Metapoint Perspective

Life ≡

2012-01-13T05:14:00.000-08:00

Utilizing the Black Box model and method one can formalize a set of components necessary for any life. Life, unlike other forms of particulate existence assumes purpose and intent, specifically the purpose of sustaining itself. Other existences must also maintain themselves in order to exist, but unlike life, they do not use such complex means to obtain the materials required to sustain the harmony of their functioning, their "Self-Harmony".

Life ≡ Siau

_[Power Input]_S. Spirit; Drive/Effort/Energy
_[Output]_____I. Influence; motor/muscle/speech
_[Input]______A. Awareness; senses; sight/sound/touch/smell/taste/movement
_[Function]___U. Understanding; response algorithms; instincts, emotions, cognition

Life must endeavor to obtain, repair, or replace each of those components in order to sustain its ability to survive. Natural life generally endeavors to slightly enhance each of them. Strategic life, goes all out to empower each of them as far as it can manage; Nietzschean "Will-to-Power".

Deciding which aspect to attend to, how much, and in what order is actually a complex algorithm. Most life manages the decisions merely due to being so limited in resources as to make the decisions simple; eat, learn, think, and influence when their is opportunity. If given too many resources, homosapian can strive to derive a formal process so as to keep the optimum balance, but generally, he merely grabs the first thing available with an emphasis on increasing influence.

The value in every life is founded upon maintaining those four elements of life in optimum balance. Life grows due to those four elements being challenged as insufficient. Homosapian gets so complex as to utilize the efforts of other lives who are attempting the same thing such as to form societies with a variety of structures. But each and every effort he makes is merely to enhance those four elements to the point of certain immutable balanced harmony, even before he knew that is what he was doing.

Homosapian doesn't learn quickly, especially when some have caught onto the idea of enhancing their own survival by disabling those elements in all of the others. The resulting confusion takes much, much longer to work out than the comparatively simple design and original intent.

That which enhances each component of Life is of positive value.
That which disrupts each component of Life is of negative value.

At any one moment, the particular value assignment for each component and for each life is a function of the balance of the others and the situation in which the whole is having to deal. The value of the second helping of cake is almost always less than the first.

------------------------------------------------

No rational effort can be made without having a goal or purpose in mind. Purpose is what distinguishes mere logic from rationality.

Now when it comes to that "highest goal", the pinnacle of passion which then gives priority to all other desires, the issue is merely defining the maximum possible survival state;

The Purpose == Eternal Joy

That assignment might seem a bit common and also impossible, but not only is it possible, but anything less is actually irrational. To seek that goal, ALL of the components of life must be enhanced to their fullest along with a great deal of social growth as surrounding harmonious support. There must be harmony both inside and out.

Joy is the inner perception of progress, accurate or not. Of course inaccurate perception of progress defeats the actual goal of eternal survival. So inner deception is not usually a good direction to take as it compromises the outer ability to properly respond to opportunities and threats. Entertainment is what we call our means for accomplishing that inner perception of progress even though no actual progress is being made. At times though, such artificial injections of joy from entertainment are very helpful so as to communicate to the inner mind that there is no current need to worry. The functioning of the mind gets pretty complex all by itself.

The strive for eternal life ensures that a stagnate state is never reached which would stabilize weakness and cause complacency.

So by simply aiming ones life toward that highest possible goal, all of the needs of survival and enjoyment of life are properly placed and prioritized. All else being equal, in an evolutionary sense, those who actually have maintained such a goal generation after generation will out survive those who sought for anything else.

In addition, the tendency to attempt domination of others gets a natural governor or regulator built into the entire modality. Any society that forms is merely a reflection of the same components previously mentioned with all of the same concerns. When the people within the society perceive progress, they become the joy of the life defined by the society itself.

Still in addition to that, as it turns out, the only means to actually reach that goal of eternal joy is by means of the maximum affordable (the optimum) momentum of life. That momentum requires the harmony of its components if it is to get maximum performance. When the components within harmonize, progress increases substantially as well as the inner perception of it, the actual joy sensed by the life.

So the end result is that not only is each and every life within the society encouraged to be finely harmonized within itself and sensing the joy of living, but the entire populous is encouraged, not into conflict, but into the maximum fastest paced harmony possible. Any other society attempting to interfere would be about like dropping a match into a black hole - not even a poof.

The Black Box

2012-01-11T11:44:00.001-08:00

In engineering, there is a common entity referred to as "a black box". The black box is an often approximated and always generalized model of a chosen entity. It is composed of 3 fundamental notions;

1) Inputs (S)
2) Inner functioning (I)
3) Outputs (B)

Every entity that can be identified is identified by every mind as a black box wherein the inner functioning is seldom known, often speculated, but usually irrelevant. In electronic circuit design for example, the engineer very often obtains an integrated circuit, IC. The IC is quite literally and physically a small black plastic box with conducting pins sticking out of it. The engineer knows that any particular IC uses some of its pins for input signals and some for output responses. He knows that if he raises the voltage on certain pins, other specific pins will respond by either raising or lowering their voltage in accord with the internal functioning. He most often doesn't care what is actually within the box, how it works or why.

In reality, every mind, no matter how small, is always "thinking" in terms of black boxes. Every object identified whether given a label or not, is inherently categorized as an entity with an expected behavior relating to its stimuli.

Given stimuli "S" and an internal functioning of "I", a behavior of "B" is expected.

B = F{S,I}
Behavior = a Function of Stimuli and Internal responses.
Or
"I choose my Behavior in response to my Situation/Stimuli"

By noting in general terms those 3 qualities, every mind categorizing every object of thought, every word, every sentence, every construct, every action, and every object, endeavors to resolve what behavior to enact. The mind simply can't function without such an inherent model.

When deriving its chosen ontological view of its surroundings, the mind has no alternative but to classify subsets of its surroundings into such black box models commonly referred to as entities, objects, and actions.

Even when any person views another person, to merely identify the person, the mind must utilize the black box concept;

"Person A is that entity which behaves in B manner when given S stimuli."

All psychological categorizing of behavior is codified by such a scheme. All fields of Science utilize the black box concept so as to identify and predict behaviors within each field of study. Of course, people often don't appreciate being thought of as a "mere predictable black box", but the truth is that every mind has no choice but to use such a model if it is to think at all. Unfortunately, societal engineering, requiring generalizing designs, requires generalizing black box categories for all people from which political strategies, psychological media, economic designs are formed. A governing body is itself a black box assigning black box generalizations, rules, and reactions.

Even Life itself is modeled by every mind as "this general entity that generally behaves in this general way when given a general type of stimulation from a general type of situation and I don't know or often care how it works inside."

Every General that shuffles his small models of tanks, planes, and battalions around on his map, every religion or government in dictating its truths, and every philosopher constructing his world-view or perspective, instinctively, naturally, and necessarily assembles his ontology by choosing the black boxes within; the entities that regardless of internal method "I", always behave in "B" manner, given "S" stimuli.

Achieving Faster than Light Travel

2012-01-02T03:15:00.000-08:00

I have often stated that absolutely nothing can ever travel faster than what we refer to as "the speed of light". But just as a minor interesting note, there are actually 2 exceptions.

My meta-particle tracking program monitors for anything with gimbal velocities and anything traveling faster than light, primarily to help hunt down any errors in the program. Recently, I found it triggering yet I could find no error in the program. I investigated the equations over and over and was a bit puzzled as to how a particular particle could have a velocity greater than the max possible.

Well, as it turned out, a bit of a philosophical thought came to mind and revealed what was happening.

A particle's location is defined by its center. By tracking its center, one knows at what velocity it is traveling. But in the case of particles, especially particles that are just beginning to form, an interesting effect takes place.

If a particulate is already traveling close to the speed of light, a common occurrence, and it runs up on a similar particulate running slightly slower, you would think the end velocity would merely be an average of the two. And it is.. sortta. But what happens is that the two particulates merge into a single particle and guess what happens to the center of the first? Quite suddenly the center of the "particle" went from position A to position B (a particulate width distance away) almost instantaneously.

Of course the reason was simply that the particulate was still in a growth stage and as it grows, its center can outrun all of its constituents. Technically speaking, that really is the same as traveling faster than light. So it can be legitimately stated that a growing particle can, for a short time at least, travel faster than light. Of course, that time is in the range of fractional pico seconds, but still, it is an interesting note.

Then it occurred to me that every particle is actually growing and shirking at the same rate all the time and is thus stable. But what if I were to cause it to grow faster on one side and shrink faster on the opposite side? Again, as it turns out, for short times, that can actually happen and no doubt in space, it does happen.

The requirements for causing such an event involves a charge gradient which of course cannot continue for very long, but it could lead to much greater durations of exceeding the speed of light for non-growing particles than the growing particles mentioned before. And an ideal place to find such a naturally occurring situation would be the famed black hole. I can safely say, that some of the particles speeding into a black hole, especially one with a significant charge field, will in fact rush to their demise even faster than the light rushing along side of them. For how long that might be, I couldn't venture a guess.

The shifting center would not actually add to the momentum of the particle, so no common energy equation theories get violated. The particle merely shows up at the destination and its demise before its photon partner.

..just an interesting observation.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Oh Hell..

Very shortly after posting that OP, it dawned on me how one could theoretically keep a particle experiencing a positive gradient and thus continue to travel faster than light. It would be extremely difficult to arrange, but theoretically possible.

Let's say you had an electron orbiting its nucleus and had the technical means to increase the charge (or mass) field in front of the electron while reducing it behind the electron. By arranging to do that sequentially, much like a stepper motor or an alternator, the field changing constituents would not need travel or change faster than light for the particle to never be able to catch up to the changing field in front of it. As the particle passes, the field in each location would be reduced back to a lower level.

The electron would be in a state of constantly growing more in front and shirking behind and thus its center would be shifting forward faster than its constituent mass could possibly travel. For as long as the device was operational and kept sync with the orbiting electron, the electron would achieve and maintain faster than light travel.

I really hate it when I outwit my own proclamations of impossibility.. sigh

_______________________________________________________________________________

Continuing even further...

Again theoretically, a linear accelerator and relay could be arranged such that a particle could carry the information of an event in a straight line.

As the particle either traveled linearly itself, or relayed its effect to other particles inline, even though its own charge field could not grow faster than light such as to have affect as it passed, it could reach the end of a line and begin having its field effect upon the terminal detecting device before a photon had a chance to get to the detector.

Information traveling faster than light... gees.. it must be bad news.

The Society

2011-12-28T15:21:00.000-08:00

It has been said that God has no respect for the individual, not a totally accurate statement, but close enough.

People gather so as to accomplish what the individual could not accomplish alone. But to agree to such an arrangement indicates that the individual sees what it is that he needs to accomplish. And little piece by piece, he does. Thus for sake of this piece or that piece of his needs, he agrees, a society is born.

But in all the variations of need and want, who if any, have seen and agreed to the entirely of their need? Without understanding the whole, each particular is over or under-focused. Infighting breaks out as agreements are stressed and needs are exaggerated or forgotten. One individual against the many. Many against the few. Many against the many. The need of all within rises, a greater need for the gathering merely to handle the new needs caused by the struggles of the gatherings. Nations are born, born by war, in war, for sake of war. The individual loses all importance. The need of the war is supreme for sake of the needs of the individuals, the very individuals who have lost all significance save in their numbers for sake of the war against the other society, the others disregarding all but their war against the first.

So what happened? How is it that the gathering proposed to serve the individuals relents to ignore the individual as it gains its own agenda and need, its own being, foresight, and cognition? Is society to be a gathering of the living, or is it to have its own life within which the individuals are but cells of the body, insignificant save for the service to the society, the "real life", the "important life", above those needs of the insignificant particulates.

At what point after a society has acquired its own consciousness, can it proclaim that it should not be, that it should not have consciousness or life above those who banned together to create it? To whom does life belong, the cells, or the body, or perhaps to that ethereal consciousness itself free to disregard the entire body and all within.

From the seed of the men who knew not the whole for what they sought, society is born to seek beyond any need of those very men and yet still having too little intellect to wholly comprehend for what it truly needs as well.

Society, merely a higher wave in the turbulence and noise that life is as it seeks what it can yet comprehend yet determined to fight for the right to obtain it.

Should it end or merely continue the strife, struggle, and crushingly and selfishly blind pursuit for it knows not what?

Definitional Logic

2011-12-27T11:18:00.000-08:00

Logic ≡ the recognition of association between definitions and/or axioms such as to reveal an associated truth.
Definitional Logic ≡ the recognition of association between definitions such as to reveal an associated definitional truth.

Definitional Truth ≡ a statement wherein a portion or portions of reality have been identified by definition as that portion of reality.

Definitional logic is based strictly upon defined concepts and entities, void of presumed axiomatical truths. In the process of thinking and communicating, it is critical to maintain consistency in word-concept association.

Logic is a process wherein cross associations are discovered that must be true due simply because of the defined concept consistency involved. When the defined concepts are then firmly associated with physical reality, relevant “truth” is revealed.

An error in the use of logic or in a belief in a truth is discovered when there is a conflict, a disharmony, in the assigned concepts; when something has been inadvertently associated with its contradiction.

Above all else, Logic is defined by its lack of contradiction.

When the only axioms involved in an argument are definitions, all proper conclusions are true “by definition”. Usually such is a simple and obvious association, but sometimes the arguments, even though merely based on definitions, can become complex and surprisingly revealing.

A simple example would be the proposal that an infinite line has no end to it. If the word “infinite” has been defined to mean “no end associated”, then it can be stated with certainty that “by definition”, an infinite line has no end.. end of discussion. Whether that conclusion is significant or relevant to anyone is another matter.

Realize that an axiom is a statement of proposed truth. A definition is not. A definition is merely clarifying the concurrent language for the moment. Definitions are not true or untrue. They are declaration to be accepted for the duration. If they conflict with standard or common definitions, the arguments might be pointless, but not incorrect or invalid, merely a wast of time.

Another simple example is the recent issue of whether “1+1 = 2”.

Since the symbol “1+1” represents the same conceptual definition as the symbol “2” and the symbol “=” is defined to mean “the same quantity as” (in this context), the statement of “1+1 = 2” is really saying that:

The definition of concept A is the same as the definition of concept A.

"1+1" == two individual entities
"2" == two individual entities.
"=" == the same as

Therefore,
"1+1 = 2" is correct.

It is no longer an issue of ether semantic manipulation nor of presumed and debatable axioms. Legal documents are often done in similar manners, much like the license agreements that people so often sign for software without reading.

Another outstanding example was that of Thomas Aquinas in his five proofs for God. In four of the five, he stated an axiom as an obvious truth, most of which turned out to not actually be true. He was not using definitional logic and thus failed in his effort to actually prove anything, whether it was true or not. Although at the time, he was very convincing.

And thus the conclusion is true “by definition”:

“1+1 = 2” is true by definition (not by experiment or presumed axioms).

Definitional proofs are always merely about how the words have been defined to represent their associated concepts.

In contrast a more common type of argument might be that “cars are manmade”. Typically, one would presume that any car would be made by man. But a car is not defined as an entity made by man, it is defined by its form and function. Thus the conclusion, whether true or not, is not the product of definitional logic, but rather axiomatical logic, requiring that all parties agree on the axioms involved.

In any one definitional logic argument, there can be no disagreement as to the definitions involved (assuming that they have been stated) although there can easily be dispute as to whether the definitions are meaningful or useful in common language.

The significant difference is merely that a declared definition for the duration of the author's argument can't be disputed. If a thousand year old argument begins with, "since we define a circle as..., then... ", the argument cannot be defeated by the claim that "but that isn't what the word 'circle' means" or "but we have discovered that circles aren't really round in the physical universe." The conclusion made by the author might depend on his assumptions that his defined circles apply to a physical world in a manner that turned out to be incorrect, but that is another matter relating to extended axiomatic truth assumptions after the definitional argument.
__________________________

Using Definitional Logic is a means of absolutely knowing that ones conclusions are beyond doubt. The conclusions are not subject to misperceptions, relative measures, or presumptions.

Stemming from a more complex example of definitional logic is the revelation of exactly what causes all of the laws of physics to be what they are; why mass attracts, why particles form, why some particles are positive, neutral, or negative, why opposites attract, and why they don’t merely collapse into each other.

The results of the logic, once verified for properness, are incontrovertible as they are true “by definition”. Of course ensuring that such conclusions exactly relate to the physical world, not merely a conceptual architecture, is critical before issuing any conclusion concerning truth.

Making History and the Bankruptcy of Tomorrow

2011-06-16T12:29:00.000-07:00

Creative history writing works like creative economics.

History is the mathematics of reality. Oft times cross checking the math can be accomplished to ensure a portion of the formula is accurate. But regardless, any inaccuracies lead to the same bankruptcy of tomorrow.

When a lie is told, creating a history, sometimes cross checking can be used to reveal the lie. But whether verified or not, the sum of all prior reality must lead to the final conclusion of tomorrow. The objective of a lie is to alter that conclusion. But no matter what is omitted or added to one day's sum, the next day's tally must be compensated.

Proper Logical Presentation

2011-05-15T18:35:00.000-07:00

Definitions (binding association of concepts to words within presentation)
Declaratives (scenario givens; for the sake of this discussion..)
Axioms (already agreed to be true and demarked as axiomatical)
Conclusive Premises (simple conclusions due to lack of alternatives)
Observational Premises (we have directly seen this...)
Conditional Premises (IF this is true, then..)
Arguments (because that is true, this.. must also be true)
Conclusions (because all of that has been true, this.. can be concluded)
Extrapolations (having concluded that, this.. can also be concluded)

Other than tpyos or other stupidities, such a presentation will be correct 100% of the time. The truth value will be 100% because NO presumptions are made (other than the notion that anyone cares) and all possible alternatives have been properly denounced. But note that each element should be demarked as to which type it is.

Depression

2011-04-14T08:52:00.000-07:00

Depression comes in 3 basic forms; physiological, emotional, and cognitive. "Depression" is the label given to the "urge to give up", to not act even when actions are available. The medical world defines depression as a state wherein a person retreats from "normal activity" for that person (much less definitive). The underlying cause of depression in all cases is the futilization of positive response.

Oppression often leads to depression whereas suppression offend leads to aggression (opposite of depression). The depressive state neither loves nor hates, but rather stops caring and insists in not caring. Depression is not merely the loss of hope, but the acceptance in the hope of retreating, "shutting down", "giving up". The urge to withdraw completely is what leads to suicidal depression. Suicide is the overt act to withdraw from all life entirely.

Biochemicals and drugs can help most with physiological depression wherein the body refuses to respond normally under normal stimuli. Exercise, increased bodily fluid flow, and a medically clean environment help most against physiological depression. Proper levels of vitamins and minerals can help if they happen to have become abnormal. This level of depression is classified as "disease" (dis-ease) and is generally caused by invasion of toxins or germs. Physiological depression is almost never caused genetically despite family history. More often the family merely experiences the same invasive affects, often from the same sources (environmental or social).

Drugs effect emotional depression through a complex reaction process where the feelings and emotors are medically tweaked until they mask the cause of the depression sufficiently to simulate normal behavior (what is assessed as such anyway). A strong change in life situation can greatly effect a depressive state, but the person will seldom choose to pursue such a change. Strong love or hate interests can jar the emotional state into seeing new hope in taking action. But if such changes in life are introduced and do not succeed, they instead further aid the depression. Emotional and cognitive depressions are never caused genetically regardless of family history.

Biochemicals and drugs have no effect on cognitive depression unless they have positive (or negative) effect on mental functions such as memory, attention, focus, concentration, analytical response, and so on. Nootropics aid in that regard. The cognitively perceived situation of the person is the cause of cognitive depression thus anything that appears to the person to yield hope in the person's situation works against cognitive depression (winning the lottery for example if money is an recognized issue).

Signs of each type of depression vary from each other. Some people have various degrees of each type. Each type affects each other type, but does not directly determine them. People sufficiently skilled to properly diagnose depression (or just about any psychological ailment) are difficult to find. This is largely due to the attempt to over simplify the mental state and assign labels through symptomology rather than addressing causes.

Social and economic depression are additional depression types caused by analogous affecters. These are most often brought about (along with personal depressions) as governments change hands or restructure. Futilizing the people's effort to maintain their own safety is a critical part of re-ording a society, thus the people sense and often recognized the hopelessness of their situation. Suicides rise sharply as social demonism is injected so as to make clay by crushing the former statue for sake of the new statue. In the West, the more recent change ("paradigm shift") came about as Christianity was replaced with Judeo-secularism for sake of world governing.

In all cases, depression is the result of the actions of others and is seldom remedied except by the same.

Picture Bank

2010-10-02T13:31:00.000-07:00

Relativity of Count - Spin Counter

2010-09-15T12:17:00.000-07:00

It is true that all measurements are relative. This must be true simply because a measurement is a comparison, a relative measure. But if you cross check ("transverse") and verify your measurements then correct for consistency and cohesiveness, you discover absolute measure that is the same for all. Thus measurements are only relative when you don't cross verify them and correct for the logical inconsistencies.

The following is an example of literally "cross" verifying so as to either correct for irrational conclusions, or be forced to accept even more irrational conclusions.

If we get on a train and time the train’s travel over 1000 meters, we can calculate the train’s velocity;

v = dx/dt

But if our watch is running slow, we will measure incorrectly and think the train was going faster than it really was.

v’ = dx/dt’

We know that when something moves very quickly, its clocks will run slower. So we know that we don’t have to have a broken clock for us to measure the wrong velocity. But the equation v’ = dx/dt’ requires that we make a choice that either our velocity measured, v’ is wrong or the length of the track has shortened, dx’, just because we were moving.

Lorentz
The Lorentz equations seem to have chosen to say that our distance has “really” shortened rather than say that we are merely experiencing the effects of a slower clock thus not measuring the “real” velocity. Why is that?

The result of this choice is that we have “relativity of simultaneity” saying that someone will think that 2 events happened at the same time while another thinks they happened at different times rather than having someone think he was going at one speed and another thinks that he was going at a different speed.

The Lorentz equations assume there is a "real" velocity thus there cannot be a "real" length.

Is there some reason for that Lorentz/Einstein choice?

Transverse Spin Counter
If we mount a transverse spin counter on the train and count the number of transverse spins during the train’s 1000 meter run, the Lorentz equations will yield the same number of spins as anyone at the station would count for that same length of time, especially if it is optic, because transverse time isn’t effected by linear inline motion and certainly optic time isn't. The spin counter would cross check and correct for the time dilated slower clock and measure the correct velocity.

So can we say that if a train has a spin counter on it, its length, “dx’ “ doesn’t dilate and thus when it believes things are simultaneous they really will be?

Our other choice is to say that due to Lorentz equations we must accept “relativity of count” wherein our otherwise unaffected count of anything will have to change merely because we were moving (maybe now we know where that missing passenger went?).

Always carefully cross check what is in the Coolaid.

==============================================================

The Lorentz equations for calculating time and distance effects of motion have been around for over 100 years. They have always assumed that there is only one velocity measured by both moving and non-moving objects and declare that both time and distance must change to account for it. Time certainly does change in measurement for moving objects, but change in measured distance rather than measured velocity?

If we choose instead to assume that the velocity of the train were seen as being different as measured by the train rather than the distance, our spin counter would count the same for either and thus resolve this puzzle. But if we were to do that, think how many equations would have to change. Did anyone say, “job shortage”?

Always very carefully check what is in the Coolaid.

Now go back and resolve the Stopped Clock Paradox.

Resolve to the Twins Paradox – Frame of Origin

2010-09-06T22:01:00.000-07:00

I have read many arguments concerning the issue of the famed “Twin Clock Paradox”. Very many arguments go through considerably complex explanations so as to defend Special Relativity or dispute it. But the explanation is actually much simpler.

In every proposed twins paradox, there is a Frame of Origin. The frame of origin is where the twins were at rest with respect to each other and to where they return. In the original scenario, that was “the Earth” and is referred to as “the inertial frame”.

It is called “the inertial frame” because it is the one frame declared “inertial; not movable”. But the issue comes to mind as to how either frame can be considered the one that isn’t moving. SR declares that such a notion is irrelevant. But if it is ignored, an apparent paradox arises.

So as to clear up the picture a bit, let’s presume that neither twin stands perfectly still, but rather one twin (Twin A) just very minutely drifts away from the Frame of Origin while the other twin (Twin B) takes off in his ultra fast rocket. This is merely to provide distinction and reveal that there are always 3 frames involved.

And further, so as to get away from the complexities of gravitation issues, lets put them out in space originally standing on a small floating space station far away from any gravity field.

The time dilation factor is always applied to whichever one leaves the Frame of Origin.

Twin B gets in his rocket and rockets away. Twin A gets into his rocket and sticks ores out his windows and begins to row hoping to catch a few gas particles drifting by from Twin B’s exhaust.

If we apply the time dilation to the one doing all of the serious moving, Twin B’s clock will run slower and he will age less. We cannot simply reverse the reasoning and say that it is all relative because Twin A is not moving away from the Frame of Origin.

That is pretty much the end of the story, but…

Some scenarios remove any sign of the Frame of Origin so as to make their point clear. The problem is that in every case, there must always be a Frame of Origin where their clocks were staying in sync whether anything is standing as a sign of it or not. If two items are moving away from each other, there must be a frame indicating a synchronized clock situation. The issue becomes how to find out where that frame would be.

If the ships merely see nothing but each other separating, they might not know which is accelerating from the Frame of Origin, but that is only a matter of their awareness. If they later find that one has greater time dilation than the other, it can be deduced as to which was accelerating more from the Frame of Origin.

If they see no difference in their clocks, then they can deduce that they were both leaving the Frame of Origin merely in different directions.

Without determining the Frame of Origin, the Twins cannot know which of them will age more until they meet again.

Stopped Clock Paradox

2010-08-26T17:38:00.000-07:00

I would like to introduce what I believe to be a new paradox involving relativity and twin stop clocks. The only mathematics needed to follow along is simply, “if A = B and B = C, then A = C”. The only physics required is the basic idea of relativity and that a photon is a singular bundle of light.

The Clocks
Two clocks are designed identically such that if two photons simultaneously strike receptor cells attached to each clock, the clocks will stop. One, the station clock, is mounted above the tracks at a train station. The other, the train clock, is mounted such as to be in the exact center of an opened-top railcar on the train (by the train’s reference frame) when the moving railcar is centered about the station clock at 4:00-t (by the station’s reference frame).

The twin clocks are then sufficiently desynchronized so as to allow for them both to read exactly 4:00-t o’clock when the train passes the station and the clocks are transversely inline. This of course must be done considering the laws of relativity concerning the acceleration and speed of the train and the effect of that upon its clock. The alternative is merely to accomplish the simultaneity of the clock’s timing by trial an error.

The Flashers
But in addition to the clocks, two photon flashers are mounted on the railcar walls, one on the front and one on the rear walls. Each photon flasher also has a clock identically timed to match the centered train clock at 4:00-t.

Also each flasher is set to fire 2 photons toward the center of the railcar at exactly 4:00 o’clock minus the calculated time for a photon to travel to a centered clock (t). The objective being to have the photons stop each clock at exactly 4:00 o’clock. So with each flasher, one of its photons is aimed slightly upward toward the receptor cell of the station clock and the other slightly downward at the same angle reversed to meet the receptor cell of the train clock.

If the railcar could instantaneously stop at 4:00-t, all four photons would strike a receptor cell at exactly the same time and at exactly 4:00 o’clock. But since the train doesn’t stop, a question comes to mind as to which clocks will be stopped by the simultaneous photon strikes and at what time.

All photons involved are sourced from two equally moving flashers at 4:00-t. The front flasher releases two identical photons that have no reason to travel at different velocities from each other. The back flasher photons similarly have no reason to travel at different velocities than each other. And none of the photons have any means to know of or vary due to being inside or outside of the railcar.

It is speculated that a photon, like a radio wave, travels independently of its source and thus all four photons must travel at the exact same velocity covering the exact same distance in the same amount of time and regardless of which direction the flashers were moving or which frame of reference is used to take the measurements as long as only one is used.

Relativity
Galilean invariance or Galilean relativity is a principle of relativity that states that the fundamental laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames and lead to Einstein’s Special and General relativity theories. What this principle means in this example is that no matter which frame of reference is used as the designated inertial frame to measure the paths of the photons (on the moving train or at the station) all four photons must be measured to travel the exact same distance over the same amount of time (t).

Relativity of Simultaneity
In this scenario, the flashers are already set to be identical and in sync at 4:00-t station clock time. Nothing comes from either frame to set them off as they have their own internal clocks, thus the relativity of simultaneity doesn't get involved and doesn't apply.

The simultaneity of the flashes is guaranteed for both frames due to the predesigned simultaneity through whatever means is necessary to ensure they flash at exactly 4:00-t as measured by both clocks and their internal clocks. Neither flasher has impetus to flash before the other from either reference frame. Thus both reference frames would see a simultaneous flash from the two flashers as by design, there is never an opportunity for the flashers to become asynchronous or misaligned with respect to either reference frame.

If you are one of the many who have become confused regarding relativity of simultaneity and believe that the Lorentz equations demand that the train and the station cannot both see the flashes as simultaneous, consider that such has merely been a misunderstanding of how to use the Lorentz equations. Einstein remarked that due to the time it took light to travel from different sources, one person might come to believe that two events were simultaneous even though they were not. And consider the following;

In the following pictorials, two trains are first shown traveling the distance ∆x in the time ∆t. A clock is tossed onto each train, then photo flashed ∆t time later. The image of the train’s clock faces are reflected from each clock displaying their time reading at that moment and seen by everyone regardless of their distance from the flash. Each person will see the image at a different time, but there is only one image to be seen.

In the third portion of the pictorial, the two train’s are combined into one, showing that each clock face will still show the same time to anyone.

But since there is only one image to be seen regardless of which clock face and that image is broadcast everywhere, on board the train, the same image is seen as the train's clocks readings.

So far, the flashers at the station have been used to produce the flash and thus light has traveled from the flashers to the train clocks. But the direction of the light from the light source hasn’t anything to do with the synchronicity of the clocks, so if we have the clocks flash their face image at that moment instead of the station flashers, we would get the same image.

It is clear that all, on board the train and off, will see the same image of the synchronized clocks on the train.

The flash timers mentioned in the paradox are clocks that flash at a given time setting, “4:00-t”. If they were to show their clock face as a flash, everyone would see the same image of “4:00-t” from both clocks whether on board the train or off. The train timers and clock are therefore synchronous in both frames. The question in the paradox isn’t what will be seen, but when it will be seen.

Summery of the Setup
To summarize the scenario setup, let me go through it again with less explanation.

A station clock is set so that at 4:00-t a railcar will be passing by. On that railcar, fore and aft, two flashers are set to go off exactly when the station clock will be reading 4:00-t and when they are equal distance from the station clock with respect to the station clock’s reference frame. So by design, both flashers trigger at exactly 4:00-t as indicated by the station clock.

Also aboard the train, a train clock is set to be exactly centered between the two flashers by its own reference frame when the station clock reads 4:00-t regardless of how the station reference frame might view it. The train clock is then adjusted so that it too will read exactly 4:00-t at that same moment.

Thus at 4:00-t as read by either clock, both flashers are designed to flash. Simultaneity of the flashing and centeredness of the clocks are guaranteed by setup design.

Station Reference Frame
If we examine the paths of the photons from the reference frame of the station, we can see that two photons would strike the station clock simultaneously and stop that clock at exactly 4:00 o’clock. But the train clock would be moving during the flight time of the photons (t) and thus would no longer be centered. Thus the train clock would not stop.

Train Reference Frame
But if we examine the paths of the photons from the reference frame of the moving train, we see that the two photons aimed at the train clock will strike simultaneously and thus stop the train clock at 4:00 o’clock. But the from the train’s reference, the station clock is moving in the backwards direction, thus the station clock, no longer being centered, would not stop.

The Paradox
When the train finally stops, each clock is examined to see if either has stopped running. This situation presents us with a paradox;

A) One clock has stopped – The speed of light is not constant for the other observer.
B) Both clocks have stopped – The speed of light is not constant for either observer.
C) Neither clock has stopped – The speed of light is dependent on an absolute frame.

Only One Clock Stopped
Since from either reference frame, the other clock is moving out of center, the principle of relativity requires that both reference frames must insist that their own still centered clock stops and that the other doesn’t. But since only one stopped, one of the reference frames did not measure the photon travel from fore and aft flashers to be equal. That means that either the principle of relativity, the consistency of the speed of light, or the simple logic of mathematics involved could not be true.

Both Clocks Stopped
Since the center distance from the flash was changing for both of the frames with respect to the other, only one could represent an equal distance and time of travel for the photons. That would imply that the photons inside the train behaved differently than those outside without having influence to do so.

Neither Clock Stopped
If neither clock stopped, from the perspective of both frames, light did not travel an equal distance in the same amount of time. This directly indicates that the speed of light is NOT constant for all observers, but rather has an absolute frame of reference of its own.

Light Dependency
If we temporarily speculate that perhaps a photon carries with it a portion of its source’s velocity, we can rebuild the scenario.

If a photon traveling from the back wall of the train were to travel a little faster because the train wall was moving, we must accept that the distance traveled by the two aft photons will be greater than those of the two forward photons over the same period of time. With this speculation in mind, we can simply reposition both clocks slightly more forward so as to align them with a simultaneous collision with their receptor cells. But in so doing, we run across the exact same paradox merely repositioned.

If for some odd reason photons carry a negative component of their source’s velocity, we could merely reposition the clocks slightly back from center so as to achieve simultaneous collision. But again, we run into that exact same paradox. Each clock must stop if examined by its own reference and not stop if examined from the other reference.

Thus we can remove the concern as to whether photons travel independent of their source, leaving us with;

Conclusion
If Galilean relativity is true, the speed of light is constant for any observer, and the logic of mathematics is true, then both clocks must stop and also not stop, yet each can be seen to either stop or not.

Relativity and Science are entirely embedded in the logic of mathematics. Thus if the logic of mathematics is to be dismissed, both Relativity and Science become useless, whether otherwise true or not. So that proposes that we have to accept that the speed of light is actually dependent on an absolute frame.

So we are left with no choice but to dismiss as a false or useless doctrine either the principle of Relativity and constant observed speed of light with all of its numerous consequential theories and calculations, or dismiss all of Science and the simplest mathematics. Take your pick or keep fantasizing. I choose to keep mathematics and Science and accept that indeed there really is an absolute frame of reference from which all things can be measured.

Einstein relativity down and out. Maxwellian aether back up for round two.

Rational Metaphysics - Affectance

2010-08-15T02:05:00.000-07:00

The logic of Rational Metaphysics begins with the premise that what has no affect is irrelevant and meaningless. If something has no affect, it cannot be felt by anything nor change anything in any way. Thus from the state of absolute nothingness, affectance is the first and only relevant concern. That is the first step, the premise of all rational thought.

From realizing that affectance (that which has affect, whatever that might be) can only affect by altering something else that has affect, other existence, I can see that it can only increase or decrease the affect of the other, because degree of affect is all there is.

But that sets up the scenario that everything must be merely made of mutual affect, "affectance". As it turns out, that is the same as what Science calls "energy"; the ability to "do work" or "cause change"; to affect.

But then I add the realization that infinity is not physically achievable (by definition). Infinite difference of affect cannot exist in any form. With that idea, I can see that no two items of affectance can have infinite affect upon each other. Also, I can realize that no affect can occur instantly, because that would be infinitely fast affect and merely mean that there was not two items, but one. And of course any affect taking an infinite amount of time would not actually be having affect. Thus affect must occur within finite time.

I can realize that infinite homogeneity cannot exist either because that would mean that all points are infinitely identical. Infinite similarity between any two points cannot exist either, ever.

So now with those thoughts in mind, I can deduce that affect occurs in waves wherein no points of affectance can be infinitely different than any adjacent point, or from any other point either. Thus a conclusion can be formed; a singularity (an infinitely small and solitary point of affect) cannot ever exist. It would have nothing to exist to, nothing to affect and be affected by. And any single infinitely small point of affect would have to immediately be affected and have affect upon and by its surroundings, thus melting into them with no more potential to affect than they.

But I can go further.

What that means is that it is logically impossible for space to have ever been a nothingness of infinite similarity and also that there was no singularity that exploded into our observed universe. The Big Bang theory of original creation cannot be true. But that is not to say that there wasn't some kind of explosion long ago.

Still further, I can realize that what we call "space" has no logical option but to be waves of affectance, never identically uniform and never infinitely dissimilar. The entire universe must be an ocean of affectance waves. So even when we see nothing, we can know that there is always something there and that something, the affectance, is moving at finite speeds.

So if affectance moves at a finite speed, what would that speed be? It would be the speed from which all other speed is measured for it is the speed of affect, the only absolute speed logically possible. If affectance is all there is, there is nothing to impede that speed of affectance except the affectance itself; each point of affect affecting what is affect itself; affect slowing affect as each point mutually affects each other.

So now I have;
1) Affectance is the only existence
2) Infinity cannot ever be physically realized
3) Nothingness can never occur or ever have occurred
4) Nothing can be infinitely different nor similar to anything else
5) Affectance occurs at finite speed (turning out to be the "speed of light")

But then I can also realize that what we call near and far is merely the observation of direct affect versus indirect affect. That which is directly affected, is what is "near" and what is indirectly affected is "far", by definition.

So one point of affect affects the next points adjacent to it directly. And that point directly affects the next point to that one and so on. By such definitions, we have spatial dimensions and volume.

Every point of affect must affect the adjacent points else it would not exist to them, thus every point affects every other point either directly or indirectly without exception and they must do so in finite time. There can be no other fundamental existence.

What that reveals is that any speculation of a fourth dimension requires that the points associated with it must be affected and more importantly, that they must affect the points associated with the first three dimensions.

We derived our three dimensions merely by seeing that affect can be segregated into three independent directions. We chose that there be three for our convenience. Thus there is no fourth dimension else the affect of that direction would be included in all affect.

6) There are only 3 spatial dimensions, by definition (not observation).

As each point of affect is affected and itself affects the next point. A propagation of affect is described. Waves of affect are realized.

7) Affect propagates in waves that cannot occur faster than the speed of affect.

Since the speed of affect is the absolute base for all speed, nothing can travel faster. Thus if a wave were to, for whatever reason, come into a spin wherein it was chasing its own tail (similar to a bicycle wheel spinning and also tumbling), the bundle of affectance wave (a "particle") could not remain a bundle and also travel as a bundle linearly at the speed of affect. It could not because such a scenario would require that the center of the bundle be traveling at the speed of affect and also some part of the spinning affectance wave inside the bundle be traveling faster than that center, else there would be no spinning and thus no bundle. But that would mean that some part of the wave had to travel faster than affect can travel, which is a logical impossibility.

It is for that reason, a bundle of spinning affect (a particle) cannot ever travel at the maximum speed of affect and anything trying to push it, would encounter logical resistance; inertia. There need be no other force providing resistance. And the faster the particle is pushed, the more impossible it becomes to make it travel any faster. Hence, "no object can travel at the speed of affect (light)".

8) Inertial particles are caused by the spin of a wave of affect thus resisting further affect; becoming firm; material; matter.

Thus from the notion of nothingness, energy and matter is realized because there can be no logical alternative.

Paranoia, Insecurity, and Memory

2010-08-14T06:39:00.000-07:00

In common lingo, the word “paranoid” is often conflated with the word “phobic”. A person might proclaim another person paranoid if they perceive an unusual fear of something like water or the police. But that would actually be a phobia concern, not a paranoia concern.

Paranoia is distinct from phobia in that paranoia specifically involves cognitive deductions that pertain to suspicions. It is when a person deduces that the police are doing something in particular because they are pursuing him. To be “paranoid of water” would mean there was a belief that the water was actually behaving in some way because it is pursuing the person.

It is promoted that drugs cause paranoia, but in reality, any illegal activity; lying, stealing, assassination, drug use, or merely pornography or anything thought to be immoral is likely to inspire a sense of being watched and perhaps hunted.

Typically a psychologist considers a person paranoid if the person displays what the psychologist believes to be an inappropriate fear or suspicion. A more competent psychologist will ensure that the person is actually making cognitive deductions based on that suspicion. But does a psychologist really know what is inappropriate? Does he know the likelihood that a political conspiracy is actually taking place? A psychiatrist is typically going to declare a state of paranoia based on whether the suspicions are anti-socialistic.

To me it is more valid to ask a sociologist, political scientist, or social engineer if someone is paranoid than it is to ask a psychologist or psychiatrist. The sociologist might need a short explanation as to the exact definition of the concept, but a sociologist is more likely to know the state of society such as to know whether suspicions are realistic or inappropriate. The sociologist is more in tune with how often suspicions are justified in a society.

Paranoia rises from a sense of insecurity that inspires the mind to begin speculating. It is normal and appropriate for a person who senses insecurity to speculate as to the cause. Without such an instinct, a species would never learn to avoid subtle real dangers. But when the deductive process gets deluded by being too narrowly focus on unlikely speculations compared to more likely scenarios, delusion overtakes the mind.

Delusions overtake a mind by the normal and healthy process of seeking out justification for belief. But the fact that such justifications were merely possibilities gets forgotten as further deductions are pursued.

In developing a delusion, a suspicion is generated then a defense for belief in the suspicion is generated so as to thwart doubt. Focus on the possibility of the suspicion being true tends to generate imaginative plausibility scenarios. When the mind forgets that each thought was merely a possibility, not a probability, these plausible scenarios add together to form an airtight case study. The belief becomes undeniable to the deluded mind.

Although without the insecurity paranoia is difficult to generate, the most significant culprit causing the end result of delusion is the loss of short-term memory skill. An insecure person who can think clearly might suspect the wrong scenario, but a delusion will not be established until they forget that they had only one suspected scenario out of other possibilities.

The lack of memory also makes deducing probabilities far more difficult resulting in making poorer guesses. A poor memory disallows the imagination from deriving all of the possibilities from which a probability can be validly deduced. Often the possibility that is left out of the calculation is merely the one that posits a serious lack of education or information on the subject. It is difficult to analyze how likely it is that you do not know enough to even make a guess.

Such deductions of probability occur deep within the subconscious and when they err, the conscious mind is only presented with the erroneous imagined scenario as though no other possibility could exist. This results in a firm belief as no other possibility can be imagined. And if the person is challenged, the natural social ego defense comes into play to divert embarrassment and further defend and seal the delusional state.

Thus the cause of paranoia is not merely feelings of insecurity and an imaginative mind, but actually it is the result of feelings of insecurity, possibly justified, and a failing or poor memory limiting the imagination to poor belief choices.

Memory problems in society are becoming even more prevalent than paranoia problems because.. in case you don't remember, they're out to GET us.

Absolute Material Law

2010-07-29T15:27:00.000-07:00

I find it interesting that in the modern age of nitpicking scrutiny, it seems that no one has noticed that a law of nature is actually a material entity, matter.

It is a misconception that natural laws are not material and thus argument arises concerning whether immaterial things, "like laws" exist. The truth is that laws are actually material entities and actually nothing else really exists at all.

The property of being material or not is gauged by firmness, reluctance to be changed. By mere concept alone, a true law of nature is extremely firm, if not totally immutable. But more than that, is the point that what a law is, is being entirely misrepresented.

When someone writes a statement, that statement might be said to be a law. But in reality, the statement isn’t the law, but a mere language representation of the law much like a word isn't the concept, but merely a language reference to the concept. Assuming the stated law was correct, the law itself is a part of reality, not a statement.

But can a law be touched? You might think that it can’t be, but actually the laws are the only things actually “touched”.

Although it is typically very hard to comprehend, the truth is that when you look at the very foundation of physical existence, there is no “substance” from which matter is constructed other than mere affect upon affect, affecting and being affected, nothing more. There is nothing being affected or doing the affecting other than the “force” of affect, “affectance”.

But this affecting is not random, else it could have no overall effect that wasn’t also entirely 100% random and unruly. Affectance affects by definable behaviors, “laws”. A law is a behavior. And a behavior is all there is, the behavior of affect, mutual affect to be precise. All existence of formed of mutual affect – the behavior of changing the changing – the laws of change.

It is natural law that you run into when you don't watch where you are going.

Law is the ONLY true material within all reality. Law is the "matter".

Religion and Scientism

2010-07-19T23:45:00.000-07:00

The problem is merely what to do with 6 billion irrational people.

You can't ask them to just be logical or rational. If they could do that, they would be doing it already. But they already think they are. Billions of irrational humans were spawned and have created a huge population void of deep thinking ability. Socialism attempts to maintain a few clever souls keeping the masses in line and in order.

The religions (including the newer Scientism) were designed, by whatever means, to retain the legion; maintain the gathering. They are society's ego. They have always assumed a socialistic oligarchical architecture. Such an architecture has the inherent and unavoidable problem of having to keep irrational people inspired with exaggerated concerns; wars, diseases, and "blood" conflicts.

True understanding of the real situation has always been the exclusive domain of the few elite, except that they never realize that by such a proprietary claim on hidden Truth, they blind themselves in false confidence. Such a situation then leaves the entire population from the least intelligent to the highest elite influence as actually truly insane, not really knowing good from bad and being held that way eternally.

Each side of every argument believes they are the wise, rational people and the other side are the stubborn foolish ones. The phrase, "you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground" came from the concept that a person doesn't know his mere stubbornness (his ass) from something missing in his understanding (a hole in his grounding). Such a phrase suits the entire population.

Extremely few people ever learn how to know that they know without merely being presumptuous. Yet so very many are willing to be ultimately stubborn in their arguments. The religions and today the governments as well, instill that property into people. It is intentional that people are blinded from their own cause of stubbornness. That is how you make a strong proponent for your cause, whatever it is. You turn people into asses so you can ride them through rough territory. Asses riding asses to market ass meat and ass blood to other asses.

Today's technology merely serves to make it easier to maintain the relentless insanity, to mechanize it even to the point of removing the need to involve humans at all. But why not physically improve what a human is since we have the technology with which to play. So now we have insane people redesigning humanity to fit their insane image of a god to forever control all things. Ever heard the expression, "the inmates have taken over the asylum"?

Yeah, reconcile Scientism with Religion; two names and political parties for the same thing. Reconcile them into what? A single political party with no competition or contrast with which to see their worst weaknesses? Well, that might be one way to stop it all. Take away Mankind's contrast consciousness entirely.

The only other option is to form a small, very small gathering of the extremely few who can understand life and logical rationale.

Good luck finding them.

The Eternal Universe – An Ocean of Motion

2010-07-02T20:19:00.000-07:00

The universe that never began and can never end is the one you see around you.

Premises;

1) Infinite similarity is impossible (by definition of "infinite").
2) Every point in space affects every other point adjacent to it (by definition of "adjacency").
3) Infinite discontinuity is impossible.

The Unbeginning
Logically these premises mean that at all times what looks like empty space to us is really an ocean of subtle motion. A different state of existence logically cannot ever be and has never been. As it is impossible for existence to be in any other state, there could never have been a beginning to the only state possible.

The Quantum Magi talk about "random" creations, but it is not "random". Nothing is ever actually random. The subtle motion within every seemingly empty area of space is in the form of "affectance" or what we could measure as electromagnetic waves if they were large enough to detect.

Emergence
Smooth waves, rather than spiking random points, are formed due to the mutual affect of every point on its adjacent points. The waves move due to every point in every wave still affecting every adjacent point as the mutual affecting causes shifting in the wave peaks. The "splashing" around of those affectance waves creates a probability pattern concerning the strength of the waves. That pattern is what we eventually see as the beginning essence of the universe emerging, seemingly from nothingness.

As the strength of some waves increase sufficiently, they combine in collision with other waves to form a small particle wherein the electromagnetic wave is chasing its own tail in a tight loop. That tight-loop, speed-of-light spin is what causes the particle to have inertia and gravity. It becomes a "hard" particle due to the acceleration of its wave front. We then declare it to be "matter".

Eventually, the numerous particles begin clumping as they attract each other through both gravity as well as electric potential differences. Since no two particles can ever be exactly identical, there must always be at least a slight electric potential difference. Some particles merge in such a way as to form a large single particle as their waves unite into a single spinning wave. This aggregating forms atoms and larger mass clusters.

Very slowly, larger masses and objects are formed. Trillions of years latter, those clusters have attracted more such clusters and form larger masses such as molecules, gas clouds, and small stones.

Eventually a very large single particle is formed that, due to its single wave construction, has a comparatively huge inertia and gravity. That particle begins to suck in everything around it as it forms into what we see as a "black-hole". The average black-hole is estimated to have several hundred million times more energy absorbed into it than the average star/sun and they just keep growing.

Such black-holes form at extreme distances to each other. But having extreme mass attraction and necessarily having a difference in electric potential, they have no reason to stay away from each other forever and slowly begin to converge as they still grow. What do you think happens to all of that energy once one falls into another? Even if there had never been a Big Bang, eventually there would be.

The Bang
Eventually the speeding single particle black-holes collide. When some collide at perhaps not too great a speed, they absorb into each other to become merely a still larger single particle black-hole. But some collisions occur at such extreme speeds that the black hole particles explode. When that happens, they release enormous amounts of energy in the form of huge particle clumps and clusters that take the form of stars and large planets and meteors as well as a tremendous amount of radiant energy and smaller formed particles.

But still later, all of that newly formed exploding mass and energy form their own new particles as mass attraction and electric potential still keep bringing them together and forcing them to ether bond in orbits or unite into single particles. The star clusters are so energetic that the bonding cannot keep up with the releasing collision energy and thus they get into a burning cycle until enough radiant energy is released that stable atomic bonds can be sustained.

The Never End
That is how your universe got here and how the other distant universes are forming. And as this universe dissipates from its initial explosion to become extremely thin in mass density, the whole process is already reoccurring elsewhere, fore the attraction effects never really stop - ever. Every new cluster of galaxies forms in its own vast segment of space from its own Big Bang. Infinity is a very, very large place.

It is all an eternal dynamic process that never began and will never end. The larger infinite beginningless and endless universe view is that of clouds forming until rain drops fall upon the surface of an endless ocean that in turn generates more clouds. Each splash is another Big Bang and to us, an entire universe.

Ahdam, The Making of Man

2010-06-17T00:23:00.000-07:00

The Anglish word "Ahdam" (or more commonly “Adam”) refers to the first governance of human kind, "Man", not the first "human". A "human" refers to the "hue-of-Man" or "the fundamental component thereof". The scriptures never refer to Ahdam as a human.

"Ahdam" literally means, "the gathering of the spirit". It is referring to a time when the "dust" (common logic) and the "water" (issues of life) were finally mixed as a "clay" and into the form of a governance for the behavior of all homo sapiens, the governance presumed for all people.

-----------------

History
Ancient Anglo words, once called Anglish and now called English, were formed from sounds. Like most ancient languages, the sound of a syllable carried an inferred meaning that was used to create a word. A word carried a thought once considered to be a "spell" cast into the mind, thus words are "spelled" not merely from letters (each of which used to represent a meaning in itself), but once, more often from the sounds that relayed meanings. Today we would call it conceptual phonetics.

In Hebrew, the spelling for Ahdam, is אדם (or ADM). The three Hebrew letters each have a meaning that formed the ancient Anglish words involved.

א - Aleph is the word we use to speak of the initiating sound “ah” or more phonically, “uh”. It is called a “glottal stop” and even though it is considered a vowel in English, was considered a consonant in Hebrew because it had no designated vowel sound following the initial “ghe” noise from the throat. It represents “the first” and in Greek is called “alpha”. Today, in English it is simply, “A”, the first letter of our alphabet.

The sound/syllable "ah" in almost all ancient Anglo/Anglish/English referred to what is more often referred to as "initial spirit", “inspiration”, the "inner energy", motion, or effort within something.

The sound “ah” became synonymous with the idea of initial effort or spirit through the concept that all things begin with effort (i.e. “spirit” or “energy”). It is also associated with the idea of initial enlightenment or the "spark of wisdom", as used in the word, "Buddha". “YAH” being the more formally accepted concept of First Cause, an agreement in spirit or a covenant, is now often used to mean merely, “yes, I agree”.

In addition our "ghe" sound also came from that same glottal-stop sound and also referred to initiating spirit, as in "ghe-host" (spirit-host, ghost), "ghe-oh" (to move, esprit, go), and even “ghe-odd” (a unique circumventing/determining spirit, god).

ד - Daleth (or more properly spelled, “Dalet”) is the fourth letter in the Hebrew alphabet and when used as an individual sound means door, gate, or dam. The concept is of something that opens or stops an otherwise free flow (of spirit in this case). To translate into more common understanding, it is merely a “holding or gathering device”.

ם - Mim, the 13th letter (in English, “M”), represents "water" (by modern translation), which in concept and by metaphor represents the flow of spirit (hence the common, “Holy Water” concern, “walking on the water”, “dividing the waters”, “calming the waters/sea”, and so on...).

When the two letters דם are put together, they form the concept of a water/spirit dam. The sound/syllable "dam" in Anglish referred to the familiar modern English concept of a "water dam" in that "dam" meant a flow being "held into place", the flow of spirit/effort. The more Latin concept of a damn being a curse is that same concept, a stagnate influence upon a person, people, or place. "Damn" still carries that concept today. "Dame", referring to the female, carried the same concept of a fixed divergent influence over the male and a curse for his rational thinking.

Constitution
The two concepts of "Ah" and "dam" when put together (אדם = ADM) spell the concept of a spirit that is "damned up into one entity" or "gathered and held into place". Such is the very concept of a Constitution for a government and is fastened by agreement or covenant, “YAH”.

But how is a constitution or agreed upon effort to govern ever formed? The bits of common understanding ("grounds", "dust") are mixed with the issues/concerns/spirit of the day ("waters"). Together they form the "clay" from which covenant documents such as the US Constitution were formed.

The people's perception of need (clarity of Hope and Threat - The Principle) is what inspires and forms the clay into an agreement and a living entity, a governance with influence and survival responses, a manifestation, or “Man”. The perception of need is Man's God and his maker, the maker of Ahdam. The perception of need, of Hope and Threat, is what creates all other spirit/effort as well.

Ahdam was designed to be in a similar pattern (image) to The Principle (Elohim) that represents the union of all true principles. Ahdam was the government formed by mutual agreement, not unlike the US Constitution.

Paradise Lost
The agreement came about via that Principle that tends to propel man into finding agreement (good/harmony), but it does it through a display of the consequences of disagreement (evil). Eventually Ahdam (the government) chose to try to create and inspire by displaying disagreement (terrorism) so as to inspire agreement (the knowledge of good and evil) and thus "be as God". Due to such a behavior, Ahdam destroyed paradise. Governments attempt the same today.

Ahdam, the US Constitution, and the Constitution of Rational Harmony were formed with all of this in mind, and more.

Elohim, YAH, the covenant, the agreement of ALL causes is the creator

Nature, Man, and the world of Man is the created.

Science agrees.

Constitutional Rational Harmony - Restoring Sanity

2010-05-28T16:21:00.000-07:00

Do you prefer to;
A) Be allowed to do what YOU believe to be Rational
B) Be forced to do what YOU believe to be Irrational
C) Be forced to do what someone very far away has deduced is the wisest for ALL people to always do?

Imagine a nation operating entirely via small groupings wherein each group functions by its own constitutional law. One might be tempted to think that such would undoubtedly end in total competitive chaos, but it doesn’t.

If each group is cast with a constitution that innately causes the group as a whole to learn through time and by experience, every grouping and person begins to become rational, “sane”. And rationality demands mutual empathy.

Within each grouping, their individual constitution must merely maintain a truly intelligent rational process for the group to use in forming their own laws and with which to attend to their own needs and self-harmony. US corporations have a similar construct except for one critical variation - documented rationale.

The common constitution structure that must be maintained is one wherein all decision-making is done by;

A) documenting the rationale of every decision/law and

B) ensuring that any freely proposed “better rationale” immediately replaces any older rationale and resultant decisions and laws.

C) determining what is more rational by logical-form-moderated Rational Debating.

By such a constraint, reasoning becomes more in focus and is given more authority than political competition. In fact, passion politics (exaggerated hopes and threats, terrorism and false prophets) becomes futilized.

The primary problem that all nations have always had is their innate attempt to control beyond their grasp and make decisions for all people when they never have the situation wherein all people share the exact same need. People end up suffering needlessly because a government is always trying to make one law for all people (often millions) even when most people do not need such a law.

A localized constitution relieves the need for a higher governance to manufacture global/universal laws that are always inappropriate and burdensome for more people than not. Localization is the very make of democracy. As long as the higher governance merely ensures that the lower groupings are following a rational learning process, the burden in their living becomes as reduced as physically possible while the hopes become as great as possible. A constitution structured to ensure that rational thinking has authority over political persuasion takes care of that problem.

Openly documenting the authorizing rationale behind every decision while allowing any member to propose better reasoning through a Rational Debating process, ensures that learning and rationale rise.

In addition to inspiring more rational thinking, this governing method also gives greater voice to the brightest ideas presented rather than merely to the current most persuasive person.

Each local grouping appends their own amendments so as to tailor their constitution to their own needs. Each creates their own life style as a group. Each group is a living organism in itself.

The following is such a
“Constitution of Rational Harmony”.

Preamble
We who gather in this union ordain and establish these Articles of Rational Harmony for the purpose of firming the rational pursuit of maximum influence toward eternal united harmony.

Articles
1) Governing Authority
All governing authority shall be vested in the following four fundamental offices; Representative, Senate, Executive, and Judicial.

No action is to be performed by any office or member of any office unless by instigation of proper Constitutional process as documented herein.
It is the obligation of the union to prepare every member for reestablishing this authority in the event of its demise such as to include;

a. Teaching the rationale of this constitution and methods concerning its establishment
b. Providing all materials and tools required to re-initiate the authority of this constitution and its implementation.
c. Training all members in concerns of anti-cancer, anti-terrorism, decisiveness, faith, optimal isolation

2) Member Representation
The “Representative” office is to be responsible for the observation and documentation of the current situation of the union.

Any union member shall be allowed to propose, through the Representative office, recommendations and suggestions concerning any union action as long as such items are accompanied by documented reasoning to support the proposal's need for consideration.
Any member must be allowed to debate the superiority of any existing or proposed rationale before the Senate and Judicial offices to the extent of rationale concern and by the Rational Debating processes..
If any existing rationale is found to be inferior to a proposed rationale as verified by the Judicial office, the existing rationale must be replaced by the proposed.

3) Governing Principles
The “Senate” office is to be responsible for receiving and evaluating all action proposals regarding any and all union members and establishing action priorities.

Principles of rationale (amendments) are to be formulated, documented, and utilized in determining proposed rational actions.
These principles are to be published sufficiently to allow critical review by the other offices.
Proposals are to be evaluated for superior rationale with existing principles pertaining to the accomplishment of the goal of the maximum momentum toward eternal union harmony.
All alternative options to any proposal are to be rationally considered and documented along with the rationale for being rejected.
All evaluations are to be accepted or rejected based on documented rational reasoning. Any rationale found to be superior to existing rationale must be incorporated into relevant executions replacing inferior rationales.
Any delays in processing must provide rationale for the delay. Any rationale for delay must conform to the same rules as any other proposal in being documented and open for public review.
A final execution plan is to be formed from all current rationale which is then to be documented and presented to the Executive office for execution.

4) Execution of Authority
The “Executive” office is to be responsible for accurately implementing any and all execution plans received from the Senate. As such this office is in charge of all policing and manual efforts.

5) Verification of Governing Rationale
The “Judicial” office is to be responsible for verifying that all duties are being carried out as per Constitutional rationale and for arbitration of irresolvable dispute.

All judicial actions are to be documented and remain open for membership rational counter-debate.

6) Qualification for Station (Purity Issue)
All office holders and members are to be qualified only by their ability to perform the associated duties of their position as determined by Judicially verified Senate rationale.

The determination of ability to perform shall be made by Judicially verified Senate rationale and shall remain documented for rational membership review and update.

7) Limit of Rational Authority (Extent Issue)
The number of members governed by this constitution shall not exceed the ability of the Representative office to properly represent all members.

==============================================================

Appended Discussion

JSS;

This Constitution is actually an evolutionary advance from the US Constitution. As any embryo gets more sophisticated, it requires more motherly care as it develops, but yields a far more advance evolutionary maturity. It is being currently proposed in an environment that is in many ways more harsh than that of its ancestor, but in a few ways less so. In old England, I would have been arrested for merely discussing it and shipped off to Australia. In America, discussing it isn't illegal, merely a little dangerous due to current hidden management methods.

Although stated fairly simply, the actual interactions that cause it to work are far more complex. Realize first that all, even the smallest decisions are being seen by all members at all times and always open for scrutiny. Every decision must stand up to counter rationale. It would be very difficult to maintain hidden agendas. Beyond the very beginning initial group, even Satan would have a hard time obscuring evil intent.

Anonymous said...

Can't this system be overwritten simply by a Human flaw of greed and lust for power? That will always occur. The Romans had such an encounter, their republican system was brilliant, the mindset of the people completely different from what we have now. Yet still people like Caesar and Sulla managed to overrule with dictatorships given to them by their greed and also the fact the the Senate had to grant them executive powers because the people had more favour with the soon to be Dictator than the Senate?
April 19, 2011 11:34 AM

Of course the greed for power is the entire issue when it comes to potential corruption. Several concerns come into play when considering what would happen "if one, some, or all were to get greedy".

As the CRH is currently written, each office is counter checked by each other. All activities are documented and held to exactly what they state to be their reasoning. If any law were to be formed merely to serve greed, it would easily be seen and defeated long before it had a chance to become significant. Even when the USA lost its independence via acceptance of the FED, it took a very long time to actually take over. And even to this day, they must take care to not go too far, too quickly. Forced and repeated rational justifying of the FED would have negated it long ago as better plans came to light.

A single agency can't obtain sufficient power to ever get control even if progress gets made. Any errors in rationality are being constantly reviewed and corrected without need of alarms.

Of course, in an extreme situation, all members could be forced or simply payed to betray their constitution, but that would become rather expensive for the conqueror and what would really be the gain? There was already a group that would "listen to reason" and were already forced to do so, thus any counter force is demanding them to do something irrational for pay. But if they are all going to be paid that much, was it really irrational to accept it? Won;t that be an interesting DEBATE to WATCH take place, because you can bet they will debate it rationally before they act and all they debate can be observed.

================================================================

From ILovePhilosophy: "Master of the world"

Archangel wrote:Let's say that an asteroid hits the Earth, wipes out 90% of the human race, or an all-out nuclear war leaves the world in disorder - in the reigning chaos, however, things happen that eventually put YOU in charge of EVERYTHING, and you become the sole ruler of the world... Now you have a chance to create your own social order, to mould the world as you think it SHOULD be... What would be your version of a perfect world? How would you make it perfect?

What LT has named "Mutualism" (a balance of mutual concerns for all parties). In order to establish that mutual agreement, the actual base needs of life must be addressed as well as the issues of joy/happiness/pleasure.

I think it can be all addressed best under a Constitution that is a little like that of the original USA (but without the loopholes). To understand exactly why it must fit a particular form requires an understanding of the true needs and joys of life. Unfortunately, that seems to be the hold up preventing people from already doing it. After those needs are studied, a hard-line substructure allows for the fruitful and joy promoting amendments to be added.

The end result, by my study was a government that is almost non-existent. Instead small groups of 10-75 people formed their own constitutional organization. Every small group has the same substructure, but all amendments are determined independently by each group. This allows for extreme diversity in life styles with each group taking care of its own needs as it sees fit. An extreme liberal group can exist right beside an extreme conservative group without conflict. The substructure of constitution is enforced by a group that does nothing but enforce constitutional agreement and has no other authority (the anti-cancer monitor). This constitutional, anti-cancer method can be enforced by other interesting means, void of military interventions.

The end global structure is that of a "democratic aggregate of micro-republics" - very small republics.

It is critically important that the substructure (the fundamental constitution) be exactly right, else the tiniest flaw (as with all governments) will allow for corruption (the cancer). My effort at such a constitution is posted; Constitution of Rational Harmony. The strategy behind it is a very long story. It has been installed in a small group in Oregon a few years ago, but they were only 6 weeks from disbanding due to funding, so it never really got started.

The strategy that we call "Life" is the fundamental issue. Each life is a constitution and in my version of governing, each constitution is a life. They each are designed to automatically learn and develop under their own rule and at their own pace. I believe the strategy involved, much like that of life itself, is the strongest possible against disharmony, distrust, and corruption from outsiders, insiders, or from natural disaster. I don't think you can get any better in form than life itself.

The process of life that requests such a constitution is;

Clarify, Verify, and Remember the Hopes and Threats that inspire the Maximum Momentum of Eternal Joy.

To accomplish that with a group requires many commonly understood efforts tied together in ways very similar to the human body as well as the original US Constitution (but much smaller and many more of them). Political Science nor Religion could ever challenge the design with anything better.
=============================================================

victorel21 wrote:What would prevent this small states to join together and form bigger states and the disband?

The key to all of it (and life) is that they each must have exposed reasoning for all they choose to do. That means that if they chose to do it, they had a reason that they not only have documented, but it is up for debate at all times. So if there is some valid reasoning as to why they should NOT do whatever and that reasoning can be shown to be truly more rational (which can be done in most cases due to the Rational Debating process), the alternate motion passes.

The point is that no matter what "they" choose, they merely have to have legitimate rationale for choosing it. Every choice is about rationality. And if they do, then there must be a good reason for doing it.

victorel21 wrote:Why would anyone pay taxes to substantiate anothers persons lifestyle that they do not agree with, conservatives and communist?

Is there a valid reason as to why they should? Just introduce whatever the reason, and it either stands up to rational criticism or it doesn't. Again, the key is Rational Debating (wherein logic is supervised for form, not truth value). If high level taxation stands up to reason, then everyone has reason to stand up for it. If it doesn't then no one has reason to do it. If you want everyone to do your idea of good, then you had better have a damn good foundation for your case.

An even better concern is that even if all of the wrong choices are made, like a seed up righting itself, through time each group learns through its documenting and updating through reasoning. When documented (remembered) reasoning builds upon itself.

victorel21 wrote:I believe you have dealt with this by saying that we should mold peoples behaviour to be more rational, is this possible? If so why and how or are you just being hypothtical?

This "molding" happens automatically, without effort. Even right now as you discuss with me, you are learning toward being more rational than you were already. The mere obligation to use rational or logical argument to defend an issue, causes the person to learn how to do it better and be more beholding to it. People become more intelligent merely by being involved.

victorel21 wrote:You must be aware that often pleasure is based on trivial things, material possesion or substances that trigger a desired response, (drugs, food, ect.) Since resources are depleting this would mean that at some point basing the goverment on these things is going to inevitably lead to a struggle of resources.

The question is about how any such struggles are to be handled. Are they to be by conflict, hidden agendas, and deceptions, or are they to be about rational, open, honest thought?

victorel21 wrote:Also on the same note if you maintain capitalism as a economic model, you are going to experience the same booms and busts that the curent system is, since every decision would be made to maximize profits, (pleasure).

The current economic problems are entirely due to hidden efforts to use people against their will and having to maintain false incentives.

But regardless of what happens, again, the question is merely are you more in favor of hidden, deceptive politicking, or open rational debate (not political debate)?

victorel21 wrote:In the busts the republics will inevitably detached from the central goverment, and refuse to pay taxes among other things to other states that do not follow their system. This would be done rather easily since their is no concrete idea of goverment.

Is there better reason to do it that way or a different way? Whichever way has the more rational argument behind it... has the more rational argument behind it. Why would you want to do the less rational thing?

victorel21 wrote:Having said this it is very good idea of goverment and would certainly last longer than demosophy but in crises small republics will be predisposed to leave the central goverment for all of them will accuse other republics lifestyles for their demise.

Accusations become pointless unless they can be rationally substantiated and lead to a more rational change. It is hard to not think in the old political ways, but remember everything is dependent on coming up with actual rationale for doing it. And if it really has better rationale than any other idea proposed, why wouldn't you be doing it? The alternative is always that you do what is less rational - more foolish.

But in addition, just imagine that you, right now, have some 20 people with whom to collaborate for all of your needs and theirs. You and they are restricted to logically/rationally supporting any decision made for the group. The ideas of what to do can be anything from anywhere. They merely must prove themselves before rational criticism against an incumbent idea. Do you honestly think that you are better off on your own amongst a nation of millions where things are controlled by passion politics and secretive agendas that you cannot even track and might or might not be to your favor?

The Constitution of Rational Harmony allows everyone to have substantial family/community support and the opportunity to switch families if you simply cannot see eye to eye with their reasoning. And every child can see exactly what the reasoning was for everything its parents and grandparents did (and are doing).

The alternatives are to continue to be merely a human asset for other people's effort to be wealthy and powerful at your expense in hopes that they have more use for you than your replacement.
===============================================================

allanquartz wrote:

James S Saint wrote:
But regardless of what happens, again, the question is merely are you more in favor of hidden, deceptive politicking, or open rational debate (not political debate)?

Of course, everyone on this forum is in favour of rational debate but I doubt the majority of people are. And this is one of the problems philosophers since Socrates face when trying to devise a system for organising human society, they always refer back to the rational mind of humans as though it is a given. But lets face, it humans are irrational creatures capable of rational thought, not the other way around. The rational thing for a philosopher to do would be to devise a system that best uses the irrationality of humans to come to a rational outcome. Or devise a system that only allows rational thought.

Excellent point.

The beauty of each Constitution (CRH) is that it applies only to the few members of each group and doesn't apply at all to those without a group. If you and perhaps the other members of this forum were to band together so as to support all of your lives through such a rational decision making process, how much would you really care about what other people use to make their decisions? I'm certain there is a need to care to some degree, but the CRH allows for other people (the "irrational") to do as they choose to do while any small group chooses to do better for itself. Is there a need for the rational people to suffer under the constraints imposed by the irrational?

The CRH does not presume the ancient and ever lasting sin of forcing the masses to conform to what the elite believe to be wiser. The elite might very well be correct in what they think, but forcing people or tricking them against their will merely propagates the ignorance and in the long run creates disharmony, misery, dissension, and war. The CRH does not assume that tricking the irrational people into compliance is wise, but nor does it forbid it. The CRH merely requires that if such a notion is to be accepted, it must stand to rational debate and prove itself as not only a good idea, but the best idea available. And it must constantly maintain that position throughout its reign despite the vast updating of ideas and evolution of situations.

Every good idea must maintain its goodness or be immediately replaced with the better. I am certain that at times, the older good idea would return as the new good idea as situations changed. That is what being conscious is all about - being alert and changing to suit the situation.

If you had a small group of rational friends all dedicated to serving the group through such a rational process, even if nothing else was different in the world, would you be better off than you are now? It only takes one such small group.

You see, if even a single group demonstrates that group rationality and the CRH work to cause the harmony of its members as well as propel the entire group into stronger and more promising life, don't you think those watching might get the hint even if they are still a little irrational themselves? It isn't really a question of homosapians being innately irrational. It is a question of "monkey see, monkey do".

===============================================================

finishedman wrote:Being rational is relative to what people want. When you want something that’s when you think and rationalize getting what you want. Then you can define being irrational in opposition to that.

That is the immature perspective.

When a child makes excuses to get what he wants (not really knowing why he really wants it), it is called "rationalizing". That word really means merely making up some seemingly rational story to justify your passions.

Rationality refers to actually having logically indisputable reasons for your actions. It requires that you have a chosen (and documented in this case) goal and debate-proof steps to get to that goal. "Making excuses" won't cut it.

finishedman wrote:When one forgoes his personal wants for the need to maintain an overall concept of rationality among all, he’s trying to be un-rational at best, neither thinking this way nor that.

The need to comply to the vast many is what is being removed by the CRH. If you personally don't see the rationale of the small group of which you are a member, you are free to go find another more to your liking or even go start your own. It is much like changing jobs when you no longer feel hope in what you are doing. With the CRH, you are free to go start your own business.
==============================================================

Archangel wrote:@JSS... Your system, governed by the Constitution of Rational Harmony, as i undertand it, assumes humans as ideal Vulcans.

You would think so, wouldn't you? But it really doesn't. You see it doesn't really matter if the people cannot think rationally when they begin the effort. It is only required that they try enough to utilize the system, the CRH. As they attempt to justify their passions, they discover the reasoning behind their own passions. They begin to discover that there really is good rationale for many of the things that they thought were merely hidden desires. ALL passion, all ideas, all "angels" are brought into the light and seen for what they are. Most are far more deserving than they are given credit. But when some passion is seen as not rational, it can only be due to something else being seen as more rational and having proven itself to be so. If it cannot be seen as the best idea available, it cannot be allowed to reign.

Even an animal stops wanting for something when it realizes that something is harming it more than helping it. The CRH helps to bring into the light what is actually helping or harming at a pace that the members can see. It creates a harmony at the very root between the cognitive and the subconscious, the mind and the heart.

Archangel wrote:If the acceptance of that system is voluntary, how would you explain (or convince) people to accept it?

By no more than demonstration and answering questions when asked. Compliance of others and proselytizing is NOT required. Do your internal organs change their ways because other people want your body to function differently or because other people choose to function differently (I imagine you would hope not)?

Archangel wrote:When i try to visualize someone explaining the masses how it's the best system and how it's for their own good, i can see them nodding their heads in approval and agreeing - as soon as the explainer leaves, they get an amnesia and go about their bussiness in the old way, as if nothing happened... We must not forget that most people do first, explain later. If human beings valued rationality as much as it's claimed - that "rational harmony" you're talking about would have been achieved long time ago.

Oh I agree completely. Now what would you imagine takes place when the "explainer" is explaining how it is that this small group is not only healthier and happier, but is also much more wealthy? Do you really think that wealth is gained by being Irrational?

And more importantly, how critical is it that other people do as you do? If I were the explainer, it is only out of compassion that I would explain at all. Why should I care how silly other people choose to be? In general, it would probably make it all the easier to become wealthier for me. I understand the Kabolic ways of using the ignorance and foolishness of others. I just prefer to go a better direction.
===============================================================

finishedman wrote:Okay … so what do you do when your growing child shows a penchant for something not in accordance with your group’s shared beliefs and practices? Dump him off in another group that aligns with the child’s natural endowment, or force it to seek your approval?

With the latter the child is reared learning the need to be approved. Needing approval is tantamount to saying, “Your view of me is more important than my own opinion of myself.” … and where is the harmony in a neurotic adolescent?

You see, the child has no freedom due to the fact that he cannot take care of himself. And don’t you think it would be highly irrational for parents to give up their child to another group? So from the start a child is encased in what is imposed by the parents group.

You should make that bolded part a part of your signature. The use of "fear of disapproval" is oppressive, malignant, and intentional. Embarrassment and reputation are what allows the few to exercise mass influence over the many. But it doesn't merely oppress people into compliance. It also distracts the mind from learning, attending, remembering, and thinking. A person too scared of being rejected cannot allow himself to accept a truth statement that he feels might not be approved by his peers or ethos authority. It is an ancient and predominant means to control both behavior AND thought. It causes anxiety, insecurity, rebellion, and depression. It is the act of a true terrorism governance ("People should never have to fear their government..").

Parental authority, another good issue...

The first question to ALWAYS answer to yourself on any issue;
Do you prefer to;
A) Be allowed to do what YOU believe to be Rational
B) Be force to do what YOU believe to be Irrrational
C) Be forced to do what someone very far away has deduced is the wisest for ALL people to always do?

In the case of child rearing, are you a member of a small group that proposes to let any child of the age of 6 do as they please? age 12? age 18? age 31? OR perhaps (my preferred) after passing a maturity test (AFTER people have learned how to test for such things - could be a while in itself)?

The point isn't which was is THE right way for ALL people. The point is merely of which group do you prefer to be a member realizing that you have direct input as to what the laws are to be. Your "vote" in a sense, is merely 1 out of 20 rather than 1 out of 100 million (or more).

Don't you think that the time for a child to be free from parental rule should be determined by the child's individual need for such? I would think that different group education rules would play a role in such matters as well.

Realize also, that at any age, anyone can introduce any idea to challenge the incumbent ideas. The ideas are not restricted as to where they originate. Thus if a child at the age of 12 years happens to have a brilliant notion (or merely believes that he does), he is welcome to present it (with or without a sponsor helping with his presentation). Such an environment causes automatic learning by the children of exactly why the group is doing what they are doing. The reasoning behind every rule is not merely constantly exposed, but constantly being examined by the most imaginative members for possible improvement. No one has to go out and collect 100,000 votes in a campaign just to attempt to overthrow the House majority leader's prejudiced rulings.

With the CRH, when mistakes are discovered in any method of governing, almost instant changes are forced as soon as it was discovered as a mistake. Nothing can be assessed as a mistake unless something different has been discovered as better. Literally over night, the group can adjust to the wiser method. Within a week, an entire nation might see that same light and be changed. And it all might be by the voice of a 12 year old girl who just happened to see a valid point that no one else had considered.

The BEST ideas rule, NOT the most famous, oldest, or most privileged. "Not invented here" doesn't apply.
==============================================================

finishedman wrote:

JSS wrote:are you a member of a small group that proposes to let any child of the age of 6 do as they please?

Sure why not? They’re not much concerned with why they should conform to anything. They have no thoughts about a better state of affairs to coexist with other kids in. They are completely at terms with life as it is. The world exactly as it is is their world, no desire to change it or themselves and they freely express themselves in it. Not a bad way to live, huh? We could learn a lot from them.

If your group has determined that to be what seems most rational to them and you, who would I be to prevent you from doing it? Your children are NOT my property.

In reality, I imagine that in short order, your group would see more reasoning on the matter, but the point is that YOU get to see the reasoning and YOU get to engage in counter reasoning proposals. It is not reasoning that is forced upon you by outsiders (at times literally on the opposite side of the world). Go try to change the legal age of adulthood - good luck.

The G20 (currently controlling all money throughout the West) must control all things that affect their money.. that includes what children are to think and believe. That is what you are living under currently. But who are the G20? By what priority do they set their standard for child rearing? If you came up with a better idea, could you even get the idea into their hands at all, much less convince them that it was better?

If any one group attempts what you suggest, all groups eventually get to see what happened and thus can then choose for themselves.

The IDEAS compete, not the ARMAMENTS.
===============================================================

victorel21 wrote:Ideas are basically thought processes that achieve what a person wants. in this case: mazimizing pleasure in each group.

Ideas don't necessarily accomplish anything and are often what defeats what a person wants. Ideas are a bit like tools or technology, they serve whoever uses them to the degree and end to which they are used.

victorel21 wrote:Since you have said that a person votes 1 of 20 people (a small group) this means that the groups decision only applies to the people inside the group. Since rationale is that which is more effective to get what you want what is to stop any group concluding that they should kill (war against) other groups as an easy way to get resorces. Will other groups attack back? What if other groups saw killing the prior group the most effective way to mazimize pleasure.

Again, the first thing to ask yourself concerning any issue...
Do you prefer to;
A) Be allowed to do what YOU believe to be Rational
B) Be force to do what YOU believe to be Irrrational
C) Be forced to do what someone very far away has deduced is the wisest for ALL people to always do?

In the case of thoughts of war. Do you want to be conscripted into a war that someone far away chose to make into war without even knowing why or what you are really fighting about (Vietnam)?

If your group has chosen to go to war, they have to have published their reason for doing so and any opposing ideas have been rationally defeated. Thus the suggestion is that they really should be going to war since no one can come up with a reason NOT to.

But in addition, by the thought that others might instigate war with or without reason, it makes sense that other groups would take rational measures to defend themselves in the most rational way. Why would you want them to do anything else? Currently in the US, the government has altered to make it illegal for citizens to defend themselves in any respect at all. That has happened because THEY worked out rationale that suited THEM, but you didn't. They now keep you irrational, confused, misinformed - weak and subjugated.

The CRH merely introduces a mechanism that enforces rational thought (and thus behavior) for ALL people without presuming what it is that is rational for all people. It allows for them to figure that out for themselves while remaining a team and a community/family.

The mechanism simulates the living, thinking process, but as a group, a living entity made of living people (rather than the machines being designed to replace you).

victorel21 wrote:Since the objective is to maximize personal pleasure in any group, it means that the ideas will be geared towards that.

Don't leave out the issue of survival so that such "pleasure" (I prefer "joy") can be obtained. The real measurable target is the maximum integral sum under the curve of measured joy. Without measurement, progress gets very difficult. The Science of Joy is crucial in designing a heavenly environment.

victorel21 wrote:...Not only would ideas compete but so would the individual pleasure of each group as well. If there are no constraints in this then this could lead to war as war could be seen as the most rationale, most effective way, to get what you want.

By who's rationale is that?? Certainly not mine. If your group chooses to war with mine for "fun", you can pretty much bet I am going to ensure that it is going to be far from fun for your group.

Not only that, but all I really have to do is introduce a contrary idea concerning more joy through peace (easy enough to do) and your group is obliged to debate the validity and conform to the better rationale. War is almost never the truly better idea. War comes about due to Socialism - the effort to control more than your share of life.

victorel21 wrote:This you then say not be rationale but rationalizing:

JSS wrote:finishedman wrote:
"Being rational is relative to what people want. When you want something that’s when you think and rationalize getting what you want. Then you can define being irrational in opposition to that. "

That is the immature perspective.

When a child makes excuses to get what he wants (not really knowing why he really wants it), it is called "rationalizing". That word really means merely making up some seemingly rational story to justify your passions.

Rationality refers to actually having logically indisputable reasons for your actions. It requires that you have a chosen (and documented in this case) goal and debate proof steps to get to that goal.

Politics is about getting what you want and the system is geared towards that objective.

Currently, that is what you are living under - political decision making based on passion voting and deceptive manipulating of the masses for the benefit of aristocratic overlords.

victorel21 wrote:Who has a logically indisputable reason for their actions? What is absolutely and perfectly good? What is indisputable goodness? It will all depends on the person which is asked since the system is geared towards maximizing pleasure.

Perhaps you misunderstand something;

Rationale refers to the logical steps laid out to achieve a chosen goal. The goal itself is not subject to logic unless it is some former rational sub-goal. Example;

What are we to eat for dinner tonight, pizza?
I don't like pizza, what else do we have?
Well, we can have hamburgers instead
Okay, I like hamburgers
Okay, done, hamburgers it is.

Now, believe or not, that was a rational process, not because hamburgers are better for you or superior in any way other than the revealed fact that they were preferred over pizza by the only people involved. Would your group be deciding every meal for every one? I would hope not. Thus what is rational is up to those involved and INCLUDES their passions/desires. The logical part of the process was merely the discovery of what was available and the short discussion of who preferred which. Both were willing to have hamburgers, THEREFORE hamburgers it is.

Someone could foil the simplicity of those two by introducing the more complex issue of health or physique. If those ideas are introduced, then again, they include those thoughts into deciding which final choice to make consider ALL that they want, not merely which tastes better.

The smaller the group, the more diversity is available. The larger the group, the more founded the decisions but less tailored to individual needs. The needs of the one can easily outweigh the needs of a small group, but almost never the needs of a larger group.

victorel21 wrote:Also how rational any society is would depend on how well educated that society is, but is not education a sort of conditioning students are taught what they "need to know", who would determine this? How are you adressing this?

That issue is first constitutionally addressed by demanding that an understanding of the constitution itself is required (as noted in article (1)). But after that, it is up to the group to rationally decide how much of which education is most rational for their situation. Would it make sense to have farmers studying finance, medicine, physics, religion, basket weaving, scuba diving...? What suits people in one region is not what suits people in another. Let them decide which education is best for them as long as they maintain a learning mechanism so that they can discover and correct for any prior poor choices.

victorel21 wrote:This form of goverment is very similar to one I had in mine one which is self actualizing but the problem is that then there is no central form of goverment apart from the ideology that every person should be rational. However, what is a rationale want? The only one I can think of is gaining knowledge,(innate curiousity).

Rational desires are those that maintain the harmony between what you think and what you have urge to do. Creating wild urges is easy and serves your masters. But such urges must be divided from your rational thoughts if you are going to continue serving an interest that is not serving you. What serves you best (the MOST rational) is that which keeps you in harmony with yourself - mind and heart harmony. That which stays in harmony CANNOT perish.

victorel21 wrote:But why should a monkey do something if it does not get him what he wants?

The CRH ensures that the monkey doesn't even try until he decides that it IS what he wants. The idea being discussed at that time was why anyone would comply. I stated that you let them see a demo of how it works and If they like what they see (you being more wealthy than they) THEY will decide to do what works on their own - no force necessary.

The real-world issue is that people tend to want to USE other people's weaknesses in order to gain power for themselves. The CRH defeats selfishness at its core.

victorel21 wrote:"Desire is the source of all irrationality,"

Even more specifically, PRESUMPTION is the source of all error in desire.
==============================================================

allanquartz wrote:

James S Saint wrote:
The end result, by my study was a government that is almost non-existent. Instead small groups of 10-75 people formed their own constitutional organization. Every small group has the same substructure, but all amendments are determined independently by each group. This allows for extreme diversity in life styles with each group taking care of its own needs as it sees fit. An extreme liberal group can exist right beside an extreme conservative group without conflict. The substructure of constitution is enforced by a group that does nothing but enforce constitutional agreement and has no other authority (the anti-cancer monitor). This constitutional, anti-cancer method can be enforced by other interesting means, void of military interventions.

The end global structure is that of a "democratic aggregate of micro-republics" - very small republics.

Ok, this structure looks workable, "As long as the higher governance merely ensures that the lower groupings are following a rational learning process." But where are these groupings situated? Are each group segregated, with their own means of subsistence?

Preferably, but not necessarily. It always depends on what is most rational by their own openly viewable assessment. The same three concerns apply to every issue;

Do you prefer to;
A) Be allowed to do what YOU believe to be Rational
B) Be force to do what YOU believe to be Irrrational
C) Be forced to do what someone very far away has deduced is the wisest for ALL people to always do?

In the case of how connected and dependent you are to your group, I would think that the more connected you are the better, but hey, who ever said I dictate rationality. Maybe it is wiser that some groups are very loosely connected. I know it is important than some members be a member of more than one group. This is what allows for absolute security against "social cancer" (people pretending to be what they aren't).

The inter-connectivity of groups has a sane scheme to it, "4-dimensional stitching". But that is not a requirement of the Constitution because the CRH concerns itself merely with the fundamental binding element. The inter-connectivity ends up, rationally, looking very similar, but such is not required to be designed before hand. Let Reality lead the way once you have a means for following it - CRH. The groups figure out on their own how to best communicate and cooperate and to what degree.

allanquartz wrote:If they are segregated, how are the consequences of one group which adversely affect another group controlled? For example, one group builds a dam that stops the flow of water, which is the only source of water for the group downstream? It would be rational to control a resource for the benefit of your own group.

Again;
Do you prefer to;
A) Be allowed to do what YOU believe to be Rational
B) Be force to do what YOU believe to be Irrrational
C) Be forced to do what someone very far away has deduced is the wisest for ALL people to always do?

In the case of diminished resources...
Currently there are public parks. Why? Who made that decision? Wasn't it the result of proposing an action and having people debate the pros and cons until a decision was made? The park serves whom?

If a group of all males somehow decided that going around raping all of the females in the other groups was their most rational course of action, what do you imagine would be the first thing that would really happen once they tried? Many groups can cooperate as they see fit. But the point is that it is how THEY see fit, not how one small group over in a foreign land sees fit.

If ten groups recognize the danger coming from one group, what is to stop those ten from exercising against that one? Wouldn't that be RATIONAL?

Now if the ten for some reason could not protect themselves from the one, don't you think you would have been screwed anyway? Isn't that happening to the degree it can already? How are you any more protected under any other scheme? Currently any such decisions are made at best in the same way, but usually not even as well because some masters don't really care (the G20) and many prefer such conflicts as it allows for them to manipulate and extort from their human property/resource (fear is a great motivator for free human energy/money).

The point is that each group does merely what seems to make the most sense. They are merely being required to document and uphold their reasoning for doing so. Nothing is bared except insanity. Form 100 groups into an army if that seems to be the most rational thing to do. But disband it as soon as that seem more rational.
===============================================================
allanquartz wrote:

JSS wrote:

victorel21 wrote:...Not only would ideas compete but so would the individual pleasure of each group as well. If there are no constraints in this then this could lead to war as war could be seen as the most rationale, most effective way, to get what you want.

By who's rationale is that?? Certainly not mine. If your group chooses to war with mine for "fun", you can pretty much bet I am going to ensure that it is going to be far from fun for your group.

Not only that, but all I really have to do is introduce a contrary idea concerning more joy through peace (easy enough to do) and your group is obliged to debate the validity and conform to the better rationale. War is almost never the truly better idea. War comes about due to Socialism - the effort to control more than your share of life.

So would there be a mechanism for introducing a topic of debate into another group?

Well I think the easiest would start with something like, "Hey YOU over there, why don't you..."

Don't make it harder than it is. If no one in a group thinks that an outside idea is worth representing to the Senate, I suspect the idea isn't going to make it regardless. Unfortunately there might really be valid times or circumstances wherein outside voices really shouldn't be heard for a time (most rationally speaking). I would think that most of the time, by far, the idea of hearing outside voices would be seen as more rational from the get go. Hearing only one's own voice is a very hard case to defend. The group is a living entity. I suspect it has rational cause to be a social being, not a hermit.

Even when people form groups that only speak in private, they unknowingly delude themselves into false presumptions, misunderstandings, and condemnations. Being closed, is an insidious way to create insanity yet it IS what is controlling Man today. Do you ever get to see WHY the G20 or the Homeland Security makes their decisions? Yet those people control your lives. You can't give them valid feedback until you know their reasoning.

I think the issue is really one of having any idea being represented by a member. A group that allows outsiders to invade their parliament irresponsibly, is asking for trouble (much like never banning anyone regardless of them flooding your server). It would be like foreign nationals making your laws for you (oh yeah, that is the way it is now, huh ).

I would prefer to leave that issue to the groups to discern the most rational way to handle it. If some group got too closed off and became a problem, I am sure the other groups could wake them up.
==============================================================

victorel21 wrote:
Very well by definition your system is perfect since nothing is constant and abides with the general rule of existence that everything changes.

Your system could last forever and never fail.
JSS wrote:The CRH defeats selfishness at its core.

Selfishness is an inhenrent constant on all humans, helping others stems from the need to cooperate to achieve certain goals, ultimately it is still due to an assumed personal benefit. Which leads me to this.

Your system will likely never fail, since it does not establish failure.
However, it does not prevent actions such as war to take place, instead it lets people by trial and error to find out for themselves what is more convinient to them. This trial and error process makes for an unnecessary waste of resources. For example, let us say a group fights another, a lot of people die, resources are tarnished, war is established as irrational and thus not rational.

The current generation will have a far more vivid notion of what war is but the next generations will have an ever dimished notion of what war is like since they are less affected. Over generations this "fear" of war will disappear and lead to another war.

Since the system fails to prevent events that happen it will at some point be replaced with something else.

General rule of motivation: the human being will always seek to order the disorder.

JSS wrote:PRESUMPTION is the source of all error in desire.
Seeing that you use presumption often, could you define presumption for future reference seeing that we are likely to engage in discusion quite often.

I can see that I need to address some common definition issues. There is a common misunderstanding about the concept of "selfish" and "selfless".

Selfish == being concerned solely with oneself
Selfless == having no concern for oneself

Those are two extremes. No being can be either extreme unless in a very protected environment (created by the other extreme).

The normal homosapian (or any creature for that matter) is primarily concerned with what it perceives as itself. But that endeavor in social creatures immediately requires that the needs of others be taken into consideration. The act of trading items for items is a sign of social consideration ("Mutualism") wherein a person gives in order to get. That is the natural state of homosapian.

If the homosapian was truly selfish by nature, he would very much resist the notion of giving anything at all even in order to get because that is what "selfish" means. In a threatened environment, most creatures will be more concerned about taking than giving due to the heightened threat. Due to being pushed to an extreme of survival, they cannot afford the risk of giving if there is any chance they can get without giving anything up. But that does NOT constitution selfishness. It merely points out what the higher priority is, not the sole priority.

Every creature should, in fact, have its highest priority its "self". But the problem is in identifying exactly what that is. In the process of identifying what your "self" actually is, you discover that it isn't merely within you, but is in many people. A small example would be your desire to be free. That desire is a part of what makes up your "self". But that desire is not merely within you, it is in very many people. When you attempt to preserve your "self", you must attempt to preserve the "desire to be free". And you preserve it by preserving what secures it. You preserve the ability to be free in abstract form and thus you preserve freedom for all, not merely yourself. That is what was meant by your soul (the abstract fundamental "you") surviving past your death. Such an act is nether selfISH nor selfLESS it is a proper self concern that happens to include any others with similar concern. It is empathy; "Mutualism".

Compassion is born out of wise self interest.
Selfishness is born out of foolish self interest.

But now with that in mind realize that the groups are themselves each a living creature (and together form an even higher living creature => "Ahdam"; "Man"). They too must (in order to maintain rationality) have sympathy for other such groups because it must maintain the abstract ability to be what it is. That means that every group has an innate rational requirement to support any other group's right to obey their own CRH. That is identical to the democratic countries supporting the right (and ability) for other countries to be democratic (but not forcing them to be).

So merely by being obligated to be rational, there is no need to require further demand to be considerate of others. The consideration of others, Mutualism, is an innate part of being logically, rationally, self-interested (not self-ISH).

And;
Presumption == action based on assumption; action taken before verification of assessment.
===============================================================

victorel21 wrote:Fair enough but their is one thought I would like you to mull over. The groups as you establish are about 20 people, but this is unlikely to be the case. As people diversify and get ever more distinct jobs a doctor a dentist. This groups out of neccesity will have to grow in other to maximize the efficiency of their work. (It is more efficient, time wise, to grow crops in large portions thant to grow your own food, subsitence farming.) It is also more practical since it allows people to exercise other functions within society other than growing their own food.

Groups out of neccesity are likely to be far bigger than what you envision, they will probably look more like a small town, 10,000. It is even likely that big suburbs are created for the same reason. In this case you would inevitably have to deal with criminality, what would the group do then? Arent their any restrictions to what a group might do? For example, kill the criminals.

I think you have missed a critical point (easy to do considering how many there are). The sizing is not an arbitrary issue. It is in fact what has killed every republic throughout the history of Man - over extension of presumed authority.

As per the Constitution Article 7;
7) Limit of Rational Authority (Extent Issue)
The number of members governed by this constitution shall not exceed the ability of the Representative office to properly represent all members.

Although that limit is very loosely phrased, it is one of the most critical issues in the entire Constitution. Primitive man, back in the passion politics days (your era and before), failed to realize that authority is strictly an issue of situation. It is not who has the bigger gun, greater technology or covenant. It is always determined by the situation and nothing else. Your true situation is your true God.
>Do not grasp for what is not within your reach.

When a part of your body loses sensory contact, that part tends to atrophy and die. The reason is that portions of a body that cannot communicate their status well enough cannot be compensated properly. When a government presumes one representative for 1000 people, there is very little actual representation that can happen. The real situation of the people is not really known by the government. Security and surveillance cameras attempt to follow every movement and every word spoken, but until they can speak to you and you to them, you are still not being represented "properly" and rationally. Psychological and sociological formulas do not really fill in the gaps despite such attempts.

Proper social networking is what allows sufficient flow of representation to a governing body of the people. If Sally stubbed her toe, there should be proper communication to and from Sally to ensure that her situation is not compromised. The true state and needs of every member should be very much the concern of the governing body because that is the very purpose of their existence. Such things as Homelessness should be an impossibility. That means that you cannot have 1000 people being represented by one person and mere statistics numbers and expect for life to be harmonious.

Good governing means close, well informed representation (extremely well informed by the standards of your day). Decisions that affect people should be decisions that were very considerate of their actual individual situation, not universal, global rules that most often don't really apply to most people. The many must be represented by the many, NOT the few. There is a ratio of the number of people being represented and the number of people governing. The Representative office must be a very large portion of the total group (15-20%) to ensure that the real situation of needs is properly known and handled.
>The people ARE the government.

Another issue that you seem to be misunderstanding is the primitive idea that every group should be independent, having its own medical staff, firemen, teachers, lawyers, plumbers, farmers,... Such isolation efforts tend to undermine harmony and tend to be quite impossible. The wiser plan is not to attempt to do all things yourself, but rather ensure that you have both multiple sources for your needs as well as a means of ensuring those sources. In preparation for emergencies, small local sources should be kept alive, but the group should not expect to be able to live totally off of local sources for all things. Do you manufacture your own tires or do you carry a spare?

Specialization of differing groups is not only expected, but very important to ensure. All people cannot be good at all things. And when they try, they end up being not really good at any. Groups must be allowed (through trade of resources) to specialize so as to become extra good at specific tasks. Groups should be no more all encompassing in their life than an individual person is. Who during your time can really expertly do all of life's requirements all on their own - doctor, lawyer, carpenter, farmer, father, mother, teacher,...? How efficient would your lungs be if they had to also function as your ears and feet? Just as no man is an island, no CRH group is a country.
>Let groups specialize by trading and rational interdependency.

====================================================================

victorel21 wrote:It seems you have everything well planned out, let us wait until WWIII ends to implement it. The only way in which people are going to follow anything new is by seeing their current system fail and even then the vast majority of the old population will try to retain it. (The elite). I still sense it needs some poolishing but I will mull over it better and more throughly so i do not miss any points.

Oh you are right. People never act until it is too late and most have died struggling in futility. But that happens for reason that will soon end.

And yes, it can use some polish. But it was written with adding to it in mind. It is supposed to be merely the most fundamental skeleton. In that way, more people can utilize it in more diverse ways and yet all begin to head toward the rationality, the sanity.

You can be assured that such a constitution is the future. What you must doubt is whether homosapian will choose to be in that future at all. Evolution above all else, is a choice, and so is extinction.

How God Creates

2010-05-28T09:15:00.000-07:00

Infinite similarity or absolute homogeneity is logically impossible and thus truly empty space cannot ever exist anywhere at any time in any amount.

Trying to explain "how God works" is what people have been trying to figure out for thousands of years. When someone figures it out, they seldom shout it out, but rather choose to hide it because they don't want others to know. "Information is power" - almost.

If you ask how anything works, you might get an explanation. But then from that explanation, you can ask again how each part of the explanation works. From that, you can ask again, and again.

Eventually you begin to see that you are really asking how everything works even though you only started with one thing, because down at the very bottom of it all, you find principles that apply to everything, not merely the one thing you were asking about.

But still pursuing, you finally come across a principle of how things work that seems to have no explanation. It "just is". That is where most brilliant men stop. How much more do you really need to know?

You can ask why does gravity work. Science, currently won't tell you except to say, "it just does" but that is not to say that there really isn't any explanation. It just means that there is a limit to rational questioning of how and why.

I could answer your question with, "God works by creating distinction", but without showing you the entire road map as to how that action creates all else, how would you believe me or even really understand what I meant.

You might just ask, "But how does God create distinction?" But the answer to that one isn't really a "how", rather more of a "why is there distinction", because distinction doesn't get created so much as redistributed, like energy that cannot be created or destroyed, but rather merely changed in form. So from where did it come?

The Mathematics
The mathematical probability of a truly empty volume of space of any size at all, is zero. Empty space cannot ever exist anywhere at any time.

For something to exist only requires that there be distinction between points. In fact, it is distinction that makes them points. But how could any 2 points be infinitely identical? How could all points within a volume of space be infinitely identical? They can’t.

Infinity is an interesting concept. No matter how infinitely close in comparison something might be to something else, there is always still another infinite potential distinction to examine. In effect, no 2 points can ever be infinitely identical in any way because infinity can never be reached by anything in any way.

From this thought, we can deduce that at no time has the universe ever been a nothingness, nor can it ever become a nothingness. The universe could never have begun nor can it ever end.

Distinction and energy both "come from" the same source - logical necessity (i.e. “God”).

Logical necessity is not the same as rational necessity wherein something has a purpose that necessitates something so as to serve the purpose. Logical necessity refers to how/why it is that a big box cannot fit inside a small box. It is a matter of definitions.

Logical necessity is a matter of defining/identifying one thing in regards to another and thus making distinction. In so doing, a man "creates truth". Truth is not reality, but rather a mental model of reality. When the model in the mind matches the reality, it is called “truth”. So you really have the physical reality and the mental truth, both being created by making distinction. In the physical sense, the universe gets created. In the mental sense, a mind gets created.

Distinction - why is it that a thing cannot also be what it isn't?

Because it "just is" - "I am that I am" (or more properly "It is what it is").

Relative Sizing
If one focuses on even an infinitely small distinction and then creates all else relative to that size, the initial distinction will be significant and thus no longer infinitely small. Size is relative. Is a mountain big or small? Relative to you, it is big, but relative to a galaxy, it is minuscule. You will never really be able to see the atoms of which you are made because relative to you, they are minuscule.

All creation is made from minuscule distinction that can never be absent. It can never be absent because of logical/mathematical necessity, “God”. The universe never began, but merely changes form.

Priorities and Morals

2010-05-26T09:47:00.000-07:00

Priorities are [to be] based on the effort to accomplish ones highest goal. They are the rules of play so as to achieve the greatest accomplishment as chosen by oneself.

To even begin discerning priorities, one must first establish the exact highest goal to be sought. This establishes the purpose of priorities and morals and a basis for discerning them.

Purpose
Most people can recognize that an eternal life of the highest achievable joy would be the highest possible goal. It includes the innate concern for survival as well as the innate sense for joy. That joy might be derived by a variety of means which to others might not seem joyful at all, but if it is the highest achievable by the one striving for it then no other means could compete.

Joy is actually felt by the internal sense of making progress toward inner sought goals such as sexual advancement, food, health, wealth, friendly environment, and all of the recognized associations to those instinctive pursuits.

To feel that sense of progress eternally is the challenge and benchmark for establishing priorities. To disobey a moral is to invite death. The priorities must be derived as a certain set of rules that will maintain this purpose, thus;

·> Highest Priority Purpose == Eternal Joy

To keep this in mind when making decisions is our first priority and thus our personal first moral law. To disobey the keeping of this in mind, is to invite death or at least an eternal lack of joy.

Basic Strategy
The basic strategy for accomplishing eternal joy yields the priorities and morals to be established. Since joy is established by sensing progress, the question becomes, “how do I make progress toward the eternal sense of making progress?”

The easy part of this is in finding activities that bring a sense of instinctive progress (joy). The difficulty is finding a set of such activities that also lead to eternal life.

If any activity could be known to lead to eternal life, then making that activity joyous would yield the desired goal and purpose. Causing something healthy to feel joyous is much easier than causing something joyous to actually be healthy.

If, for example, drinking coffee each day had the potential to cause eternal life by perfecting the immune system, then learning to enjoy drinking coffee would be well worth the effort and is quite achievable. Finding exactly what foods to consume is what establishes “orthodox foods” but isn’t as easy as many have assumed in the past. Thus it makes sense to first examine what is required (by Reality itself) to establish eternal life.

- Eternal Life
In concept, anything that remains in self-harmony cannot perish. This is necessarily true because being in self-harmony means that there is nothing disintegrating or being pressed into breaking apart. Such disintegration is required if anything is to perish. Thus it can be immediately seen that establishing and maintaining self-harmony is a fundamental stratagem.

·> Eternal Self-Harmony == Eternal Life

So the next step is to establish exactly what constitutes harmony for oneself and then exactly what can be done to maintain that harmony eternally.

-- Life; Inner Harmony
Your inner harmony is defined by what your actual life is within you. That life, by whatever means it was established, is an effort to maintain itself void of disruptive conflict. It inspires one to breath, to eat, to shelter, and to propagate (to establish harmonious surroundings of the same make).

The many instincts involved are all aimed already toward accomplishing the highest goal of eternal harmony or eternal life. But eternal life is so difficult to accomplish that instincts alone cannot achieve it. As the mind develops varied strategies in pursuit of instinctive goals, conflicts arise within. The mind develops even more complex means to balance and manage instinctive urges so as to accomplish the most benefit at any one time. It is due to this that humans have a developed consciousness (awareness) designed to ascertain good (favoring the goal) from bad (disfavoring the goal) beyond instincts and even outside of the internal workings of the body.

Inner disharmony is created when the desires stemming from instinctive urges conflict as they compete for perceived progress. Joy is felt when progress is perceived to be made by any of the instinctive urges and misery is felt when such an urge is thwarted. Thus the priorities that are to relate to inner harmony are directly concerned with the inner management of oneself.

Many efforts have been advised by man throughout history to try to raise the level of inner harmony only to find that their environment disallows its continuance. Many retreat to high mountains and caves to escape the interference from others in this pursuit. But everyone cannot be isolated upon a mountain or in a cave.

Thus it is left to the conscious mind to ascertain what outside activities would advance the instinct’s already accepted goal of eternal life and harmony and what priorities and rules to follow (morals) so as to simplify the pursuit while in the presence of others.

-- Life; External Harmony
Your external harmony is defined by what activities you involve so as to maintain your “self” (the inner activity that defines you).

Your external life involves the seeking of shelter, gathering of foods, socializing, acquiring tools (money), and even participating in entertainment so as to gain that inner sense of progress even when actual progress cannot be obtained.

The morals relating to external behavior are thus all about what you should do so as to be able to establish and maintain your inner harmony while in the presence of interferences.

Priorities for All Life
If inner harmony is to be maintained, and it must be in order to survive and know joy, then it is critical that one remain alert to possible critical dangers to ones harmony. Thus we have a priority established through logical reasoning;

·> Stay alert to possible critical Threats to ones harmony (life). To disobey this moral leads to death.

But what good is it to know of a critical threat if there is no plan of action to deal with the threat? Thus we have yet another priority deduced through logical reasoning;

·> Stay alert to possible Hopes for ones harmony. Again, to disobey this moral leads to death.

But then there is the concern that being alert is something we are limited in accomplishing. Our perception can be fooled all too easily. If we believe in a threat or a hope that is not real, we can die anyway because we missed the real threat or real hope. Thus yet another priority;

·> Strive to Clarify our perception and/or understanding. Again, to disobey this is to invite death.

The effort to clarify our perceptions can be so easily foiled, especially by others who intelligently deceive, we must still do more to ensure that clarity;

·> Strive to Verify our perception and/or understanding. Again, to disobey is to invite death by misunderstanding the real threat or hope.

Accuracy is crucial and it is by close examination that we perceive the progress being made that yields our joy, hence;

·> Strive to Measure our situation. Again, to disobey is to invite death by misunderstanding the real threat or hope.

Then also, everything takes time to accomplish and without quality memory, we lose sight of what we were trying to accomplish;

·> Strive to Remember the details in our life. Again, to disobey is to invite death by misunderstanding the real threat or hope.

All of these morals so far are about being aware of ones situation. They say nothing as to what to actually do about it. Doing anything is an issue of having influence. Thus it can be said;

·> Strive to have the Influence necessary to ensure your harmony. And again, to disobey this moral is to invite death.

All of these other than to verify and to keep the highest goal in mind, are instinctive in all living things. Verification of perception and keeping the highest goal in mind, although very slightly instinctive are things that require a higher mind than most creatures are capable of achieving.

Thus for humans a single moral, although wordy, can be stated that encompasses all of these stated so far;

Clarify, Verify, measure, and Remember the Hopes and Threats Concerning Greater Influence toward the Self-Harmony of Eternal Joyous Life.

The ONLY Cause of Misery and Death
Rationally that one complicated sentence reveals the highest priority and moral for humankind and to disobey it is to invite misery and death not only to oneself, but to those surrounding as well. Not obeying this moral to perfection is the ONLY cause of misery and death.

Acquiring influence presents quite a problem because by one person trying to acquire influence, he necessarily takes sole influence away from another. This leads to the age old and very common contest between all life forms seen throughout history as each life somewhat blindly strives to be free of all else yet keep all else in harmony with itself.

The philosophies and religions of mankind have primarily been about this one morality of how to maintain sufficient influence (by whatever means) to maintain eternalness and joy. Most philosophies conflict with the others and thus war breaks out as one tries to ensure its influence by taking it away from another.

- Is there a solution? Or must all life fail? -

Obviously the solution has evaded mankind else we would see eternal life among us. And even though Science can provide a means for some very few to become immortal in body, what philosophy and what morals, will those few maintain so as to never be threatened by those still in jeopardy? Will they also know joy? Or will they merely maintain existence at the expense of all other life?

With a few more priorities and morals concerning how to behave with others and how to maintain joy within, the real solution can be Clarified and Verified.

Universe’s Entropy

2010-05-24T18:56:00.000-07:00

The universe eternally and cyclically reforms. The only reason the universe is currently thought to be governed by entropy and fading away is that currently it is dispersing from a time when it was more gathered and had entropy (i.e. more harmony).

There has been zero evidence or rationale for the case of the universe ever having been a single particle and certainly not a singularity. A singularity is a fantasy particle speculated many years ago before much thought was put into the notion. The highest probability (almost a certainty) is that the universe is currently dispersing from a collision of 2 or more very large particles, black holes. Metaphysically speaking there is no alternative, but Science cannot ever verify such history.

After a long enough time dispersing, a few hundred trillion years, the universe will be at the low point of its pendulum-like swing and the tendency will favor small particles forming, attracting each other, and joining into black holes that will be at extreme distances.

After much more time, the black holes will gradually progress toward each other due to their gravity and electrostatic field differences. As they gravitate toward each other, they increase velocity because in effect, they are in free fall toward each other in the same way as a rock falling to Earth. But because they started their free fall from an extreme distance and each has extreme gravitational pull, the velocity at impact will also be extreme, some fraction of the speed of light.

The fact that each black hole contains within itself enough energy to form another universe all on its own plus the fact that the energy represented by their extreme speeds also represents a similar amount of energy, means that when they collide, the amount of energy released as small and large particles as well as radiant energy will be enough to from another version of what you see when you look out into space.

But such a cycle is not 100% pure. There is no time when all energy is in a single harmonious particle form, nor at such a dispersal that there is no particle at all. As the universe disperses, there is less entropy from interference (slowing the entropy process) and during that time, many particles and even life can be minimally maintained, but certainly not in what we think of as a "natural" state.

With each swing of the pendulum, each entropy-to-relative-harmony reciprocation, any life that has maintained has the opportunity to ensure that even more life is maintained the next time, and it will. Eventually life is strong enough and wise enough to be able to slow the cycling and even stop it by keeping the black holes in orbit rather than allowing them to collide. The irresistible force need not collide with the immovable object (a lesson for the religions to learn someday as they are in the same cycle).

In both the case of the entire universe as well as the religions (including secularism), Life lives on despite the fall of the great gatherings. Eventually Life is smart enough and capable enough to stop the gatherings (the religions) from colliding and place them into orbit so that conflict and death are no longer an issue for any life.

The final stage of any universe, social or physical is that of a living being. There is no alternative. This process cannot be stopped by anything Man could ever do. Man's only option at all is to try to be a part of that Life before Life merely dispenses with Mankind entirely for a more rational creature designed by Mankind himself, to replace himself. Life cannot stop and will not be abated, but need not harbor anything human.

Existence Meaningfully Defined

2010-05-23T09:48:00.000-07:00

It seems pointless to argue over what might exist if we do not have a clear understanding of what it really means to exist;

Existence == A set of entities which share the property of mutual affect or potential to cause change; a realm of mutual affectance.

1) Detectable Empiricism - We decide that something exists only when we detect that something is having affect. All of our senses function based on the affect that something else has upon them. We use equipment to increase our sensory ability, but still if nothing affects the equipment in any way, we declare that nothing was there.

2) Common Usage - In reality, people are already using the word "exist" to mean this definition. They often never think about it, but in every case, the person really means that something existing means that it has the potential to affect something; being seen, touched, smelled, or detected in some way even if not already doing so.

3) Support from Science - Science concluded long ago that in reality all things have at least some minuscule affect on all other things. Often this is more of a chain effect than a direct effect.

4) Rational relevance - If something has truly no affect on anything whatsoever, we really don't care if it exists in any other sense anyway. We can propose trillions of things that might exist but don't have affect. What would be the point? It would be a waste of mind time.

Existence comes in realms or sets. A realm of existence includes all mutually affecting entities such as the realm of physical existence. A different realm of existence can be conceived wherein all items have mutual affect but do not affect those of the physical realm. In such a case, the items would not physically exist.

The realm of concepts is the set of ideas wherein each idea has affect upon the others yet no perfect concept can have physical existence. A perfect square cannot physically exist but the concept of a perfect corner and of a perfect line affect what a perfect square is. Each non-physical perfect concept affects the other perfect concepts.

Concepts involved in the definition;
Usefulness
Detectability
Common usage
Science
Realms and sets

Psychological Momentum

2010-05-22T22:05:00.000-07:00

“Psychological momentum” refers to occurrences of strong mental effect. To create such effect requires sufficient logical, emotional, and instinctive appeal.

As a mind attempts to balance the effects upon it in an endeavor to direct affect upon the world around it, the mind categorizes and thus filters information. To understand the mind more clearly, we segregate the mind into 3 general levels of processing; logical, emotional, and instinctive. To alter the mind requires affect upon at least one of these generalized levels and for maximum effect, upon all three.

Logical influence is created through simple, irrefutable association (ie; “2 is a number”). These typically include definitions, declarations, and equivalences. Although any one logical step is merely tautological, a series of steps can become very significant and lead to a surprising conclusion. A mind that is carefully examining each step might not accept the conclusion at all until it clearly sees each incontrovertible step leading up to it.

Often in competition with logical affectance, is emotional acceptance. As a mind attempts to deal with the challenge of life, it must select in which direction to lean concerning many issues and thus often, in preference to a leaning, it refuses to accept a clearly logical step. Having emotional acceptance is often necessary to allow a logical argument to be heard.

Just as logical argumentation requires a degree of education on the simple associations involved before the conclusion is reached, emotional appeal requires established emotional responses to be instilled or trained before the logical argument is presented. This process can take a long time to establish, but once established, logical argumentation becomes easily accepted. Such pre-training is clearing the path for the oncoming logical presentation such as to allow for maximum affect.

The mass within psychological momentum is the actual logical association to be accepted. That association must be as firmly bonded as possible, perhaps by a variety of arguments that all lead to the same association. The more firmly irrefutable the logic, the more affect it will have against potential resistance. Likewise, there is emotional mass comprised of pre-trained emotional responses that can serve either to shuttle the logic into maximum effect, or to resist any affect from the unaccepted mass of logic. This is largely the concern of diplomacy.

In addition to the traditional and well-known affecters of logic and emotional appeal is instinctive appeal. Instinctive responses occur on a lower level than emotional and often serve to form both emotional and logical associations. Instincts are directly derived from physiological reactions such as drawing back from the heat of a fire or being attracted to the smell of food. Instinctive responses are not always accurate, but tend to be more difficult to overcome regardless of logical or emotional associations. Instinctive responses are the primary affecters in addictions. Even though an addition behavior might be irrational and hated by the subject, the subject still finds it difficult to alter the behavior.

By properly implementing all three of the levels of influence, affect cannot be resisted. Momentum is the measure of that which cannot be resisted.

Logical Appeal;
logical,
pre-accepted,
socially accepted

Emotional Appeal;
friendly,
admirable,
rewarding (entertaining or profitable),
attractive,
respectable

Instinctive Appeal;
sensory appeal (sight, sound, smell, feel,..)
orderly, simple
non-caustic

Progressing, Joy, and Momentum

2010-05-22T20:17:00.000-07:00

Joy and the inspiration to continue in life come from the inner perception of progress toward an accepted good or goal direction. Joy is the sense that “good is at hand”.

The perception of progress or “the good at hand” can only occur from the measure of it. The natural mind perceives such measurements as a part of its normal functioning. But interestingly, the conscious mind often ignores the actual measure as it pursues merely the feeling, the inner perception of the good, regardless of whether the good is anything the conscious mind would agree to being actually good.

In effect, this disables the worth of the conscious mind and makes the person very susceptible to being misled and bemused by outside influences. The person in such a state is unconscious of the fact that he is not actually making any progress toward any improvement at all. In a sense, he is but dreaming and sleep walking and talking.

To ensure actual progress, enduring changes must be monitored.

People speak and act so as to have affect on their surroundings. Most often, the effect is intended to be only temporary, but at times the intent is to more permanently adjust society in a chosen direction.

When a statement is made, what effect has it had? Has it changed any opinions? For how long will the change endure? If momentum toward a goal is to be achieved, the smaller positive changes must endure. It is insufficient for angels to merely have wings. They must also have armor and often armament and allies.