New Discovery

I’m trying to understand your explanation of how you think the world will be saved or at the very least a world worth saving. I certainly don’t believe your prediction below:

[i]The robot man of the Android is an inevitable product in daily life very soon, maybe in another generation.
The fiction of science has become reality and science fiction will be keyed to gross linkage of inter connected
predictions of reasonable casual objectives .

Humanity will loose it’s soul, considering a self contained illusion .
[/i]

Your logic may be valid (not that I understand your philosophy), but I don’t believe it’s sound. If you want to elaborate, be my guest.

All I’m saying is that we live in the present. The past is a memory. An animal doesn’t register the past because he lives in the present without the kind of language that is required to remember the past and to think in terms of the past. When you say that we see only the past even though it may appear instantaneous, this is based on theory not fact. It’s been made into a fact because it is believed that light carries the image over space/time and therefore there’s a delay. But this author believes that light does not carry the image at all. IOW, we not only live in the present but we see in the present. This relates to his second discovery regarding how the eyes work but I’m not ready to get into that at the moment.

Determinism does not eliminate grrr choice so there is no causation or effect between them. Like Suzan Langer’s different key it offers required direction in pre set keys. For instance, one can not prevent being born and die. Smaller determinations of choosing have been changed as well, where the invention of nuclear weapons did cause h I’ve population death, but has made war as we have known it the thing of the past. We do not know this a.initially because that invention was not known at that time that particular effect. Time was transcended with an unknown as yet objective, with an installed objject due to a contraindicated objective.
The decontrstruction of temporal space, reveals the hidden object(partial functionally derivitive) of it’s being.
Had this feature been overlooked, perhaps a more definitive present-future would have ultimately condemned and sealed man"s fate.

Oppenheimer said something along these lines., "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.’ quoting a Vedic text. He did not see the quantifiable limits which which reverse the contradiction.

In fact that invention created the opposite intended effect, long term, and conflict and war for the first time opened the possibility of micro management.

Its not theory but actual scientific fact because the speed of light is finite and demonstrably so. For were it infinite time would stop - literally
What the author believes is completely irrelevant because beliefs cannot be demonstrated to be true and this particular one is false anyway
So if this is part of the foundation upon which his theory rests then it has to be rejected because it is incompatible with observable reality

Observable reality does not prove that we see images from the past just as the idea that we are caused to do what we do from the past, is a forgone conclusion. It is not but don’t tell that to leading scientists or they’ll think you’re a crank.

What do you mean observable reality doesn’t prove we see images from the past? Is that not the entire basis of history?

It seems to me that you are all tangled up in time. The present you say is the only thing yet it is the most illusory, temporary. Future and past are inevitable and always going to be, non temporary. The present moment and our being confined to it is what poses all of the philosophical questions regarding existence and functioning, it’s due to being always near future or recent past and not knowing what to do with the time of which is an individual. It seems present but I assure you that you don’t know or feel the cell in your body that just died to pass information to the next gen of cells and it continues. That present moment is over, because it’s a constant stretched thing that must be broken up into different periods. Which we have done. With no future or past, the present is not possible at all.

So how is the present the only thing again? In the mind, it can travel into past and future imagery. It’s already been proven. Instincts, mental illnesses, etc. there’s no discretion of time to the sub/unconscious mind.

You think too empirically. We aren’t talking about the body and physically going back in time. We’re talking about the mind.

Logic without reason is a waste of time thinking, philosophically. There’s quotes on it.

Everything you see with your own eyes is literally in the past because the speed of light is finite
It is simply not fast enough for you to be able see the present outside of your own mind or body

You want your unproven theory to be seriously considered while you are casually denying reality in this way
You cannot conveniently ignore what is demonstrably true just because it is incompatible with said theory

When theory and reality clash then it is time to ditch the theory

And so is free will the basis of our civilization. So what? It doesn’t mean it’s correct. That’s why it’s called scientific theory.

The renewal of cells are happening in the present. You are the one that is tangled up in time. The past and future can’t be non temporary because they don’t exist. Again, this doesn’t mean we are not connected to what happened to us in the past or to what may happen in the future; just that these are thoughts in our head that are occurring in the present. The present moment is never over because that’s where we reside. Without our memory centers the future and past would not exist for us. You’ve got it backwards. :-k

I’m not disputing that the mind can take us to faraway places or places that we’ve already experienced or have yet to experience. I’m not even referring to the way the mind perceives time in a conscious or subconscious state. Please don’t conflate what I’m talking about with what you’re talking about, as if they’re synonymous.

That’s what we’ve been taught.

I’m not casually denying anything. If he’s wrong, so be it, but I would hope that scientists would take the time to see why he made this claim. There are cases where science gets it wrong. When you say demonstrably true, how so? He didn’t say light doesn’t travel at a high rate of speed. Anyway, I really don’t want to get into this. It won’t get us anywhere especially when his most important discovery has yet to be explained.

I actually don’t have it backward. The thing that is temporary here is the present moment. And if the past isn’t existent then there is no present. We can observe a skeleton. We can observe a body becoming a corpse. The present moment is gone with each millisecond, yet you argue that it is what exists and no past or future does, that’s laughable considering both of those are inevitable and set in stone in a sense. The present is the only thing not set in stone until it becomes the past or future.

Also. So you think every solution that is chosen is for ones own satisfaction?

So if I had to solve an issue not for myself but say, at work and this solution is out of my own satisfaction, I will be dissatisfied from the solution, yet continue to do it, thinking of the others whom issues will be resolved. This is a move toward my own greater satisfaction?

What if the more satisfying thing would be to leave that job but you don’t and continue to be dissatisfied? People do this, every day and for you to agree with the author is to shit all over reality and people’s struggling with such, proper decision making, responsibility, self awareness, etc.

What if you don’t view dissatisfaction as something negative or dissatisfying? What if you don’t view anything as good or bad?

When you watch a body becoming a corpse, you’re watching this occurring in the present although your brain registers the change as if you’re actually seeing the past.

Yes, but please don’t make the mistake of making satisfaction analogous with pleasure. Sometimes we sacrifice pleasure to gain something more satisfying in the short or long term.

Yes it is because you are getting greater satisfaction in solving the problem for this other person than your own. Therefore you are still moving in the direction of the “greater” satisfaction.

Responsibility is discussed in Chapter Two, and he shows why it goes up, not down, with this knowledge. Proper decision making and self-awareness are words that won’t have much meaning in the new world because everyone will be making proper decisions for them. Self-awareness is great for people who want to understand what makes them tick. This is not a prerequisite to changing the environment in such a way that all hurt is removed. Finally, the author was very clear that we’re not always satisfied but we choose what we consider to be the least dissatisfying if all of our options are undesirable.

[i]Let me summarize by taking careful note of this simple
reasoning that proves conclusively (except for the implications already
referred to) that will is not free. Man has two possibilities that are
reduced to the common denominator of one. Either he does not have
a choice because none is involved, as with aging, and then it is obvious
that he is under the compulsion of living regardless of what his
particular motion at any moment might be, or he has a choice and
then is given two or more alternatives of which he is compelled by his
nature to prefer the one that appears to offer the greatest satisfaction
whether it is the lesser of two evils, the greater of two goods, or a good
over an evil. Therefore, it is absolutely impossible for will to be free
because man never has a free choice, though it must be remembered
that the words good and evil are judgments of what others think is
right and wrong, not symbols of reality.

The truth of the matter is
that the words good and evil can only have reference to what is a
benefit or a hurt to oneself. Killing someone may be good in
comparison to the evil of having that person kill me. The reason
someone commits suicide is not because he is compelled to do this
against his will, but only because the alternative of continuing to live
under certain conditions is considered worse. He was not happy to
take his own life but under the conditions he was compelled to prefer,
by his very nature, the lesser of two evils which gave him greater
satisfaction. [u]Consequently, when he does not desire to take his own
life because he considers this the worse alternative as a solution to his
problems, he is still faced with making a decision, whatever it is, which
means that he is compelled to choose an alternative that is more
satisfying.

For example, in the morning when the alarm clock goes
off he has three possibilities; commit suicide so he never has to get up,
go back to sleep, or get up and face the day. Since suicide is out of
the question under these conditions, he is left with two alternatives.
Even though he doesn’t like his job and hates the thought of going to
work, he needs money, and since he can’t stand having creditors on
his back or being threatened with lawsuits, it is the lesser of two evils
to get up and go to work. He is not happy or satisfied to do this when
he doesn’t like his job, but he finds greater satisfaction doing one
thing than another.[/u] Dog food is good to a starving man when the
other alternatives are horse manure or death, just as the prices on a
menu may cause him to prefer eating something he likes less because
the other alternative of paying too high a price for what he likes more
is still considered worse under his particular circumstances.[/i]

We don’t always view things as good or bad, but we are constantly comparing options when making decisions. We often choose between the greater of two or more goods but we are sometimes forced to choose between the lesser of two evils when no choice is satisfying. People often do things that are dissatisfying in the short term for something better in the long term. This doesn’t negate the fact that we must choose what is the better alternative in our eyes [not someone else’s] when we’re comparing meaningful differences.

For special eyes only: I start with a conclusion and work myself back: to the source: that is, reductive not productive-on a very tangible basis.

The last conclusion, short term(for one’s self) toward long term ( for other’s benefit) struck my eye.
Reductionism entails a trigonometric-geometric understanding in terms of form -bubble theory) ((and ed would or could be instrumental in noting the differentially induced reduction here underlying it)).

This moving forward through looking back , corresponds to the anterior primacy of perception before ontology.

The rate of the velocity of light contrarily is presupposed by the mechanics of the eye, whereas, the look should be more of a focus, as a transcendental starting point.

It could offer foundation either way, but an ontoligically based Preception is much more unfocused, setting the stage for more and more re-presentation, and illusion.

Finally, de elusive progression may develop in a hyperspace. If, perceptions are not focused toward objective reality.

By objective reality I mean one that transcends perception to it"s source, by.gradual transition to it’s autonomous( automatic) system of retaining the model, the object, which regulates the flow of the “elan”

This regression, takes up the spaces, into the very limits, of the border between the conscious shirt term predictor of the self, and the longer term signifier of / to social , objectively beneficial partial reconstruction in the future present time.

(Partial de-differentiation of ed and through visual fields broken down into more bubbles in a determined hyperfield of spatial temporal designation, requires it.

Particular notice here, is the point where intervening variability of hyperspace is perceived as reducible to absurdity, but here Einstein’s proof of the linear arc to an hyperpositioned
Giant Sphere approaching ideal trig-geometric perceptions toward linear binomial understanding.

The look becomes prejoritive here, and at the regions toeard absolute tangent, the contrary or the contradiction becomes as similar through usage and nominal utility through common sense.

The reduction to absurdity, is a required epoch in this transformation.

Hyperpositioned, Giant sphere approaching ideal trig-geometric perceptions, linear binominal understanding, de elusive progression, hyperspace, visual fields being broken down into more bubbles in a determined hyperfield of spatial temporal designation? These are all concepts I’m not familiar with. Maybe someone else can chime in to explain how this disproves the author’s claims. :open_mouth:

Why is there a need to chime in, when the reading of it does not try to disprove anything, but I think the partial disintegration bothers You.

A partial de-differentiation for reconstruction is not tantamount to an absolute hypothetical acceptance.
For such faux-unity implies an a priori definition of present time, which has not been the case throughout the historical development of transcendental progression, which .mist be at least partially admitted in this argument.

I think both You and I are missing this
relational(relevance). The author may, and I presume by now, can be that interloper, and is not a matter of some kind of. psychic bridge ( which may very well turn out to be the interloper), but the effects of elements of testament in this forum can induce by now.

The above is the foundation for the contra-indication , which we touched upon earlier, with others chiming in. My referring to them, is at least part determinative of past memory within the bracketed present, to at least try to account for an unaccountable , forgotten memory of an absolute past.

It doesn’t bother me at all. I just don’t see where there is a need for partial disintegration to prove the author’s claims.

I don’t know whether you would consider this an a priori definition of present time, but according to my thinking it is not a priori. There is proof, through observation, that we live in the present tense.

You’re still not being specific enough. What relational relevance am I missing? How may the author be the interloper? Interloper of what?

This is a paradigm example of arguing from both ends-reductively (inductively) and deductively, and that gets problematic as far as verbal interaction between similar content as far as the terms can generally be identified as making some sense.

Implication has various latitudes of comprehensive meaning, and I am trying to wrap my mind around the specificity You are requirying around time.

I am partly in complete agreement with the assertion that everything happens in the present time, but again I try to argue that notion has not developed legitimacy on basis of some intuition, OR games surrounding the analysis of sensible knowledge.

To accept that on it’s face appears sensible enough, but without the the objectiveness, the materiality of the source of such transaction (between the two modes of it); a prior determinative must entail the assumption that the author makes.

In fact such assumptions are only accepted a-priori, once the determination is understood to comply (not imply) a credible source.

That intuitive understanding has an analogy, is not a matter for doubt, as Einstein’s special Relativity is in relation to Lorentz’ theory on ether.

I feel no qualms to bring that up ,Peace Girl, and I do apologise for bringing in what may appear to You as unrelated.

What do you mean “by a credible source”? Do you mean a source that is trusted because of a person’s renown?

If you are certain that time is an actual dimension based on a credible source (who can argue with Einstein :confused: ), and that time can curve and dilate, then you should stick with what you believe. You would not like Lessans’ discovery on death because one of the premises that led to his understanding that we are born again and again was based on his observation that we live in the present.

Again Peacegirl, there may not be a viable argument here.
Lorentz-Einstein preceded by Michaelson and Morely show a pretty fair inductive chain, and Your response asks the hidden objective reference, as if temporaluty can assail or forward any congruence or dis - similarity between the absolute certainty between death and the lesser certain applications of the will hiding behind causes erased from memory.
If the birth-death parameters are bracketed , existentially, then the intervening variable substancive being , may appear as nothing but reliance on a hypothetical totality.

It doesmtatter at all, whether that totality is defined as the sum total of known historical compoaite of all known sets of near absolute quanta, set in an absolute approachable limit , or, presupposed as the one ideal form of being, because even one scintilla of difference produces two identical copies.

I asked St. James about it , and he rightly asserted at least one individual copy of every identifiable humam being.

Quantification through population growth does not matter since up to one single increment , there is a cosmological equivalency.
I do not hold St James above or under the very same field, because 1 increment below simultainity reduced multiple worlds as indistinguishable .

Now if this were not true, then the idea of existence would become impossible , per esse est percipii.

This sounds impossible , nut does not an infinite cosmos sound equally so?

Same goes between various quantum differentiating between 2 or millions of families of resemblances , the difference is within a single unit of recognance~per recognition.

The breaching of levels do not even abide by karmic cause and effect, nor by chance , where this difference is again too close to call.

That without this conflation between similar recognized identities result in existential jumps , does appear illusively on basis of again a transpersonal , transcendent time, encompassing ages of past and future, to create that minimum absolute (eigen vector- eigen value), that determines the preceptive apparatus based on the dynamics of measurement. Here I am using intuitive based matrix reversal , not through derivation , but through the use of absolute imminent qualifiers)

Birth and death parameters are bracketed, that is true, but what intervening variable substantive being are you referring to that would be reliant on a hypothetical totality?

Please explain where any of this negates the author’s proof that we’re born again and again. If you think you’ve disproved the premises that are the fundamentals of his reasoning, then you will disregard his proof, but I’m not sure where your logic actually succeeds.

Actually I am pointing (in the post modern sense of the word) to the anomaly between non differentiable senses between mine and the author’s view in the absolute absolute .

I was hoping that that has been established, since that has been read and affirmed by You

That we are eternally reborn is implicit regardless of quantitative aspects of resemblance (per Wittgenstein) and identity as identifiable groupings are not differentiable as well from the qualifying aspect of the quantitative base.

This is a problem , as You have pointed out for materialism, for seeming different reasons.

The whole idea of differential’s this makes the whole problem of integration a secondary consideration, that is why I proposed de-differentiation aposteriori to
an a priori integration of partial derivatives.(Hessian inversion to Jacobian matrix)

I am asking for poetic licence here for philosophic base for the logical foundation of mathematics , knowing that is partly presumptuous, however the partially differentiated.(cut off notion )may support such a proposition.
If a standard language were to be used , then fallaciousness may be argued, however it may become categorically imperative that such be partiality adopted.