Well you have over 20,000 to choose from. Can you find even one post to support that allegation.
And what of those who make false allegations, lies. What do we call and do with them?
Give me time to remember the posts…
I already know the one where you said you understood every reason why I have every thought I have and how you understand how it’s all wrong.
The “retard” one was about 6 months ago…
That’s when I started posting negatively towards you.
I’ll find it.
I don’t know why it concerns you so much… doesn’t seem to bother anyone else, didn’t seem to bother you.
By post history, to almost everyone on this board…
I am the joke who hasn’t yet been banned…
Like that math guy… they let him post for years.
Weird James, I actually didn’t know this thread existed… this was not the one that made your idea of me apparent
I’ll wait.
And from that thread, my post in response to zinnat:
In your case, you insulted me the same way that math guy used to insult people, the mods couldn’t warn him for it because it was an encrypted insult, even though flannel Jesus agreed with me that his insult was actually WORSE than calling someone a moron… the thing that finally got him the boot, was him making up quotes with my name on them and arguing them!! That was some crazy shit…
Problem is… with the thing that pissed me off, the usual keywords aren’t working, it was an encrypted insult like that math guy used to use.
I know it’s there, because I don’t get pissed at people for no reason, and on several occasions you helped me in support… I don’t flip switches like that for no reason…
I might be able to find it by searching my own posts for when I consistently started always say “James said x and here’s why he’s wrong”. I started doing that after the fact…
Oh, I see. Your excuse for not finding any actual evidence to support your accusation is that my comments were “encrypted”. Can you provide some kind of evidence for that?
The search function won’t let me find the part where you dismissed my argument without argument and said “I know why you are doing this (made this thread) without even explaining it… I know it’s in science, but search won’t let me use “I know why you” because the words are too common *so I’m combing science threads”. Although, it might also be when I challenged everyone on the board combined to debate me… memory doesn’t serve well.
I literally flipped a switch on you James…
You basically pulled a uccisore on me once, I was very hurt by it, and I immediately started making threads calling you out …
It makes no sense from our prior sorta amiable interactions that I’d flip a switch like that…
I’ll find these posts
While you are fumbling around, see if you can find that time when you said that I called you “stupid” and I replied that I certainly did not. You didn’t find any evidence that time either … which is why I am asking now.
And yes, you do actually get angry at people without valid reasons. You find yourself angry and then attempt to think up an excuse for it. Many here do that same thing (FC for example).
Actually, you know what James…
Damn I’m fucking nuts…
Even if I could find what insulted me so much, I’ve said a lot of stupid shit on these boards
I still have kinks…
Absurdities…
Grudges…
sigh
I cracked mentally…
Thinking about how much pressure I have to step out of my own shadow…
Which isn’t your fault
Shit happens dude. Don’t worry about it.
My thoughts:
I like this - it is true - shit does happen. Sometimes it is very difficult to not worry about it.
We must be courageous and strong if we are to find the truth. I have much faith in James’ words.
I did not get very far into reading about RM:AO before I realized I had discovered something special.
I don’t think you are fucking nuts Ecmandu.
This would be right up there with my favorite things I have read on this forum.
Now I am going to babble on a little:
I do not know “nothing” and I do not know “everything”. All I understand is somewhere in between.
I find that the following does not always work out quite the way I expect:
“Treat others how you wish to be treated”
But with courage I press on because the truth is more important to me than my own self esteem at the moment.
For me: dealing with my limits is a measure of my maturity.
I have been known to be wrong on many occasions - I have written and said some things that equate to nonsense - but I try to remain courageous and strong.
Following is an example of a few things that I have been inspired to write and yet I can see some error in them.
Some inchoate thoughts:
I am not even certain where this one came from: 1 → 1 V 0
RM:AO has even put my mind to: Condensed matter physics
For some reason my mind drifted over: Zero Point Space - some sort of construct that entered my mind.
Let us assume that our Metaspace is actually Zero Point Space
Now lets define the Zero Point Space
The Zero Point Space is a hypothetical space devoid of indivisible points - complete - each point is infinitely divisible.
Contemplation being considered for entrance into my own philosophy:
Our mind is able to direct our next step. Each step we take is changing the dimension of mind. When deciding on the next step we employ our logic and emotion based on the reality that we are experiencing at the given time. Mind is an ever changing dimension that is bound to reality, logic and emotion.
Our confinive reality is bound to space, scope and time. Where we are at contains our horizon limited by the time we have been aware of such knowledge. Each location presents an opportunity to lessen our confinement - making the most of our time at any given location enables us to broaden our wisdom to be more fitting to any situation.
Each subjective philosophy is relative to its confines and is able to find harmony outside of its limits. The individual wisdom is affected by each other individual wisdom and is only ever relative to the absolute. The desire of absolute knowledge is the mind’s drive to be free of imperfection and distraction; this desire is volumetric and contained within each subjective lifespan.
Socializing is the function of the less limited individual who seeks to know because absolute reality encompasses objective reality which is constituted of the various approximations from subjective reality. Respect then should be driven by a great interest in socializing - to find harmony outside of oneself.
I am also considering what the “Limitations of free will” might be.
Currently I believe:
► Everything known was once unknown.
I also believe there is much more to discover about ourselves and our collective reality.
The implications of interaction is that observation changes intersubjective reality for everyone and not just a single individuals perspective.
James
It is likely that I will come back over parts of this again - but for now I want to make a few comments on what I have read and reignite the conversation.
After this we can come back to the language substrata as I think it is a valuable tool for leaping into the depths of RM:AO - we can further the concept of affectance density fields as this seems like the more counter intuitive thing for me - I will say however I recognize where we have touched on this already - I appreciate that RM:AO is actually pretty simple but it is always good to have plenty of philosophical substance underlying the physical principles - that way the physics can be honed when the time comes.
GToE - I like it. I appreciate that the GUT and ToE are used merely for Physics models - but it certainly helps me to have some sort of reference point to work from. What I see at the heart of Physics, is that we are working with two interchangeable factors - energy and matter - so I see the benefit to taking a further leap into one factor id est “affectance” and an arrangement of it, “PtA”. For me it even becomes somewhat spiritual in nature.
Yes - arguing other peoples theories in favor of the person they are interacting with seems pretty typical to me. Open eyes allow for falsehoods and falsehoods allow for refined truths. Where there are good results the proverbial “finger” is pointing at the truth but that does not mean it is pointing at the actual truth - it could be the truth with a missing factor or perhaps one too many factors. I like RM:AO because it narrows things down quite considerably and gives a fresh starting point to analyze from the bottom up any argument but even from the top down things can be analyzed with RM:AO in mind to sift out inaccuracies.
This is actually where I am coming from - amazingly enough - and being taught from an early age these things become ingrained so it is hard to see things any other way. The current paradigm to me is more about approximations rather than absolute truth. Just the same I am sure the mathematics if used in a more pure sense is able to quantify RM:AO. Reality is what it is all about though so if we seek to understand it properly then we can not afford to live the previously mentioned falsehoods forever - flaws are flaws, no matter how negligible. I can see what you mean by many potential ontologies and RM:AO being a different mindset.
Military Science aside, I think that RM:AO is able to help the philosopher come to more accurate conclusions about what he/she is thinking.
Could you elaborate on Sociological “Impedance Matching” for me? Given how significant a concern it is in AO . . .
The brain has been kick started again . . .
AO uses the term “impedance matching” exactly as it is used in audio and electronic engineering. Every transfer of effort, affect, or energy from anything to anything else is met with at least a tiny impediment. That impediment is the inherent cause of time and why it is that literally all actions require time. Truly instantaneous change is impossible.
Social movements, intentional or not, constitute propagations of affect, energy, or effort. Every social movement is met with at least a tiny degree of impedance to the change. And that unavoidable impediment demands time for the transfer to take place.
The term “impedance matching” refers to ensuring that just the right amount of force to change is applied, not too much and not too little, such as to allow for the least distortion and most efficient and complete transfer of energy, effort, or affect. Every change in impedance during a propagation causes a mismatch between the flowing effort causing the change and the inherent impedance to the change. That mismatch distorts the “signal” - distorts the precision of the information or effort being relayed. And then it also demands that more energy be provided in order to maintain the complete propagation.
When changes are pushed too hard, there are residual consequences that might include a “backfire” or “kickback” effect (as the liberal hand of the recent USA election demonstrated). Push too much to the left and life will push back too much to the right and vsvrsa. The lesson being, “Don’t try too hard. Give it time, else it will take even more. Be precise and patient”. And equally, if too little effort is made, all of the energy is used up without sufficient results.
Such is a fundamental nature and principle of the universe, a true “god”; “All things take time and energy”. The sacrifice to that particular god is to supply just the right amount of energy and patiently wait just the right amount of time before expecting results. The punishment for offending that god is a degree of chaos, confusion, frustration and potentially death depending upon the degree of mismatching and circumstance. To pray to that god is to study and attend to what changes are being provoked and what impediments reside in the path - to look before one leaps - to clear the path before one attempts the path - to accept responsibility for results - to earn one’s progress - to not want for what isn’t to be had - to attempt only what can be accomplished - to live the rules of “afflate engagement”. Some have called it the distinction between going to Heaven or going to Hell. 
But would you reflect on why it happened in the first place?
Some might do THAT and some might simply sweep it under the carpet. Can you even imagine THAT? LOL
And exactly what leads you to the conclusion that I had not already considered that long before the encounter began?
I asked “Would you”, James.
My post was simply based on your above response - “Don’t worry about it”. THAT response appears to have drawn things to a conclusion without any thought or consideration.
Hi
I could visualize an infinity and universe then consider them to be distinctive, if not completely apart from one another. Then to get universe from ‘metaspace’/infinity, something has to do the impossible, ~ so like a God then. When we look at these things in their own right, the infinite is only the infinite and the finite is only the finite. Thing is, I could equally consider a metaphoric sphere, one which I could extend lines from. Those lines could be of any length infinite or not, and with sets thereof. So now you can have one object which can be both infinite and finite!
There can’t be two or more things at root, ergo whatever the ultimate nature of reality is, it is one thing. So I don’t see how you can get ‘God’ from that.
1 is 1, but god + us + things/universe is many, and if we change our definition of God to suit, it is no longer God et al.
_