness" because I have not any.« ** **

How would you know?“ **

That was a joke! My correct answer is: I don't know whether it is my „nothingness“ or not.

James S. Saint wrote:

„If you are a »Nothingness Agnostic«, then you cannot say that »nothingness« represents something that you believe exists and yet has no affect (that would be a »Nothingness Theist«).“ **

I am not saying that, but I am saying:„I don't know whether nothingness represents something that I believe exists and yet has no affect“, and therefore I can say: „Maybe or maybe not that nothingness represents something that I believe exists and yet has no affect“.

Gib wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Another point is the relation of production and reproduction. All fertility rates have to be almost equal, and after that (not before and during that) the rich and the poor will also become more equal, not equal - because that is impossible -, but relaitively equal. That is a fair deal. Else the result will be: Stone Age or even extinction!« ** **

Can you explain this more? Sounds like you're saying that if each set of parents has 2, and only 2, children--no exceptions--the gap between the rich and the poor will be minimized (or 3 and only 3 children, or 4 and only 4... point is: no diversity in the number of children). How will that minimize the gap between the rich and the poor?“ **

My recommendation:

Everyone should reproduce himself / herself one time in his / her life, so that the reproduction rate could be always about 1, the fertilitiy rate always about 2 children per woman. If he / she doesn't want a child, that should be no problem anyway because he / she would ahve to pay for his / her desire - a so called „management of reproduction“, or „management of children“, or „management of family“ would adopt the task having one child per one adult person. Anf if one person wants to have more than one, or a couple (two persons) more than two children, he / she / they would have to pay for that desire. In short: the reproduction rate would always be about 1, the fertility rate always about 2.

We know that fertility and prosperity (wealth) correlate with each other (b.t.w.: also with intelligence). So where the fertility is too high you can be sure that there is poverty and vice versa. Politicians have no idea or just don't want (corrupion etc.) to change anything in that way that fertility can „control“ prosperity (wealth): the current politicians and other so called „experts“ (they are no experts at all) want the prosperity (wealth) to „control“ the fertility, but that doesn't work in the long run. In the long run the result is always poverty of all or about 99%, if prosperity (wealth) is wanted to „control“ the fertility. Prosperity (wealth) produces infertilitiy, especially of those who work very much, but also of those who are very much self-centered (cp. „individualism“, bad egocentrism), and at last of all or almost all.

Carleas wrote:

„I'm still not understanding how »wrong/false« follows from any of these »disproportions«. If you don't mind, I'd like to take (1.) as an example so that I can see what you mean by fleshing out one of your claims.“ **

First of all one has to underline the term „in the long run“. In the long run it is possible that machines replace all human beings - the probability is about 80%, I estimate (**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**).

Carleas wrote:

„You seem to be talking about the »input of machines«, and that the input of machines is somehow disproportionate to the input of humans. I assume you mean something like that each machine inputs more than each human, so that the input-per-individual ratio is much higher for machines than for humans, and thus disproportionate. Is that right? If so, why should that be »wrong/false«?“ **

That is wrong / false because it leads probably (see above: 80%) to the replacement of all human beings, and if, not (20%), to poverty of all or at least 99% of all human beings, to dullness, and to other badnesses.

Carleas wrote:

„It seems clear that when it comes to printing pages out from a computer, the input from a machine (a computer printer) is going to be greater than the input from a human stenciling in block letters.“ **

Yes, but that is not what I am talking about (see above and my thread „Will machines completely replace all human beings?“ [**|**]).

Carleas wrote:

„Why does that result produce a moral or practical wrong, or a falsity?“ **

The probability that machines will replace all human beings is too high (80% - as I estimate; see above), and if they will not replace all human beings (20% - as I estimate; see above), the probability of poverty, dullness, and other badnesses is too high (99% - as I estimate).

Why is there this huge disproportion between (1.) machines and humans to the disadvantage of humans, (2.) population of poor and population of rich countries to the disadvantage of about 99% of all humans, (3.) energetic resources and other resources to the disadvantage of non-energetic resources?

The first impression may be that there is no disadvantage of humans (=> 1.), of about 99% of all humans (=> 2.), of non-enegertic resources (=> 3.), but is that really true? The paradox is that the past, present, and some of the future advantages will change to disadvantages in the (long run) future. So we can call this „advantages“ as „short advantages“, or as „pretended advantages“, or even as „disadvantages“ because the prize is to high, and the prize has to be paid by all humans: the probable extinction of the humans because of a very short moment of wealth for very few generations of the humans!

So if we want to keep wealth, we have to correct the three great modern human errors or mistakes (=> 1., 2., 3.). The only alternative to that correction is the extinction of all humans.

We must take another direction and slow down.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Do you know of anything else that you BELIEVE exists and also BELIEVE has absolutely no affect upon anything whatsoever?“ **

Besides the special cases: no.

Are you sure that „monotheism ... is decaying“ (**) ?  And if yes: why are you sure that „monotheism ... is decaying“?

506) Arminius, 09.07.2014, 02:19, 02:29, 02:43, 10:20, 10:29, 11:48 (1480-1485)

You disagree?

Okay, that's internet. Internet is agreement or disagreement, but nothing else. Who cares?

But where is your argument, your counter argument?

The proof you mentioned will follow. But okay: maybe there is no proof, what is your proof then? There is no counter proof.

Hedonism and monotheism. Okay. And what is your „real statement“?

The „infinite homogeneity“ and something which is „infinitely identical“ are not the same.

Is there a little misunderstanding? If so, then please excuse me. If not, then please excuse me.

The distinction between „homogeneity“ and „identity“.

That's right. You said „identical“, and I said „identity“. You used the adjective, and I used the noun (substantive).

507) Arminius, 10.07.2014, 16:17, 22:10, 22:45 (1486-1488)

Germany. The German team.

7 : 1 in Brazil.

Germany 7 : Brazil 1.

3 goals in 3 minutes, 4 goals in 6 minutes, 5 goals in 18 minutes .... Great!

Have you seen it?
_________________

Another answer could be:

The affectance is not „infinitely identical“ in all locations of the universe because if something is „homogeneous“ it does not mean that it is „identical“.

If you have the phenomenons „A“ and „B“, then „A“ can be „homogeneous“ or „similar“ to „B“, but not identical to „B“ (because „A“ can merely be identical to „A“). In German the words „(der/die/das)selbe“ and „(der/die/das) gleiche“ stand for the English word „(the) same“, but the former means „identical“, „same in an identical way“, and the latter means „homgeneous“, „equal“, „similar“, „same in a homogeneous way“.

Gib wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»We know that fertility and prosperity (wealth) correlate with each other (b.t.w.: also with intelligence). So where the fertility is too high you can be sure that there is poverty and vice versa. Politicians have no idea or just don't want (corrupion etc.) to change anything in that way that fertility can ›control‹ prosperity (wealth): the current politicians and other so called ›experts‹ (they are no experts at all) want the prosperity (wealth) to ›control‹ the fertility, but that doesn't work in the long run. In the long run the result is always poverty of all or about 99%, if prosperity (wealth) is wanted to ›control‹ the fertility. Prosperity (wealth) produces infertilitiy, especially of those who work very much, but also of those who are very much self-centered (cp. "individualism", bad egocentrism), and at last of all or almost all.« ** **

Well, unless you think the rich are already having a minimum number of children, I don't see how the poor reducing their fertility to the same minimum would help close the gap between the rich and the poor. If having less children will help the poor become richer, it would also help the rich become richer.“ **

Yes, especially the poor, but also the rich. So it would help all to become richer. But the rulers would not agree with that because they would not become as fast richer as they now do, although they would become richer too, but not in the same fast way as now. So this solution is not wanted by the most powerful 1% (possibly on the way to become a new „human species“).

The problem is not, that it would not work - it would work very well -, but the problem is that no one wants to be responsible for such a policy. For the rulers and the politicians it is easier to control the population by continuing their policy of lies, cants, double moral standards, simulation and so on. Those who have to be responsible are not responsible at all. So the irresponsibility continues - meanwhile the shear between rich and poor increases exponentially.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote

»Apropos money: we should have more than one currency, and the first one should be a currency of knowledge, wisdom, Information.« ** **

Interestingly, you are now »taking my words«.

Yes, multi-money is the way to go wherein there are different kinds of money that can only be used for specific purposes. It would be a bit like food stamp cards that can't be used for other things, but not so particular as that.

Life fundamentally requires 2 things;
1) Awareness
2) Understanding
3) Influence

Those are what all money by EACH person should be used for. And the objective is to keep the three balanced, never too much of one, else the entire group is lost. So spend money to gain awareness. Spend money to gain understanding. And spend money to gain influence. But keep them proportional, never more influence that awareness or understanding.

By having three separate economies, the three are more confined to being proportional.“ **

And which currencies do you suggest?

508) Arminius, 11.07.2014, 16:28, 16:42, 18:07, 18:45 (1489-1492)

James S. Saint wrote:

„Just to show you how religious sciencism has become, yet another »science« forum has refused any discussion of this paradox whatsoever. They discuss the Twins Paradox and a couple of others, because those can be resolved, but not the Stopped Clock Paradox. The report excusing the forbidding of the topic was simply, »It was denied because it's just more relativity-denialist pseudoscience/flamebait.«

All hail to the Holy Word of Sciencism!!
»Speak no evil«.“ **

Yes, it is unbelievable how religious science has become. According to my theory and also because of that fact I often say that ideologies are modern religions. Therefore it is not surprising to me that this has happened and happens an will happen (until the time when science will be no science anymore, but to 100% the new religion, probably worldwide). Once every Westerner thougt religion was replaced by science, in the future every Westerner or even every human being will think the reverse.

Thank you. I don't know George Gilder. But information theory and economics can be brought together also in that sence I do. What I do is quite similar to that what Peter Mersch does. Do you know Peter Mersch?

Gib wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Yes, especially the poor, but also the rich. So it would help all to become richer. But the rulers would not agree with that because they would not become as fast richer as they now do, although they would become richer too, but not in the same fast way as now. So this solution is not wanted by the most powerful 1% (possibly on the way to become a new »human species«).« ** **

Huh? That makes no sense. Reducing the number of children in a family means more resources are freed up to be spent on other things--even for the rich--and somehow by freeing up these resource, the rich end up getting richer more slowly? And this slowing of getting richer happens only for the rich? Huh?

(I'm not even going to ask about the »new human species« thing).“ **

That makes very much sense. I think you have not understand what I said.

First you agree:

Gib wrote:

„If having less children will help the poor become richer, it would also help the rich become richer.“ **

Then you disagree (see above: „That makes no sense.“), although I did not change my statements.

The conclusion can be that e.g. (a) you have misundsertood me, or (b) you fear the power of the 1%, or you, or (c) you want to attack me personally (ad hominem), if so, then this would largely adjoin off-topic.

I am not interested in off-topic posts!

Some corporations (companies, organisations or however you may call them) are already so rich / powerful that each of those corporations has a property / power which is more than the gross national product of France or Italy.

Maybe you don't know what that really means.
____________________________________________

In the mentioned case it is a question of the dimensions, circumstances, and time. If 99% become richer, then the 1% becomes not necessarily poorer, but with the utmost probability also richer, although not so much and not so fast as before because the richness of that 1% depends on the poorness of those 99%. Have you never heard of the fact that the scissors between rich and poor are expoentially widening?

Maybe you are interested in the folllowing conversation: ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **

509) Arminius, 12.07.2014, 02:08, 02:38, 03:14, 03:58, 15:34, 15:37, 21:24 (1493-1499)

James S. Saint wrote:

„I believe that you are misinterpreting the English.

When I say, »the two things are identical«, I mean that there are two separate things that have all of the same properties and to the same degree. I do not mean that the two things are one and the same thing (»same identity«).

Homogeneity involves many locations of similar substance. At each location there is a »different identity« of substance, but the properties of the substance are »identical«, meaning that you wouldn't be able to tell them apart except for their location. And »infinitely identical« means that there truly is absolutely no distinction to be found between the two locations within the substance, but the locations are still a different »identity«.“ **

I know the meaning of the English „identical“, but in this case I interpreted it as „self“ („selbst“ in German because the German word „identisch“ and the English word „identical“ have exactly the same meaning and can be interpreted as „self“ and as „same“), although I know that it also can be interpreted as „same“ (for example: of two or more things). But you shouldn't change the word „identical“ because in the English language it is not possible to have one of those two meanings in merely one word. It is possible in the German language but not in the English language. In English one has always to decide whether „x“ or „y“ is meant (because both can be meant), in German one can use the word „selbig“ or „selbst“ (cp. the English „self“, although it can't be used in this way) for the meaning of „x“, and the word „gleich“ (cp. the English „same“, although it is used in both ways) for the meaning of „y“. Whereat „x“ means „same of one thing“ and „y“ means „same of two things or of one thing, if it has changed very much“ (cp. the ship of Theseus).

James S. Saint wrote:

„Well, that being the case, I think that in German, I mean "gleich" referring to each thing having the very same properties and to the same degree as each other = »homogeneous«.

So if that is correct, my question is still,
»Why can't each point in space have the exact same properties to the exact same degree as all others?«“ **

Because the potential-to-affect is not identical anywhere.

James S. Saint wrote:

„But what is preventing it from being that way?“ **

You mean what is preventing the potential-to-affect from being identical anywhere?

James S. Saint wrote:

„That's what I mean. And don't say that it is because »the word ›identical‹ means ... whatever ...‹. I am not talking about the words, but the issue of infinite similarity.“ **

According to your „RM:AO“ existence is that which has affect, and an affect can only derive from the potential-to-affect (to alter or to change), PtA, of another separate or distinguished affect. Absolute zero difference, infinite homogeneity, in any qualia cannot exist. Absolute infinity cannot exist simply because by definition more can always be added. Absolute zero is merely one divided by absolute infinity and thus cannot exist either.

Due to the above, in all adjacent locations, the potential for affect cannot be infinitely identical.

Idioticidioms wrote:

„Can you divide 2 by absolute infinity?“ **

Do you really don't know the answer?

James S. Saint wrote:

„Idioticidioms wrote:

»Can you divide 2 by absolute infinity?« **

Can you divide an rectangle, by a square-circle?
... same issue.

Arminius wrote:

»According to your »RM:AO« existence is that which has affect, and an affect can only derive from the potential-to-affect (to alter or to change), PtA, of another separate or distinguished affect. Absolute zero difference, infinite homogeneity, in any qualia cannot exist. Absolute infinity cannot exist simply because by definition more can always be added. Absolute zero is merely one divided by absolute infinity and thus cannot exist either.« ** **

Due to the above, in all adjacent locations, the potential for affect cannot be infinitely identical.

»According to...«, but you aren't certain? Seems like it.“ **

Yes, that's right. I am not certain. And that has very much to do with „absolute zero is ... one divided by absolute infinity“! (See below).

When I read your text I knew that your ontology is based on definitional logic, ontology, metaphysics, „RM:AO“.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Idioticidioms wrote:

»Can you divide an rectangle, by a square-circle?« **
... same issue.

»Then how do they know that absolute zero is one divided by absolute infinity?« **

Logic dictates that they are the same thing. They don't »derive it«, it is a matter of definitions.
Absolute greatness and absolute smallness are inverse concepts. Mathematically represented by a »division«.

And btw, I have been waiting (for quite some time - years) for someone to bring up the one small »trick« to this issue. There is more to be considered. I have been disappointed that no one has discovered it. But such is the way of the today's world.“ **

I have discovered it. But I „accepted“ it because I was not certain about my answer to your question due to your statement „absolute zero is ... one divided by absolute infinity“. (See above).

When I read your text I knew that your ontology is based on definitional logic, ontology, metaphysics, „RM:AO“.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Jakob wrote:

»If every infinitesimal deviates by absolutely zero from its predecessor, then the accumulative deviation is still zero.

Or?« **

Something that the world of mathematics seems to have overlooked;
Absolute infinity cannot logically exist physically nor conceptually, »you can always add 1«.
For the exact same reason, absolute zero cannot exist physically nor conceptually... for qualities.

Absolute infinity is a conceptual impossibility.
Absolute zero is exactly equal to 1 / (absolute infinity) = an irrational concept.

One can have absolutely zero of a quantity. But one cannot have absolutely zero of a quality.

Potential, such as an electric potential, is a quality, not a quantity.

The reason that math runs across problems with infinite and infinitesimal concerns is that math is all about quantities, and only partially applicable to qualities (good for quantitative estimations).

Quantum physics is the ontology of a quantized reality and is a logically broken ontology, but that doesn't mean that it isn't useful for many kinds of quantitative estimations of reality. Classical physics was about qualitative reality, but at that time made the understandable error of including »rigid bodies«, quantitative entities. So Classical physics was a logically broken ontology also.

Rational Metaphysics: Affectance Ontology has no quantitative entities... no fixed quantities, including »absolute zero«. Even the things that I refer to as »points in space« can only logically exist as a changing of location, infinitesimal smears.

RM:AO wrote:An afflate is a small formless portion of a totally pure ever changing, ever yielding substance (Affectance). Actual things such as particles can only emerge due to such constant and chaotic giving up of influence, not taking such as to maintain anything. Affectance is »bitless«, void of individuality within. It merely varies in degree of pure changing potential.

I might add that value is an issue of quality, not quantity.
And thus Value Ontology must remain quantitiless, else also be logically invalid, aka »broken ontology, BO«.

And perhaps a couple of illustrations will help;

In that pic, you can see that the distance from B to E is always going to be half of the distance from C to D. No matter how tall the triangle is, B-E must always be 1/2 of C-D.

But what happens when we gradually reduce the height of CD through absolute zero;

The entire time DC is being reduced, EB remains at exactly 1/2. But somehow, magically at exactly absolute zero the number suddenly changes for that single point. Either the distance EB instantly becomes exactly equal to DC or, defying logic, EB is only half of absolute zero. Either case is irrational.

In professional mathematics, the term »0/n« is undefined and the term »n/0« is indeterminate. Neither case makes rational sense.

So where does that leave the absolutely straight line concept? - Irrational, an oxymoron. It is an issue of ontology and the fact of it plays into Relativity, Uncertainty Principle, Quantum Physics, and Affectance.“ **

That's not a problem of geometry, but of number theory and of the most mathematical branches, and therefore of mathematics at all anyway.

When I read your text I knew that your ontology is based on definitional logic, ontology, metaphysics, „RM:AO“.

I think that the „small »trick«“ you mentioned has been overlooked for so long because of the attention only on the definitional logic, ontology, metaphysics, „RM:AO“.

James S. Saint wrote:

„I assume that you are familiar with Zeno's paradoxes. Zeno was saying the same thing that I am.“ **

Yes, I am famiiar with the pardoxes of Zenon the Eleate (b.t.w.: there is another Zenon, who lived about one century later: Zenon the Stoic). The pardoxes of Zenon of Elea are a set of philosophical problems, for example: „Achilleus and the Tortoise“ and „Arrow paradox“.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Distance is a qualia that is infinitely divisible. If you look at the distance between yourself and the doorway and realize that you would have to get half way to the door before you could get to 3/4 distance before you got to 5/8th before you got to 11/16th before ... ..., you could never get to the doorway.

Thus there can never be absolute zero distance between you and the door, because absolute zero doesn't exist ... unless you resolve Zeno's paradox.

Affectance is also infinitely divisible. Thus Affectance cannot be reduced to zero for the same reason, but in the case of Affectance, the solution to Zeno's paradox does not apply.“ **

Yes, and I already understand that affectance cannot be reduced to zero for the same reason when I read your fundamentals of your "RM:AO" for the first time - and b.t.w.: that was the reason why I didn't mention the mathematical, but only the definional-logical aspect (your ontology is based on definional logic).

510) Arminius, 13.07.2014, 01:24, 04:24, 04:45, 16:21, 16:54, 17:55, 18:03 (1500-1506)

James S. Saint wrote:

„Zeno's Paradox(es).

But why doesn't it apply to the reduction of Affectance?
Why can't Affectance ever get to zero?“ **

The error of the paradox „Achilleus and the Tortoise“ is the failure to recognize the fact that the only mathematically infinite divisibility of a line or a length of time does not mean anything against their concrete finiteness.

In the case of affectance this must be different by defintion. Absolute zero difference, infinite homogeneity, in any qualia cannot exist. Absolute infinity cannot exist simply because by definition more can always be added. Absolute zero is merely one divided by absolute infinity and thus cannot exist either. So by definition absolute zero can't exist. The concrete line and time length of the paradox „Achilleus and the Tortoise“ is finite, although the mathematical divisibility is infinte. Therefore it is a paradox. But according to „RM:AO“ the concrete line and time length of the universe is infinite. That's the difference between the paradox „Achilleus and the Tortoise“ and the definitional logic of your „RM:AO“.

You know that Peter Mersch writes in German? That's interesting. Mayve he also writes in English. I don't know. Try to google his name. Another source are my posts here in this forum.

But beware, trolls are everywhere (did you notice the rime?) and only they decide what „makes sense“ and what „makes no sense“ in this forum!

Joining information theory and economy makes sense (not for trolls, but for us), but I don't think that everyone who calles himself an „information theoretician“ or an „economist“ is really an information theoretician or an economist. I don't know George Gilder. Maybe you can describe that man a little bit.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Actually, H.G. Wells introduced the term back in 1940, The New World Order.

Many have talked of it since. And as usual, the conspiracy theorists were right (again).“ **

But are they really „conspiracy theorists“ then and not merely theorists?

Have you raed H. G. Well's book „The New World Order“, James?

James S. Saint wrote:

„The »small trick« that I mentioned earlier is that absolute zero can only exist by one of the following means;
1) in the imagination, such as an average or the non-existence of a mentally defined object.
2) by dividing a quantity by anything infinitely larger (or multiplying by anything infinitely smaller).“ **

Yes, and what the most people you asked overlooked was the mathematical aspect (=> 2) because they were too much engaged in your „RM:AO“, in metaphysics, in ontology, in definitional logic ..., and therefore they overlooked and afterwards didn't mention the mathematical aspect.

James S. Saint wrote:

„To have infinite homogeneity or infinite similarity, there must be infinite similarity between every point in the universe. Using a Cartesian system, there are 3/4 * Pi * infinity^6 points in the entire universe. To have absolutely zero affectance in the universe (zero existence) would require that all of those points be infinitely similar.

If we assign an affectance value of X to a point in space, every other point must be exactly equal to X. Each point has the possibility of being anywhere from 0 to infinite in its value. So the possibility of another point being that same X is 1/infinity. »1/infinity« is one infinitesimal, »0+«, not zero. So the possibility of merely two points being exactly similar still isn't zero. So at this point, we can't say that there is no possibility of the universe being infinitely homogeneous.

If we consider another point, our possibility of all 3 of them being exactly similar is one 1/infinity times 1/infinity, or;
P = 0+^2, an infinitely smaller possibility of the 3 points being exactly similar... but still not exactly zero.

But then, the universe isn't made of merely a few points. The Cartesian model allows for 3/4 * Pi * infinity^6 points. So the possibility becomes;
P = 0+^(3/4 * Pi * infinity^6 - 1), an infinitely, unimaginably smaller possibility than before ... but still not exactly zero.

So far, we used the standard Cartesian model of a universe to define our infinitesimal. But the truth is that even within the space of one infinitesimal, there is yet another infinite number of points. So a dimensional line would actually have, not infinity^2 points as the standard would imply, but rather infinity^3 points and 3/4*Pi*infinity^9 points throughout. That changes our possibility considerably;

P = 0+^(3/4 * Pi * infinity^9 - 1), an infinitely, unimaginably smaller possibility than before... but still not exactly zero.

But why stop at merely allowing a line to have infinity^3 points? Why not infinity^4 or infinity^78? The truth is that there is no limit to how many points we can assign to a line, so lets just call it »n«, yielding;
P = 0+^(3/4 * Pi * infinity^n - 1), where "n" can be anything.

But as long as n is any number, the possibility will still not be absolutely zero. And the truth is that n can be all but »absolute infinity«. So, let's limit n to »the largest possible number« and call it »Largest«.

Now we have the equation;
P = 0+^(3/4 * Pi * infinity^Largest - 1), as the possibility of all points being exactly similar.

And since "0+" merely means "1/infinity", we can rewrite the equation as;
P = 1/infinity^(3/4 * Pi * infinity^Largest - 1)

But how can we have infinity raised to the Largest possible number without it being larger than the Largest possible? It is an impossible number. So what we have deduced is that in order to get the possibility of all points in the universe having exactly similar affect value there must be a number that is larger than the Largest possible. And there isn't one.

Thus, the possibility of all points in the universe being exactly similar is;
P = 1/(an impossibly large number) = Absolute Zero.“ **

That's well known, James - it has to do with mathematics for a 14 to 16 year old pupil.

James S. Saint wrote:

„And that is how you discover that the universe has absolutely zero possibility whatsoever of not existing at any time. The universe could never have begun to exist because it could never have not existed in the first place. It is a mathematical impossibility. Nor can the universe suffer »entropy death« and the thought of such is merely a mild form of terrorism.“ **

That was my answer (with other words). ** **

But please don't forget: mathematical impossibility and physical impossibility are not always the same, are not always consistent. What is mathematically possible does not always have to be also possible in reality, and what is possible in reality does not always have to be also mathematical possible.
_________________________________________________

Now I have to go to in a few miles distant place to see the final football match of the FIFA World Cup: Germany - Argentina. My tip: 3 - 0.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»H. G. Wells was inaugurated.« ** **

Inaugurated as what?

And no, I never read the book.
But have seen the films.“ **

Inaugurated as one of them.
_________________________________________________

Now I have to go to in a few miles distant place to see the final football match of the FIFA World Cup: Germany - Argentina. My tip: 3 - 0.

What do you think about my tip and about those „films“ you mentioned (**), James?
_________________________________________________________

In in the next hours you can't reach me by posting.

I will be back later, perhaps tomorrow.

In in the next hours you can't reach me by posting.

I will be back later, perhaps tomorrow.

==>