[Thomas An.]

thomas I must admit that this thing is making me mad: it has a so wide range of implication that I am highly tempted to cough up my philosophy and science school books from the shelf.

Anyway, about time, I understood there is a reason to consider it linear; what I am wondering (because I don't know the demonstration itself) if there's no reason to consider it linear but with an infinite oscillation. this comes to my mind thinking of continuity based on the principle of line as a circle of infinite radius. what I am trying to say is that if it has been proven that the universe is expanding, thus it was smaller, nothing prove it is wrong to imagine time, and so space (or the opposite), are oscillating with an infinite period. But I am probably messing around here, for sure I am showing my math and my physics (and so my english) are a bit weak...

You are getting into some deep water there
I am not intimately familiar with this new theory (I do not know it like the back of my hand and haven't gone through the rigorous math invloved). But the few little that I have managed to pick up (time permitting) have given me a sense of something very streamlined and very elegand that should not be overlooked too soon. It could be a nice fluke and a dead end, but still ...

About the time issue. Small question.
When you mention time as a circle of infinite radius, does that imply that as t-->inf then everything is set to repeat (loop) and do the same things over again ... create galaxies, planets, earth, dinosaurs, humans, a person with a screen name jdp ... all over again ?

[thomas lacroix]

tom, same thing if you used psychotropes some tribes used will it be a chimical mahyem or would it be a short opening to another universe as you say?

i'd be a bit more cautious with this one...

why human simply cannot accept that we born, live and then die and that is all, a bit senseless but still

[tom]

T.Lacroix, trust me that in my whole life I strictly believe in this physical universe and science. I still respect science and I think it's the best available knowledge ever but I highly suspect the reality of this physical space. This idea is still not interfering with the science because science is not something done, maybe science will be able to explain this later. While I'm making exercises on this perspective I strictly avoid having help and confusions from numerous non-scienetific thoughts and beliefs. I simply reject all of them even without listening. I came to this point just thinking by myself and I'm expecting one day science will find the answer again.

why human simply cannot accept that we born, live and then die and that is all, a bit senseless but still

Born?
Born into an unlimited space? Oh no.
Born into a limited space? Oh, what's next?
A bit senseless? I think it's more than a bit...

[thomas lacroix]

no harm intended, but the fact is that we only pileup hypothesis on the scientific and on the esoteric side... we've only got relatively good hypothesis that seems to functions...

that doesnt mean that we shouldnt be curious of our universe, surrounding etc ...

but i dont expect some kundalini express, nor angels or whatsoever, just void ( another concept ) at least that would be a good surprise if there were something... but i quite doubt it

[Hervé]

I think People cannot accept their death as an end..

I believe in the "nothing".... a whole world of mistery..

Fact is that I won't spend my life to think why, who, where.. because I know one thing... life's short... enjoy all the world goods now.. because in any case I suspect afterDeath will be somehow different..

BTW, I also believe in a collective concsiousness.. one large "experience"... all connected by gestures, sounds of voices, magnetic transitions.. when my dog got smashed by a car... I knew it the day before... somehow from the drivers' brain... somehow..

Now here also.. you died.. they put you in the ground... all you cells got rotten.. tiny pieces of cells escape from the coffen, ....best part... the plants take food from the ground.. they embbed some parts of you genetic... people eat the plants.. they make sperm, girls make eggs... and voila.. re-incarnation.. incredible no..?

Have some sardines... on of the best fish you can eat... why.. he's not a predator of other species..

Have a wonderful week-end...

Final advice... spend everyday like if it was the last one...

Thomas.. good one... and you know what...? why do you think the poor people believe more in Gods than the rich people... pretty evident..

(although some rich do start believe usually when they get old... or when Bush scared them to death with terrorism...)

Enjoy..

[aitraaz]

About the time issue. Small question.
When you mention time as a circle of infinite radius, does that imply that as t-->inf then everything is set to repeat (loop) and do the same things over again ... create galaxies, planets, earth, dinosaurs, humans, a person with a screen name jdp ... all over again ?

Well, here is a good example of a conceptual fallacy, or, as mentioned, a 'poor composite', or a 'poorly stated problem'. And this problem is a problem of representation, to put it simply, *the spatialization of time*, and this leads to all kinds of conceptual / transcendental problems...

For example: If it is theoretically possible to construct a complex enough computational system that attains consciousness, then at that point "man" has become a "creator".

Taken this to it logical generalization, we can:
- place "man" at position N (on a mathematical line)
- place "man's" creation at potition N+1
- we can also extrapolate that the N+1 consciense can theoretically produce an N+2
- working backwords, the N conscience could have been produced by an N-1 conscience and simililarly the N-1, by an N-2.

However, again, this also introduces the aspect of infinity and it is not solving much. As a matter of fact, it even brings the possibility that existance N-1 might have inferior attributes to the existance N ... by the reason that we always develop tools to enhance our innate capabilities (devices to outperform our own computational capacity, machinery to outperform our own strength capacity, or locomotion capacity ... etc). So in effect if each next conscience was produced as a "tool" from the previous conscience, then the "tool" is designed deliberately to possess superior attributes in order to achieve things not previously possible.

Here's some problems that spring up from this line of reasoning:

1) A 'poor composite' - the concept of creation (in itself problematic) is paired with another 'poor composite,' that of a homogeneous, cartesian, extensive metric time.

2) Starting with a 'spatialized time,' (fallacy), it is 'assumed' that creation (mirroring a purely Darwinian dialetic) functions in a purely extensive or spatial way. So, starting of from a first 'poor composite' (spatialized time) we arrive at a second, double 'poor composite', a concept of creation which has been itself spatialized, and from here a whole new series of problems spring up, not the least of which, is the transcendental.

3) From the spatialized/linear composite thus one arrives at a series of ethical (transcendental) judgements, all based, ironically, on the original 'poor composite' (eg., placing man on a point, man's creation as n+1 etc) - an ethical system which becomes an epistomological system all based on the assumption that creation (as a concept) *assumes* a cartesian extensivity.

4) And finally, the transcendental conclusions; Infinity, the 'n-1 conscience' as a *lack* (once again an assumption based on a spatialized concept of creation, n+1 as a purely positive extensivity etc). Man is conceived as a 'point,' the logical starting point of any logical deductions involving the past and future (again understood here as being strictly homogeneous, cartesian, and linear), and the act of creation itself is given the numeric function of '1':

n = man (assumption that man itself is the conceptual origin of creation)

1 = the act of creation (assumption that the act of creation can be reduced to an extensive, transcendental number)

+ = *ethics*, positive (superior) linear extension

- = *ethics*, negative (inferior) linear extension

So many of these problems are problems of *representation*:

"This is the dark thought I have had about representation for so long; we are immersed in it and it has become inseparable from our condition. It has created a world, a cosmos even, of false problems such that we have lost our true freedom: that of invention." (Henri Bergson)

Just some food for thought

[Hervé]

I woul love to go take a look at he secret library of the Vatican..

[thxraph]

I woul love to go take a look at he secret library of the Vatican..

so do i;)

[Thomas An.]

... Well, here is a good example of a conceptual fallacy, or, as mentioned, a 'poor composite', or a 'poorly stated problem'. And this problem is a problem of representation, to put it simply, *the spatialization of time*, and this leads to all kinds of conceptual / transcendental problems...
Here's some problems that spring up from this line of reasoning:
1) A 'poor composite' - the concept of creation (in itself problematic) is paired with another 'poor composite,' that of a homogeneous, cartesian, extensive metric time.

No decernible argument is found in the above. There is presence of an evaluative word: "poor" but with no supportive logical construct or antecedent basis.

2) Starting with a 'spatialized time,' (fallacy), it is 'assumed' that creation (mirroring a purely Darwinian dialetic) functions in a purely extensive or spatial way. So, starting of from a first 'poor composite' (spatialized time) we arrive at a second, double 'poor composite', a concept of creation which has been itself spatialized, and from here a whole new series of problems spring up, not the least of which, is the transcendental.

This statement (2) uses statement (1) as antecedent, but statement (1) contains no supportive logical construct.
Again, there is only presense of mere evaluative words ("fallacy", "assume", "poor").

3) From the spatialized/linear composite thus one arrives at a series of ethical (transcendental) judgements, all based, ironically, on the original 'poor composite' (eg., placing man on a point, man's creation as n+1 etc) - an ethical system which becomes an epistomological system all based on the assumption that creation (as a concept) *assumes* a cartesian extensivity.

The irony is that your staments are also purely transcedental.
No detectable logical cascades. They are mere emotional statements; more like an "expression" of distaste (a transcedental action in itslef).

"This is the dark thought I have had about representation for so long; we are immersed in it and it has become inseparable from our condition. It has created a world, a cosmos even, of false problems such that we have lost our true freedom: that of invention." (Henri Bergson)

And an example of invention being ? The basis for the conclusion of his idea of what freedom is (or should be and why ?). Will he use "representations" to construct his arguments ?

Your text contained a lot of words in an attempt to make a point, but only contained a series of evaluative wrappings ... at which point your text can be condensed to basically one sentence "I (Aitraaz) disagree and dislike what you just said in various occasions, but for no reason other than I just disagree and I can enumerate the portions that I disagree, but that is all"

Nothing wrong with what you said, just wanted to make sure I follow

[Thomas An.]

tom, same thing if you used psychotropes some tribes used will it be a chimical mahyem or would it be a short opening to another universe as you say?

i'd be a bit more cautious with this one...

why human simply cannot accept that we born, live and then die and that is all, a bit senseless but still

Perfect !
I agree with you 100% ... I will try to explain "why" at a later time (I am heading out right now).

[Thomas An.]

I think People cannot accept their death as an end..

I believe in the "nothing".... a whole world of mistery..

Fact is that I won't spend my life to think why, who, where.. because I know one thing... life's short... enjoy all the world goods now.. because in any case I suspect afterDeath will be somehow different..

BTW, I also believe in a collective concsiousness.. one large "experience"... all connected by gestures, sounds of voices, magnetic transitions.. when my dog got smashed by a car... I knew it the day before... somehow from the drivers' brain... somehow..

Now here also.. you died.. they put you in the ground... all you cells got rotten.. tiny pieces of cells escape from the coffen, ....best part... the plants take food from the ground.. they embbed some parts of you genetic... people eat the plants.. they make sperm, girls make eggs... and voila.. re-incarnation.. incredible no..? .....

Enjoy..

You are throwing some very interesting vantage points in there Herve.
Very nice !

Thomas.. good one... and you know what...? why do you think the poor people believe more in Gods than the rich people... pretty evident..

Good observation

[thomas lacroix]

Thomas.. good one... and you know what...? why do you think the poor people believe more in Gods than the rich people... pretty evident...

cause they ve been told they 'll be rewarded in the afterlife...
they've been told that they would be rewarded to take a load of s..t in there face in this life whilst gaining credit in the so called other for...

and its true in most religions but i dont want to start a flame war, i do respect others belief as long as there is not proselitism and that any belief isnt a state... faith should remain a private stuff whilst still being questionnable as science by the way, not something easy but something i tend to... lets try to keep ourself reasonable people in general

[aitraaz]

hhj

[aitraaz]

... Well, here is a good example of a conceptual fallacy, or, as mentioned, a 'poor composite', or a 'poorly stated problem'. And this problem is a problem of representation, to put it simply, *the spatialization of time*, and this leads to all kinds of conceptual / transcendental problems...
Here's some problems that spring up from this line of reasoning:
1) A 'poor composite' - the concept of creation (in itself problematic) is paired with another 'poor composite,' that of a homogeneous, cartesian, extensive metric time.

No decernible argument is found in the above. There is presence of an evaluative word: "poor" but with no supportive logical construct or antecedent basis.

Proposition: the proposed function [n-1,n,n+1] as a model for the creation of 'conscience' is erratic because it confuses representation with truth and thus invokes the absolute (transcendental).

argument 1: a linear system is proposed for a function of creation. Such a proposition is erratic as it invokes the absolute (negative inifinity to zero (man) to positive infinity) and thus makes transcendental claims to truth.

argument 2: the cartesian line is a scientific function which is a *representation of matter* (the physical world) which is solely a means of measurement (xy, xyz) and in itself has no inherent truth value.

argument 3: there is no reason whatsoever to pair creation (or time, for that matter) to a system of measurement (the line which has no existence in matter itself). A system of measurement (cartesian space, for example), is merely a representation of matter, and holds no existence in matter itself.

argument 4: without invoking the transcendental, it is proposed that an erroneous pairing of two qualitatively different notions (creation, a *concept*, and a line, a *representation*) creates an impure (and thus poor) function which brings the notion of absolute into creation itself.

argument 5: a series of ethics result from the function, inferior, superior, and so forth, which stem from the pairing of creation and linearity.

Conclusion: There is no reason to assume that creation, or time, are linear. A line is a function, a means of measurement, it has no truth value. Creation is free of transcendance, has no truth value, and belongs entirely to the realm of matter itself. It is non-representational and agrammatical.

2) Starting with a 'spatialized time,' (fallacy), it is 'assumed' that creation (mirroring a purely Darwinian dialetic) functions in a purely extensive or spatial way. So, starting of from a first 'poor composite' (spatialized time) we arrive at a second, double 'poor composite', a concept of creation which has been itself spatialized, and from here a whole new series of problems spring up, not the least of which, is the transcendental.

This statement (2) uses statement (1) as antecedent, but statement (1) contains no supportive logical construct.
Again, there is only presense of mere evaluative words ("fallacy", "assume", "poor").

These words, without invoking the absolute, perform a critique which indeed is based on logical functions. Eg;

Inquiry: Is time linear, circular, spiral, or an infinite spiral?
Response: None. Perhaps it is erroneous to assume that time is spatial? Or functions in a spatial way?

Poor in this sense only proposes the possibility that time may not have anything to do with platonic or cartesian space (or space at all for that matter).

The irony is that your staments are also purely transcedental.
No detectable logical cascades. They are mere emotional statements; more like an "expression" of distaste (a transcedental action in itslef).

Evaluative in this case doesn't invoke the transcendental. If n+1 is proposed to be superior to n, it must invoke the transcendental as it makes an ethical judgement that equates positive/forward motion along the 'line of creation' as being superior. A critique on the other hand which proposes that a representation of the real (matter) has been confused with truth does not invoke the transcendental, it merely points out a confusion of terms (representation & truth) in the [n-1,n,n+1] function.

Freedom in this case is defined by mobility, going beyond representation, as representation always goes back to power. As mentioned, religion is a classic case (and one among many) of using the absolute & transcendent as a means of power & control. Invention is creation, be it concepts, scientific functions, art, free from the absolute and the affective powers of representation.

naah....

[Hervé]

Thomas.. good one... and you know what...? why do you think the poor people believe more in Gods than the rich people... pretty evident...

cause they ve been told they 'll be rewarded in the afterlife...
they've been told that they would be rewarded to take a load of s..t in there face in this life whilst gaining credit in the so called other for...

and its true in most religions but i dont want to start a flame war, i do respect others belief as long as there is not proselitism and that any belief isnt a state... faith should remain a private stuff whilst still being questionnable as science by the way, not something easy but something i tend to... lets try to keep ourself reasonable people in general

Well, I watched Farenheit 911 again yesterday night... they said something interesting... "you basically have to keep the mass people just at the limit of misery... there is no other possible way to keep them from going crazy..." ... well in any case, Bush has an excuse... that's not his fault.. God told him to invade Irak...

Question ... are we the pieces on a chess board.. and different Gods are fighting... haha..

I mean even if there's nothing after life.. it's great... because "nothing" is already "something"... becoming nothing can be better than not being at all...

I consider myself lucky to be here...Imagine all the sperm my dad produced all his life... and I'm here.. but is it a gift...? Poisonous gift maybe... they published again the photo of this guy jumping from the twin towers... I am pretty sure that guy thought for a few seconds that he wished he was never born... no..?

if I could choose my death... I'd choose .... "La guillotine"... a last thrill..



Thomas An... it is indeed interesting that You said "interesting vantage points.."... because I need to be re-assured ...