New Discovery

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.

I know you mean well but you’re giving different philosophers ideas that have nothing to do with his reasoning. How can you respond intelligently when you haven’t read this chapter? You’re just guessing.

Not exactly, I am relying on authors just like you are

Meno, how can you rely on other authors when you haven’t read the author that this discussion revolves around? He has his own reasons as to why he claims we’re born again and again, which has nothing to do with who we are now. In fact, there’s no relationship. I’m sure others have their their own theories, but I believe this author’s reasoning is accurate. The point I’m making is that it’s impossible to understand his reasoning without knowing what his reasoning is. All the other theories you’re bringing into this discussion have nothing to do with what he’s bringing to the table. You may think he’s wrong after reading the chapter, but at least you read the chapter. As I said, you will probably disagree with him because one of his first premises is that we live in the present. Therefore, you may feel it’s not worth reading because of the many theories that say time is relative. I really don’t want to go further with the discussion on death (whether you read it or not) because that’s not what I came here to discuss.

Perhaps this forum is not about who is right or wrong, and even though I have not red the author’s invention, it appears more of a test mentioned in passing ; -in the present, - of long term contribution to others trumping short term self indulgence ; which has more to do with free will, then any other choice that could determine the truth.

You’re right, this forum is not about right or wrong, but if this author is right, the implications are huge. The idea that we can sacrifice immediate self indulgence for future gain does not grant us free will. I spoke about this but I guess you weren’t here. The author did not invent anything. He made astute observations after a lifetime of voracious reading of literature and philosophy. This finding lies behind the door of determinism. He said that if he didn’t make this discovery, someone else would because this knowledge is part of the real world. But why should we wait another thousand years when we have the knowledge now that can bring peace on earth? But this can only happen if people stop jumping to premature conclusions that he’s wrong without even giving him a chance. If you’re interested in the book, you can get it on Amazon as an ebook. I’m working to get the print version out but I don’t believe it’s available yet. I’ll check tomorrow to see where it is in the queue. The book is called, Decline and Fall of All Evil by Seymour Lessans. If you want to read the first three chapters before deciding whether you want to buy the book, here is the link again.

[i]http://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Decline-and-Fall-of-All-Evil-2-13-2019-THREE-CHAPTERS.pdf?fbclid=IwAR32MIoParNeRq11g2GV-mwIBACPwu27zWesMUjLMnrT70F6ROSEX53QxMk

[/i]

Yeah but this is the kind of thing you gotta present to the whole world all of a sudden and at once, for it to have any impact. All educational systems the world over would have to integrate this into their curriculum to prevent the next generation from becoming the liars, or imbeciles, or both, that the former generation was. And with this revolution would come drastic changes in the superstructures of government… namely at an economic, sociological level. The first thing you’d notice would be a magnificent rejection of the thesis by those who profit from the criminal justice system and the prison industries. Next you’d be forced to contend with conservatives who reject the interference of government in social engineering. The upper classes won’t like the idea of their taxes being used to raise the quality of life and education for what would otherwise be the criminal class… which would then be followed by the capitalists’ protest against the same. Blue collar crime would decrease in proportion to the improvement of the quality of life for the proletariat/lumpen-proletariat… and this, obviously, would follow the intervention of government into the private sector. Lower and middle classes would be more wealthy, and therefore less prone to commit crime.

Yeah the whole thing would shake the present paradigm at it’s very core. We’re talkin’ maaaajor change, homegirl.

Oh and religious, evangelical rackets would be out of business, too. The very bloodline of their deceptive enterprise is the thesis of freewill. They’d be totally shut down.

You have no conception of how amazing this paradigm shift is, and as the author stated many times, this shift has nothing to do with him. He just happened to see the laws that govern our behavior in a more crystallized fashion. What will compel people to become citizens of this new world is that the benefits will outweigh anything that they have in their present life. It will be a maaaajor change, and I’m glad someone here appreciates how big this really is. The biggest thing of all is that it can be achieved. This is not pie in the sky wishful thinking. No one can be hurt when transitioning from the old world of free will (blame and punishment) to the new world of no free will (no blame and punishment) because no one will lose their wealth nor will people whose profession is becoming extinct, such as floor walkers and locksmiths or anything that is redolent of blame, lose one penny of their accustomed income. They will be guaranteed their standard of living never to go down.

i once told the doc over in the ethics thread that i had lost faith in this, but you’ve given me new courage, peacegirl, and i look toward a future brought to light by the beacon of hope that you shine so brightly.

can i buy you a coke?

Yes it’s exciting to be at an age where old world hostilities may be a thing of a past long forgotten, and participate in the new world, where liberty has sprung from the dark ages of oppression.

Can’t wait to get the book. I can really relate to the possibilities of the coming transition, which if the author is right , is happening as we are talking.

Yes, we are evolving as a human race every minute of every day. Look how far we’ve come, but this formal transition will catapult us into the Golden Age of man — an age where there is no war, crime, or poverty — more quickly than anything heretofore. I’m glad you’re interested in the book. If you find it compelling, I hope you will join me in the mission to get this knowledge thoroughly investigated and brought to light. I want to warn you that his chapter on Words, Not Reality (Chapter Four) has caused some people to react harshly since he claims that the eyes are not a sense organ and why this knowledge matters. Anything that challenges established science is going to be ridiculed at first. There’s no getting around it. I just hope you keep an open mind.

That does sound challenging , but am used to such , and because of the aforementioned , am willing to make allowances to benefit hope through faith.

excellent. now that the human species has finally stopped bullshitting around, we can focus our collective efforts on space colonization, exploration and expansion.

the headlines will read: the year two-thousand-something… when humans got their shit together and finally stopped behaving like monkeys.

I believe you’ll see the value of this knowledge once you grasp the fundamentals. It’s okay to have some doubt until all questions are answered to your satisfaction. What’s not okay is when people disregard someone’s work because he didn’t have the “right” credentials. The author urges people to read the book more than once because there’s a lot to digest. I also want to remind you that this is not a religious work. I hope that doesn’t discourage you.