571) Arminius, 14.09.2014, 00:15, 00:26, 00:32, 00:33, 00:36, 01:11, 02:23, 03:46, 04:38, 23:40, 23:49   (1999- 2009)

Reforming democracy is relatively useless, but reforming demography is not useless.

Eric the Pipe wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Eric the Pipe wrote:

›The solution of more restrictions ....‹ **

No!

My solution has nothing or merely less to do with restriction because the regulation does not work via state, but via market. Those family managers are not paid by the state, but by the market. The ›restriction‹ you mentioned refers merely to the law of birth control, family planing, population control (›oh‹, you may think, ›China!‹, but it is not like ›China‹) and not to the regulation itself. China's regulation was and is part of the regulation by a dictatorship. We may wait until the Western countries will have become more dictatorial than China ever was; then this regulation will come anyway, but it will come with more restrictions, with more repressions, depressions, suppresions, ... and so on. Better we do it via market than dictators will do it instead of us and ›for us‹ via dictatorship.« ** **

Ok, so if this is not passed as a law, that we simply get rid of the tax credits with for people with multiple children, then leave people along. I can live with this and I would see it as the free market, possibly, working to reduce the amount of children people have. If this is what you mean, I guess I'm on board.

If a law is passed, I'm against it ....

Arminius wrote:

»It is possible to do it via market.

In this case referring to China means distracting from the subject, and referring only to the exceptional cases means the same because those problems are existent anyway and increase exponentially. So we have to find a solution for the problems, or the increased problems will come to us.

Again: My solution leads to less regulation, thus less state, thus less dicatorship because the gigantic and exponentially increasing costs that we have now for ignoring this problems would gradually disappear.« ** **

The only real problem I've seen is that you have not really explained clearly what you mean... Bogging us down in attempting to understand what you mean ....“ **

These are my presuppositions:

The politicians don't solve but increase the problems. The market alone can't solve but decrease the problems, if such a market is wanted, allowed.

My solution requires less regulated markets and laws than we have today. A familiy manager is needed for my solution and will be found soon via market, if those bureaucratic laws which currently forbid to have family managers will be eliminated. Many other laws will have to be eliminated as well before the concept of the family management will be successful.

Many people have no time for their children - a family manager would do the job temporarily instead of them. Many people merely have children because the state pays for them - that is criminal, unsocial, thus egoistical, and of course that leads to many more problems which increase exponentially. Many people who want to work, to supply, to carry, to achieve, to accomplish, to afford will be able to have children then, now they can't, and other many people who don't want to work will have children too but not more than one per adult (= two per married couple).

The merely one law which is needed for my solution is that which says: „it is not allowed to have less and more than one child per adult“. In view of the fact that many laws will disappear, this one law is no problem at all. Furthermore, my solution leads to more wealth because the productive people can be reproductive again (now they can't), so that there will be also productive people in the future. Because of the probability that again more intelligent and responsible people would take more care about their environment the reduction of the pollution of the environment would also become more probable.

This solution is a taboo, not wanted by the rulers because if practised it will be successful, and that means that the rulers will lose their control and consequently their power. The rulers don't want other humans, especially intelligent humans, because they are not needed, machines can replace them (**|**).

I have made a proposal how to solve the three main problems of Western modernity which has become the three main problems of the planet Earth, thus of all human beings, probably of all „higher“ living beings, perhaps of all living beings. If each adult of the human beings is allowed to have one child but not allowed to have less or more than one child, then the population shrinks very slowly because the reproduction rate is merely 1,0 and not 1,07 or more (population growth). My solution means that the qualitiy of the population grows, while the quantity of the population shrinks, so that all become richer and also more responsible for their environment because of their quality.

Else the reverse continues: Western modernity as a way of life for all human beings as a growing population with unfairly distributed wealth and offspring on a more and more uninhabitable planet Earth.

Machines and all those ecological, economic, and demographical problems:

Copied post in another thread.

Eric the Pipe wrote:

„Revolutions can be performed by people living in relative luxury, the American Revolution was orchestrated by the rich.“ **

Yes. All so-called „revolutions“ were, are, and will be orchestrated by the rich. Else the so-called „revolutionaries“ would not have any real weapon, for example.

That's the reason why those Godwannabes think they would be able to create anything and everything out of the nothingness. But that what they merely create is such a „negative existence“ (**).

Copied post in another thread.

Laughing Man wrote:

„This is the testimonial of my life and it's experiences. I do it as a testament of knowing myself and as a sort of reflection.

In short this everything of me in total transparency.

I was born in Omaha, Nebraska in the year 1987.

My family being mostly of German and French ancestral descent. On my father's side an Austrian-Hungarian Jew. His portion of the family being entirely unknown.

He also being very much unknown.

My grandfather a man who's family were from a long line of clock makers in Munich, Germany who later was a machinist and farmer his entire life.

My grandmother from Lorraine, France. She later was to be a seamstress, farm hand, and school bus driver all her life.

Both of them very much devout Catholics. They both immigrated to the United States shortly after World War I.“ **

B.t.w: Until the end of WW1 Lorraine was still German.

Laughing Man wrote:

„My mother suffice it to say was always a crazy one. I blame it on her youthful activities of partaking in the 1960's hippie movement that she was very much a part of.

Too much LSD, shrooms, acid, and marijuana usage I think. For her life she was a waitress and for a time also a machinist like my grandfather.

The death of her beloved sister before my time slitting her wrists in bathtub over a lover that left her didn't help quite either.

She met my father at a Led Zeppelin concert and on that fourth night I was conceived.

Later my semi truck driving father left after finding out she was pregnant. In his mind he was there for the fun and didn't want to stick around for the after activities of being a family man.

My memory of my father is a bit of a haze really as I don't have much memory of him ever being around.

He did come back later at some point only to leave once again indefinitely.

I remember being three years old feeling the soles of the bottom of his boots one morning trying to smash my face into the ground of a concrete parking lot with my face covered in blood. It was the only lasting impression or memory I ever had of him.

It was clear to me at the young age as a boy that I was the product of an unwanted accident.

After that my mother couldn't stand the pressures of being a single mother. She reverted to drugs and went through many dead end manual labor jobs.

After awhile me and her were homeless living off the streets at only the age of four. It was then that the state intervened where I was to go to a foster home and where she was sent to a psychiatric ward.

I remember like it was yesterday being in the psychiatric ward with my mother holding onto her leg as she sat a table in a medical gown where the facilitators had to pull and drag me away as my mother sat with tears screaming.

This was how the first four years of my life came to be.“ **

Laughing Man wrote:

„At age four I was sent to a foster home in a town called Silver Lake, Kansas

The year was 1991

I stayed there for five years up until the age of nine.

I remember never being allowed to leave the house or have individual pursuits of my own.

It was a very controlled Southern Baptist household. God and the devil were invoked there on a regular basis where the brimstone of hell was always present.

I was never allowed to have friends.

I remember the long summers being locked up in the basement. The isolation, agony, and despair. The utter feeling of hopelessness.

I remember the torture of some of the other kids by the foster parents. One being starved for weeks and where a female child was forced to drink her own urine as a form of punishment. I also remember a incident of a bull whip being utilized on somebody. None of this was ever reported.

I remember my first kiss took place with one of the females my own age there. A childhood romance.

All that isolation, agony, and despair grew within me where at the age of eight I became very destructive sometimes exploding to the point that I would intentionally destroy the house or its windows. I would receive beatings on a weekly basis.

Eventually after unsuccessfully trying to burn the house down with a fire started in the kitchen I was put up for adoption once again. At this time the year was 1996.

At this point I would have visits with my mother at the asylum once a year. She was not released from that place until 1998. She stayed in that asylum for six years.

I don't believe those people ever showed compassion for the kids under their charge. For them it was just a state paycheck handed to them in the mail.

Quite surprising I saw the same foster parents with new kids in their custody in the year of 2006. The vicious cycle repeating itself again and again.“ **

Laughing Man, is that really true? I can hardly believe it.

Laughing Man wrote:

„Everything said in this thread as hard as it might appear to believe in actually happened, yes.“ **

I’m sorry; I don't know what to say.

Laughing Man wrote:

„I didn't know about that historical bit on Lorraine. Thanks for sharing that with me.“ **

Do you know the family name of your grandmother? And if you know and read or speak that name: Does it „look“ or „sound“ more like German or French?

Gib wrote:

„That's all well and good, Arminius, but how does that tie into the problem of political corruption?“ **

The more a market is regulated the more corruption is there. My solution leads to less regulated markets and therefore also to less corruption. Today there is more corruption than ever before. Those who are not against corruption - political or other kinds of corruption - are either corrupt or stupid, or both.

Besides my solution, there are mereley two other „solutions“ (they are no real solutions): (1) „continue / carry on with the exponentially increasing problems“, (2) catastrophe. This two are actually merely one because the (1) former leads to the (2) latter.

The relationship between regulated markets and the relatively free markets must be changed again in favor of relatively free markets. Then we can reduce the corruption very much. Unfortunately the corruption has become so powerful that there is a huge problem to start from a point of a corrupt society in order to reach a point of a relatively incorrupt society. So please don’t ask me to forebode whether my solution or the other two „solutions“ which are merely one „solution“ (see above) will occur.

Laughing Man wrote:

„I like no regulation whatsoever.“ **

My heart agrees, my brain disagrees, dear „anarchistnihilistic“ Laughing Man. Some regulations must be. So please agree!

We shouldn't just watch how the disaster as the only alternative comes up to us. The probability that no one survives this disaster is just too high. We can also not have a „communal particle“ without any law, and a law is not always merely fore one but for all in that little society, even then, if a law merely refers to the „recognition of association between definitions such as to reveal an associated definitional truth“ (definitional logic). Since the end of the Stone Age the humans have been living with written laws. Maybe that our goal is a new Stone Age anyway or even the death of all human beings, but is that really desirable? You know, we have this „global society“, and socially we can only start from a point of that „global society“. This „global society“ is full of laws, regulated markets - in the EU there is a law which dictates even the angle degree of the banana curve. So should we do nothing else than await the disaster? We can't start with the goal. That is impossible. The goal could be a „communal particle“, but the way to it can only be the way from the „global society“ to the „communal particle“. The only alternative to it is to continue with the „global society“ as the way to the disaster (see above: catastrophe [**|**]).

Gib wrote:

„Now, what's the connect between deregulating the market and your one-child-per-adult rule?“ **

Like I said (here):

Arrminius wrote:

„The merely one law ... leads to more wealth because the productive people can be reproductive again (now they can't), so that there will be also productive people in the future. Because of the probability that again more intelligent and responsible people would take more care about their environment the reduction of the pollution of the environment would also become more probable.

....

I have made a proposal how to solve the three main problems of Western modernity which has become the three main problems of the planet Earth, thus of all human beings, probably of all „higher“ living beings, perhaps of all living beings. If each adult of the human beings is allowed to have one child but not allowed to have less or more than one child, then the population shrinks very slowly because the reproduction rate is merely 1,0 and not 1,07 or more (population growth). My solution means that the qualitiy of the population grows, while the quantity of the population shrinks, so that all become richer and also more responsible for their environment because of their quality.

Else the reverse continues: Western modernity as a way of life for all human beings as a growing population with unfairly distributed wealth and offspring on a more and more uninhabitable planet Earth.“ ** **

It works theoretically, and it would work practically too, if the rulers weren’t against it. They are against it because they profit by the current population policy, by the current employment market which is mostly a regulated market (cp. cheap workers), and orther regulated markets, a huge bureaucratic policy. Put it away!

Please think about it before replying too quickly, too rashly.

I would also prefer to continue with the „global society“, if the global(ictic) problems were not so huge. We can also accelerate the coming of the disaster (cp. ochlocarcy, anarchy, nihilism) and hope that after it, if any human will survive that disaster, we will start with a new way of life, a new culture, and/or, for example, a „communal particle“.

I hope that someday (and hopefully before it will be too late) my suggestions will be accepted.

The main reasons for the disability of the Western states, if we can call them still so, are - amongst others (for example: cultural decadence = the so-called „civilisation“) - the structure of the power, the bureaucracy, thus the overregulated markets and societies, the dictatorship on the one dirty hand and the ochlocracy on the other dirty hand.

And by the way: the global market is so over-regulated that almost any change can only mean a less regulated market.

572) Arminius, 15.09.2014, 01:21, 02:36, 03:06, 03:43, 18:17, 19:07, 20:55, 23:13   (2010-2017)

Laughing Man wrote:

„I know the last name of my grandmother and it is very French.“ **

At that time the language of the extreme western part of Lorraine was French, the language of the rest of Lorraine was German.

Laughing Man wrote:

„I inherited the last name of my grandfather however where my full name is very German.

Before he died he was always telling me we had relatives still living in Munich.

Relatives I've never met. He was always telling me stories about great uncles of mine who died in World War I fighting for Germany.“ **

A very interesting story, so that you should visit the places of your ancestors.

Gib wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»The merely one law ... leads to more wealth because the productive can be reproductive again (now they can’t).« ** **

And why is this? Is it because the productive consist of couples each of which is holding down a full time job and has no time for children?“ **

Yes, in nearly all cases.

Gib wrote:

„And why would the »less productive« being limited to no less and no more than one child per adult resolve this?“ **

(1.) Currently the less-productive people have still too many children and therefore they can’t become as rich as the more-productive people; (2.)) the reasonably fair distribution of children (2.1.) also increases the wealth, (2.2.) leads to (2.2.1.) more peace, (2.2.2.) more intelligence, (2.2.3.) more competence, (2.2.4.) more responsibilities, thus (2.2.4.1.) less pollution of the environment - that all because the more-productive people can also have children and the less-productive people can not have more children than the more-productive people. And that all is fair.

Gib wrote:

„Besides all that, I would think having no children is the best way to accumulate wealth. Only have to distribute it amongst two people in a couple (assuming one works and one doesn't) or only one's self (if they both work or one is single).“ **

Yes and no (more no) because having no children would merely be the best way to accumulate wealth then (and only then), if there were not two risks: (A) the risk of losing competence and skills because there were not enough children who could learn those competence and skills; (B) becoming unfertile (that would be the end anyway).

So having no children can only be the best way to accumulate wealth for a short time, for a long time having no children is fatal, killing.

I friendly advise you to read a good book on demography, preferably both demography and economics.

Gib wrote:

„But if you're talking about the need for children in order to keep civilization going into future generations, I agree, but that necessarily entails a limit on wealth as income must be distributed at least amongst the children.“ **

You mean that the children must profit from this development, right? If yes, then: of course, that is one of the main reasons why we must change the current expropriation of all by all, of everyone by everyone, of anyone by anyone, and especially of the future generations by the current generations.

Debts and a polluted planet mean an extreme egoism, an egomania.

We live at the cost of our children, our grandchildren, ..., in short: our offspring.

Laughing Man wrote:

„The concept of luxury is always changing.

What was considered luxury of our ancient past is commonstock now.

This is why there will never ever be total satisfaction for everyone concerning luxury as a whole.“ **

Like I said (**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**): Human beings are luxury beings.

Laughing Man wrote:

„Wait a minute, are you saying that government powers controlling whole robotic armies in the future will not be so nice and caring towards us?

*Laughs*“ **

What’s your point, Laughing Man?

LaughingMan wrote:

„I no longer care about race, ethnicity, culture, and ancestry.

My own people haven't done a fucking thing for me.

In fact my own people shun me and treat me as a disposable poor white guy putting it mildly.“ **

What I meant was that you should do it just out of interest.

Also your grandparents haven’t done anything for you? I can't believe it.

Laughing Man wrote:

„That an advanced technological society run by a few psychopaths around the world will be an eternal nightmare for humanity.“ **

Yeah. Such is life - at least human life. And those ruling pschopaths and their functionaries call the other people „psychopaths“. Do you know what I mean?

Laughing Man wrote:

„Do I pass your screening good sir?“ **

Yes, of course, good boy.

Gib, one must explain every and any little thing to you, my little son.

Okay.

- The reasonably fair distribution of children. The invisible accent are the adverb „reasonably“ and the adjective „fair“. Currently the distribution of children is absolutely unfair, and if it is right (and it is right - because fertility, intelligence / competence, and wealth are correlated) that everyone wants to copy himself / herself, then it is fair that both the less-productive people and the more-productive people can do it. Currently the less-productive people merely produce children and nothing else, and for that they get get money from the state, thus the taxpayers. Do you think that that is fair? If yes, then we can end our conversation. Do you think it will be alright if we will have merely less-productive people, so that the whole human poulation will be less-productive which actually means unproductive? If you say „yes“, then you have to say „yes“ too when it comes to this question: Will machines completely replace all human beings? (**|**).

- The reasonably fair distribution of children increases the wealth of the less-productive people - right, Gib - but of the more-productive people too. Both condition each other. If the less-productive people are poor and have more children than the more-productive people and have to be supported by the more-productive people (and that all is the case), then the trend is that the more-productive people also become poor and less-productive. One has always to consider the time too, for example to differ in „short time“, „middle time“, and „long time“. What I am reffering to is mainly the middle and especially the long time because this „global society“ lives and thinks merely for a very short time at the cost of our children, as I already said (**|**).

- The reasonably fair distribution of children leads to more peace because that distribution is reasonably fair. The invisible accent are the adverb „reasonably“ and the adjective „fair“, Gib. The huge majority of people who are wealthy don't want war, they just want wealth. Human beings are luxury beings (**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**), and if the luxury of the present time is reached, then they are - by the majority - satisfied (I am not speaking of the rulers, the upper class, which is a special case because of its power which has been increasing exponentilally, horribly). Normal people are mostly satisfied when they have reached the luxury which they think has to be reached at a time. They are peaceful. War is an issue of the upper class, not of the middle class, and of the lower class because of their poorness, envy, unhappiness, resentment.

- The reasonably fair distribution of children leads to more competence because the reasonably fair distribution of children leads to more intelligence, Gib (for you I have edited it in my last post, see: 2.2.2. [**|**]). It is proven that fertility, intelligence / competence, and wealth correlate with each other.

Gib wrote:

„I'm not sure I quite got that. Sounds like you're say that all the money that has to be spent on the less-productive's huge families will be unnecessary when they limit the number of children they have to one/adult, and so that money will be redistributed to the more-productive, meaning that they don't have to spend as much time working for it and therefore can use that extra time to raise children.“ **

Aa) If you have no children and want to be a more-productive, then the probability is high that you have much time for being a more-productive.
Ba) If you have many children and want to be a more-productive, then the probability is high that you have less time for being a more-productive.
Ab) If you have no children and do not want to be a more-productive, then the probability is high that you are not a more-productive.
Bb) If you have many children and do not want to be a more-productive, then the probability is high that you have less time for being a more-productive and that you are not a more-productive because you do not want to be a more-productive.

Gib wrote:

„But some things don't add up ....“ **

No - because they also add up.

Gib wrote:

„How is it that a couple without children has to spend all their time working just to scrape by while a couple with several children and who work less (because of lack of time [and in many cases also because of the lack of the will to work]) has enough money to feed several mouths (these mouths are mainly feeded by the taxpayers, the more-productive people [see above])? I would think the trend would work in reverse. Having several children would force a couple to work long hours just to make enough money to feed all those little mouths, whereas a couple without children wouldn't have to work nearly as hard just to feed themselves.“ **

Egoism is on both sides, Gib. You can’t eliminate egoism but merely extreme egoism, thus egomania.

The history of the Western societies shows how the trend will be for the other societies in the future, but there is one problem: it will not be the same but merely a similar devolopment because the other societies belong to other cultures, and if they know the history of the Western culture, then they also know what to do in order to become modern but not Western. They don't want to live the Western way of life, they have a different tradtition. More and more of them resist the Western way of life.

You can have many children and be a very egomanian pigheaded fellow. You can have no children and be a very egomanian pigheaded fellow. It depends on which culture you belong to, which mindset / mentality and feelings / affects you have.

The scapegoat is not always the typical Western middle class „bourgeois“, Gib.

Gib wrote:

„And why do you imagine wealth being redistributed the way you describe? Suppose we take a couple from your »less-productive« class. They're less productive because, with all their children, they have no time to work [and in many cases also because of the lack of the will to work {see above}]). But we limit the number of children they can have to one/adult. Now they have more time. They become more productive. They earn more money and become more wealthy. Seems like the wealth got »redistributed« back to themselves, not to the »more-productive« class.“ **

Yes and no - because in that case the more-productive people have to pay less taxes, less charges, less surcharges etc.. It is logical. So both the more-productive people and the less-productive people will become more wealthy, if those of the less-productive people who have become part of the more-productive people are more that those of the more-productive people who have become part of the less-productive people. And that is the case. So a solution of the demographical problem is necessary.

MACHINES AND THE UNPRODUCTIVE HUMANS:

Copied post in another thread.

573) Arminius, 16.09.2014, 00:11, 01:12, 02:26, 02:39, 02:49, 03:00, 04:30, 04:33, 04:54, 05:33, 18:33  (2018-2028)

Uglypeoplefucking wrote:

„It seems the falling apart process has already begun, though. If it falls apart in the next century it will be because of mistakes already made by the oldsters, and not the fault of the millenials, animals though they may be.

Those so-called „Millenials“ will make even more mistakes because made mistakes lead to more mistakes, especially then, if a society is a modern society which means: velociferic, expanded in any case, accelerated in any case, greedy in any case, too fat, too ugly, ... and so on, ... and so on ..., Uglypeoplefucking.

Uglypeoplefucking wrote:

Anyway, isn't everybody an animal at that age?

An animal ....

Gib wrote:

„Oh, you're imagining a welfare system. That's the missing element... but I was supposed to know that anyway.

....

Well, that's clear now that you mentioned getting rid of the welfare state.“ **

Gib, the welfare state is not a new penomenon. If I showed you the welfare state of the 19th century (for example the German state during the time when Bismarck was Reichskanzler), you would have asked: that was a welfares state? Yes, it was, and Bismarck's welfare state was the first and the best one. What I want to say is that we have to consider that this welfare state has changed and unfortunately become a huge monster. But my main point is not the welfare state allone but also and first of all the justice of generations (remember: demography is my theme here). The problem is that this modern „society“ lives and thinks merely for a very short time, at the cost of the offspring, as I already said (**|**|**|**). This includes not only the debts but also the demographic disaster and the pollution of the whole planet Earth.

The welfare state must not be eliminated but reduced. If we wanted to find back to a pure or nearly pure society of humans (and not to rush in a „society“ of machines and half-machines and human slaves or even no humans [**|**]), then the welfare state as a monster would not be needed anymore. But the most people want the contradiction, the oxymoron, because with the machines and more and more machines the welfare state will be needed more than ever before but eliminated. That's a „good“ outlook for our offspring, isn't it, Gib?

MACHINES AND THE UNPRODUCTIVE HUMANS:

Copied post in another thread.

James S. Saint wrote:

„The greatest single mistake that brought so much of this into the modern world was made in 1913. From that time to this, each generation only gets worse (and not by accident).“ **

Yes. That is why it is always becoming increasingly difficult for each generation to come out of that trap. That is no accident.

Your mother was a hippie of the 1960’s, and you were born 1987 - that means that your mother was relatively old when you were born.

Laughing Man wrote:

„Both of my grandparents are unfortunately deceased. The only people of my real family I admired and respected.“ **

Interestingly, I thuoght that.

LaughingMan wrote:

„James S. Saint wrote:

»Laughing Man wrote:

›*Grabs a bag of popcorn.*‹ **

Didn't we used to have an icon for that?« **

Yes, I believe so.“ **

Do you mean this one?:

Laughing Man wrote:

„Glad I meet your approval. Carry on sir.“ **

Yes, and thank you.

Only Humean wrote:

„Here's an interesting related article on ongoing studies into the dangers of superintelligence.“ **

Thank you, and what do you think about that article?

Laughing Man wrote:

„She was in her late forties when I was born. Only child and all that jazz.“ **

In „her late forties“? It's danagerous to conceive and to carry a child to term when a woman is in „her late forties“, Laughing Man.

Laughing Man wrote:

„Another favorite avatar of mine.“ **

Yes, I know, and I like it.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Something to think about concerning the concept of »force« as it is used in physics is that the concept is what Einstein called »spooky action at a distance« and didn't agree with it. The Newtonian concept of forces, attraction and repulsion, was that two bodies with absolutely nothing between them, would attract or repel each other depending on their mass and/or charge potential. That actually requires »magic« because it is implying that each body is being affected by another far away without anything between or touching either body.

This is another example of empirical evidence being misleading. The empirical evidence is that the two bodies respond to each other and yet it can clearly be seen that absolutely nothing is between them. Of course the truth is that just because you can't see something, doesn't mean it isn't there. That is why logic is required beyond the physical evidence. And that logic is called »metaphysics«.

And that is why I say that »forces« don't actually exist. They are an aberrant effect of the gradient affectance field that is between the two bodies causing the bodies to behave with respect to the other. They bodies migrate with respect to their immediate surroundings. They don't sense the presence of the distant body. If you modify that field, the bodies will respond accordingly regardless of any other body that might be around.

Both Newtonian physics and Einstein's Relativity are merely illusions that provided for better predictions than what they had before. But a method for predicting is not a law of the universe, merely a short-cut tool with which to get a little closer to knowing what is going to happen even if you have no idea as to why.“ **

RM:AO is all about »Why?« - the »Meta-physics«, the Logic.

Throughout his adult life Goethe, for example, fought Newton's physics.

James, according to many of your texts you must be a friend of the aether theory.

Gib wrote:

„What is the »justice of generations«? Is that just your one child/adult rule?“ **

The justice of generations means that any generation should not live under worse conditions than its former generation.

Again: Currently there is a crazy expropriation of all by all, of everyone by everyone, of anyone by anyone, and especially of the future generations by the current generations. ** **

Debts and a polluted planet mean an extreme egoism, an egomania, a life at the cost of our offspring. ** **

We live at the cost of our children, our grandchildren, ..., in short: our offspring. ** **

If a society lives at the cost of its future, then this society is in a suicidal mood. A suicide of a society means that there is no offspring anymore. And our society says: „We are a global society“. That's lunatic.

So the justice of generations is very important.

Uglypeoplefucking wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Uglypeoplefucking wrote:

›Anyway, isn't everybody an animal at that age?‹ **

An animal .... « ** **

Not sure what's funny, but i'm glad i can amuse.“ **

At least a little bit because I have had the following association:

1) „hippie generation“ („make love not war“, „peace“): „pygmy chimpanzees“ („bonobos“);
2) „post hippie generations“:
     2.1) „post hippie generation 1“: „chimpanzees“;
     2.2) „post hippie generation 2“: „orang-utans“;
     2.3) „post hippie generation 3“: „gorillas“.

That's why I laughed.

Do the humans really regress? If so, then it's not funny.

574) Arminius, 17.09.2014, 01:00, 01:22, 02:41, 03:28, 04:48, 04:49, 05:41, 21:56, 01:00, 01:00, 01:00   (2029-2037)

Laughing Man wrote:

„You know, that whole free-will argument has been misleading to me. One would think that if a person has free will they can freely will whatever it is that they want.

Then this whole morality bit comes into play with free will saying what you can and can't do.

Doesn't sound free, does it? They should rename free will into restricted will.

We can call it the restricted will argument.“ **

What I mean with „relatively free will“ is a kind of „restricted will“ because a will as such can only be a free will and is not observable, not cognoscible , thus not provable or disprovable, so we can agree with Schopenhauer and say that the will is Kant's „thing as such“.

Gib wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»The justice of generations means that any generation should not live under worse conditions than its former generation.

Again: Currently there is a crazy expropriation of all by all, of everyone by everyone, of anyone by anyone, and especially of the future generations by the current generations. ** **

Debts and a polluted planet mean an extreme egoism, an egomania, a life at the cost of our offspring. ** **

We live at the cost of our children, our grandchildren, ..., in short: our offspring. ** **

If a society lives at the cost of its future, then this society is in a suicidal mood. A suicide of a society means that there is no offspring anymore. And our society says: „We are a global society“. That's lunatic.

So the justice of generations is very important.« ** **

Ah, then I agree wholeheartedly.“ **

Thanks.

Newton was a scientist and theologian while his German „Zeitgenosse“ („time accomplice“, coeval, contemporary) Leibniz was a scientist and philosopher; so theology and philosophy make the crucial difference. Newton had political power, Leibniz had no political power. Calculus was invented by Leibniz. Wether calculus was also, simultaneously and independently of Leibniz, invented by Newton too is doubtable because of Newton’s political power.

„Goethe ... war in seiner ganzen Denkweise, ohne es zu wissen, ein Schüler von Leibniz gewesen.“ (Oswald Spengler, Der Untergang des Abendlandes, 1918, S. IX **).
Translation:
„Goethe ... had been in his whole way of thinking, without knowing it, a disciple of Leibniz.“ (Oswald Spengler, The Decline of the West, 1917, p. IX **).

What has been found and brought in a formula by Newton could also have been found and brought in a formula by another person. It was Newton's political power that made him and his „laws“ famous. If he hadn't had this political power, he and his „laws“ would probably not have become famous. The history of Western science would have remained a Faustian one anyway but been written in a different way and probably never mentioned Newton. The history of Western science would have remained a Faustian one anyway but been written in a different way and probably never mentioned Newton. So without any doubt, Newton was also a Faustian scientist but he gave a very special form to the Faustian science. And what I just said about Newton, applies similarly for Einstein. So Newton and Einstein are not the most typical Faustian scientists but nevertheless also Faustian scientists. Their relativity theories are not as absolute and dynamic as other Faustian theories but nevertheless also Faustian theories.

James S. Saint wrote:

„What »other Faustian theories«?“ **

The other Faustian theories are all the other Occidental (Western) theories. They are so many that I didn't want to list them in my last post. In this case, it doesn't matter wether they are „right“ („true“) or „wrong“ („false“) because in this case it is crucial and essential wether they belong to the type, the form, the character of the Faustian culture, for example: dynamic, infinity, infiniteness, endlessness, everlastingness, boundlessness, illimitableness, force(s), dilatation, expansiveness, ... and so on.

Copied post in another thread.

Visit the Faust museum:

Faust Museum in Knittlingen (Germany).

Knittlingen is also the place of birth of Johann Georg Faust (c. 1480 – c. 1541).

Copied post in another thread.

- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4naoVjdFxCA
(The Doors [Morrison, Manzarek, Krieger, Densmore], The End, 1967).

James S. Saint wrote:

„I'm not sure that I can discern a "Faustian theory" from anything else. It seems that no matter what reasonable theory one has, it could be dubbed "Faustian". Can you give an example of a theory that would be something reasonable, even if not correct, that would be consider non-Faustian?“ **

Yes, I can. The Non-Faustian cultures had and have a completely different idea when it comes to undertand what „nature“, „physics“, „universe“, „life“, ... means. This is even perceptible when you read i.e. Zinnat's texts because they indicate, although not always, his belonging to the Indian culture. Humans at different places and times understood, understand, and will understand their environment differently, they even have their own „worlds“, and so they also value and justify differently. If you know how „science“ was and/or is understood by the Mesopotamian culture, by the Egyptian culture, by the Indian (or South-Asian) culture, by the Chinese (or East-Asian) culture, by the Apollonian culture (our ancestor), by the Inka/Maya culture, by the Magic/Arabian/Islamic culture, and the Faustian culture (the descendant of the Apollinian culture), then you know also the differences in their theories and even their philosophies (metaphysics, ontologies, ...). Merely the Faustian culture has developed a real science; partly ,and merely partly also the other cultures, partly because they had and have (a) a too hot climate, (b) a too dominant religion, so that something which could be called „science“ nearly remained or remains a religion, or (c) other conditions that prevented or prevent the developmet of a real science.

You may say (for example): „there wre the constructions of the Tower of Babel, the pyramids of the Egyptians and the Maya, the inventions and discoveries of the Mesopotamian culture, the Chinese (East-Asian) culture, the Apollonian culture (our ancestor)“. Alright, but they weren't like that what the Faustian constructions, inventions, and discoveries were and are. Merely the Faustian culture had and has a concept of an autonomous „science“ and „technique/technology“. You may see what it means to have a more religious „science“ and „technique/technology“ when you look at thre current Faustian science which is again more dominated by religion than in former times of the Faustian culture, for example the era of the so-called „enlightenment“ („Aufklärung“). It is comparable to humans personal development: the most scientific time is the time of the adolescence and around the adolescence; the era of the „enlightenment“ („Aufklärung“) was such a time for the Faustian culture. A younger one is too unripe, an older one is already too ripe - for example too conservative, too philosophical, thus too wise - for science as an „enlightenment“ („Aufklärung“), but not too ripe for a more religious or philosophical (metaphysical, ontological) science.

Visit the Faust museum:

Faust Museum in Knittlingen (Germany).

Knittlingen is also the place of birth of Johann Georg Faust (c. 1480 – c. 1541).

575) Arminius, 18.09.2014, 02:04, 04:36, 05:13, 14:37, 14:48, 16:15, 16:46, 16:53, 19:57, 20:44, 21:06, 21:10, 21:16, 23:33  (2037-2049) [2037-2050 {wegen Hinzufügung]

Dan wrote:

„Belief in God makes you do crazy, negative, hurtful things.
Belief in God makes you a bad, illogical moron.“ **

That says the moderator of the subforum „Religion and Spirituality“.

Excuse me, Dan, but I can't believe what you are saying, although or because you are also saying that you were being „sarcastic“ (**).

Is the moderartor of the philosophical subforum „Philosophy“ an anti-philosopher?
Is the moderartor of the philosophical subforum „Society, Government, and Economics“ an anti-social moron, an egomaniac idiot?
Is the moderartor of the philosophical subforum „Science, Technology, and Math“ an anti-scientist, an anti-technologist, an anti-mathematician?
Is the moderartor of the philosophical subforum „Psychology and Mind“ an anti-psychological moron, an mindless sociopath?
Is the moderartor of the philosophical subforum „Religion and Spirituality“ an anti-religious and anti-spiritual peacock, a foolish godwannabe?

Maybe or even probably.

So maybe or even probably „I love philosophy“ (**|**) really means „I hate philosophy“.

Should my ILP membership be thought over?

Dan wrote:

„Christians want to destroy science and truth.“ **

How do you know that? Who told you that? The Nietzscheanists? The other nihilists?

I invite you to come to Europe because Europe has almost no real Christians anymore. So according to your statements Europe would have to be a paradisie. Funny, because the reverse is right. Again: Come to Europe! For example and very especially: Come to France which is almost islamic and voodoo-like, just „delicious“.

Dan wrote:

„Belief in nothingness, abiogenesis, a dead random universe, Scientists, etc. Will fix all of the world's problems.“ **

Do you believe in that, in that expectant new religion? If you really had learned from the history of religion you would have come to a different conclusion. Science is no cure-all, no universal remedy. Currently science is on the best way to become a new religion. Do you believe that will be a „better“ religion?

Dan wrote:

„We evolved from apes and everything we do and are is for survival through many deaths and natural selections.“ **

Darwinistically we evolved from the apes, okay, but Anti-Darwinistically, thus culturally, we evolved from the throw(ing) (**|**|**|**).

Dan wrote:

„Therefor christian is bad and science is good.
Theism is bad. Antitheism is good.“ **

Science became a new theology long ago, even before it could try to become a new religion. Newton’s „laws“ are as theological as God’s „laws“ in the „good old“ religious times of Christianity, and as Allah’s „laws“ (you don't believe? then ask the „Christian“ French!).

Today the Christians are similar to those scientists who were persecuted by the Christians in the 15th, in the 16th, in the 17th, and in the eraly 18th century, especially from the middle or late 16th to the early 18th century when the Catholic Anti-Reformation persecuted scientists.

James S. Saint wrote:

„»Theism« is one particular »theory«.“ **

Right. And anti-theism is just another theism. Anti-theism always refers to theism. Interestringly, the history shows us that a-theism has always behaved like anti-atheism, thus also like another theism. Theory and theism belong together. So if you want to attack theism, then you also attack science.

A muslim knows that theism and theory are related, that they are very similar to each other, probably he even says that they are „the same“ because his culture is one of the most religious cultures of all time.

There has never been a culture without any religion and theology. But when cultures decline religion and theology have to decline as well - this seems to be a declining „law“.

Dan wrote:

„I was being sarcastic.“ **

Are you sure?

Don’t think that religion will be destroyed just because Christianity will be destroyed. That’s an dangerous, fatal error. And if you want to destroy Occidental values and traditions why don’t you start with science which is one of the most typical Occidental forms but not the Christianity which is also and even originally an Oriental form?

Sarcastic?

James S. Saint wrote:

„I'm not arguing with you but I need a specific example of a theory that is very »non-Faustian« and explanation why it isn't.“ **

Did anyone of the other cultures invent theories of „relativity“, „gravitational force“, „electromagnetic force“, „strong nuclear force“, „weak nuclear force“, „speed of light“, „thermodynamics“, „quantum“, „big bang“, „inflation of the universe“, „black holes“, „dark matter“, „dark energy“, ....?

That has not merely to do with the different times when those cultures had their best time in order to invent and form something like science and its theories. The Non-Faustian cultures invented theories for their religion, theology, philosophy, or just their states; they had not a really autonomous (system of) science, no universities (universities are invented by the Faustians, they are a pure Faustian form, institution). The „scientists“ of the Non-Faustian cultures researched at home and the most of them also studied at home. If you now think of the library of Alexandria, then I have to remind you that it was no university in a Faustian sense.

My point is not that the theories of the Non-Faustians were not useful at all; my point is that they were not scientific (just in a Faustian sense). In the good old times of the Faustian science one could relatively freely study and research because the universities were relatively free then, and this was not possible in other cultures. So the university system, the unit of studies and research, and especially the relative freedom of all universities are unique, and abbeys and cloisters are their forerunners. Monks, namely Occidental (Faustian) monks, were the cultural ancestors of the students of the universities.

In Mesopotamia, especially in Egypt and China, not seldom also in orther cultures (except the Apollonian and the Faustian culture which are related), „scientists“ or technicians were killed after important inventions or discoveries they had made. There was no scientific system, all that what we - the Faustians - call „science“ lacked there, especially the relative freedom, the unit of studies and research. The universities as a system of science, thus of real science, is unique, is Faustian.

The current development of science shows whereto it tends: probably it will not vanish but become a new religion. Science came out of religion and will end as a new religion. The future scientists will probably be similar to the monks of the so-called „Middle Ages“ but only a bit similar because their relative freedom will probably decrease but not vanish as long as the Faustian culture will exist.

That is my firm conviction.

Obe wrote:

„It's ok, since a lot of my stuff consists of automatic writing.“ **

Obe, are you a machine? And if so: Do you and all your buddies want to completely replace us all (**|**) ?

Laughing Man wrote:

„Damnable hubris of it all.“ **

Yes, and this hubris seems to be unstoppable. It’s a „veloficeric“ (Goethe) dvelopment.

Obe wrote:

„In a sense i am a machine. But as i have said i am staying within the non committed column. It all depends on You. I am but here to point to the difficulties which can be experienced toward the way. It is like that certain warrior who came across dragon's teeth in a field, like that of modern minefields where everybody is replaceable. Who am i to replace You?

But in another sense, the machine which dictates to me, still, as the nacht which the winter solstice , evaporating the hubrice of the dreams of mid-summer, where fauns, still, inspire, then as there unreservedly so, all as in that dream , is, replaceable. But it's not i, believe me, it is those whom i loved, those who challenged and channelled me, please believe me, of course you may not, and yet again, you might, if, only You can will it!

Machines can never replace You, not because of a stereotype i have of a German that's long gone, a romantic, whose world view has been post-scribed and expressed as the vision of a beautiful world. How can a machine ever express that longing, guilt ridden none the less, and mistaken because of it's exclusivity,???“ **

Machines have already replaced many humans, for example those humans who are unemployed, jobless, out-of-work, rdundant, or those humans who are unborn because of the fact that humans have no time for children just because of the competition, the rivalry, between machines and humans. The outcome of that competition, that rivalry, was already decided when the first factories were equipped with steam engines.

And b.t.w.: Would you have answered in the affirmative, if someone had asked you in the 1960's or even in the 1970's and 1980's wether you believe that a computer can be infected by a virus?

Obe wrote:

„See what Ouzo does? Arminius, if you had known me in Solingen, well, that's another story.“ **

Ouzo?

And you in Solingen, Obe?

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»The current development of science shows whereto it tends: probably it will not vanish but become a new religion. Science came out of religion and will end as a new religion. The future scientists will probably be similar to the monks of the so-called ›Middle Ages‹ but only a bit similar because their relative freedom will probably decrease but not vanish as long as the Faustian culture will exist.

I'm afraid that has already happened.

My understanding of Faust is that he was a character best known for his »dance with the Devil« (meaning skepticism, doubt, hedonism, and magic). He sought to understand the world, material reality (hence the physical sciences), certainty, freedom, and power. And being so focused, lost all sense of morality. My similar "dance with the Devil" turned out differently. In my case all doubt and magic got banished in the face of irrevocable certainty while any skepticism was/is invited, leaving me with an irrevocable morality (where real science eventually leads). I played the game differently (dancing to a different tune even though from the same »fiddler on the roof«. Perhaps I was just tone deaf. :-? ).

»Faust is bored and depressed with his life as a scholar. After an attempt to take his own life, he calls on the Devil for further knowledge and magic powers with which to indulge all the pleasure and knowledge of the world. In response, the Devil's representative, Mephistopheles, appears. He makes a bargain with Faust: Mephistopheles will serve Faust with his magic powers for a set number of years, but at the end of the term, the Devil will claim Faust's soul and Faust will be eternally damned. The term usually stipulated in the early tales is 24 years; one year for each of the hours in a day.

During the term of the bargain, Faust makes use of Mephistopheles in various ways. In many versions of the story, particularly Goethe's drama, Mephistopheles helps him to seduce a beautiful and innocent girl, usually named Gretchen, whose life is ultimately destroyed. However, Gretchen's innocence saves her in the end, and she enters Heaven. In Goethe's rendition, Faust is saved by God's grace via his constant striving—in combination with Gretchen's pleadings with God in the form of the Eternal Feminine. However, in the early tales, Faust is irrevocably corrupted and believes his sins cannot be forgiven; when the term ends, the Devil carries him off to Hell.«“ **

That refers mainly to the first part of „Faust“; in the second part it becomes more obvious than in the first part what I mean when I say: „Faustian culture“.

Please read Goethe’s „Faust II“ or a review, respectively a recension of it. I recommend it to you.

James S. Saint wrote:

„It seems that you are distinguishing any verifiable theories or science as »Faustian« and others as religious (dependent upon handed down knowledge).“ **

You have to know Goethe's „Faust“, especially the second part (but also the first part), in order to understand what is meant with „Faustian culture“ and why all the other cultures are no specific or at least not as much science cultures as the Faustian culture is a science culture. But the Faustian culture is not only a science culture but just a Faustian culture, and as one of the most important parts it includes the part science. In any case, one has to read Goethe's „Faust“ or Spengler's „Decline of the West“ when it comes to really and well understand what „Faustian culture“ means. The absolute, categorical will to knowledge is probably the most important example if one wants to know the impulse of Faust and the Faustians.

The other cultures are more religious, but not very much, except one which is the most religiuos of all cultures: the Magic/Arabian/Islamic culture; all so-called „monotheisms" have their origin in this culture because in the territory of that culture are a lot of deserts, and the monotheistic religions have much to do with deserts.

Religion belongs to culture, so each culture is religious, more or less. For example: the Magic/Arabian/Islamic culture is the most religious culture, the Faustian culture is the most scientific culture.

It is no coincidence or accident that the Faustian culture invented and discovered so much, and the consequences which can clearly be seen are the pollution of the planet Earth and its neighborhood, the unresponsible politics, the bad conscience, the hypocrisy, the lies, and as the next goal: the new religion. Science is Faustian science and nothing else, and one can easily guess what it means when it becomes a new religion.

Goethe has not only described the typical Western man with his „Faust“, but also predicted the future of the Western man.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Northern climate - very much advantageous for thinking and for science, thus for a Faustian culture:

** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **

Obe wrote:

„I was in Solingen, once. But in a sense i will always be there. Solingen for me is not an ouzo, but an ouza.“ **

And what is „ouza“?

Or do you mean this?:

„Ouza, also Samiaza, Shemhazai, Amezyarak, Azza, Uzza, Semyaza, a major leader of the fall from heaven in Christian mythology, he was also one of the angels that came down from heaven alongside Azazel to interbreed with humans. Ouza before the fall was of the rank of Seraphim. In legend, he is the seraph tempted by the maiden Ishtahar to reveal to her the Explicit Name of God.“ **

2043

Obe wrote:

„Yes possibly that too. Someone in another forum pointed to ouza as being. But i am hanging this morning, ouzo is a strong chaser.“ **

But what does it mean: „Solingen for me is ... an ouza“?

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»The absolute, categorical will to knowledge is probably the most important example if one wants to know the impulse of Faust and the Faustians.«

Yes, I think that one statement says it all. I'm getting the feeling that I should write a thesis on »Will to Ascension«, which probably sounds terribly religious to you. Realize that I am at a place wherein religion and knowledge come together into a synthesis that is neither.

If the Sun represents the source of all knowledge and the fires of hell (metaphorically), the safe haven is »on the other side of the Sun«, beyond it. What they refer to as »ascended« is a state wherein one has accepted all of the nasty truths of the world of Man and holds no ill will against it, accepting reality for what it is (a whole lot of noise). The problem is that the path to that haven (the "stairway to heaven") is buried in the chaos of the horde, ego, and lust for power (thus lust for knowledge = flying into the Sun). And one must get past the Sun, going through it and out the other side. There is a specific way to do that which goes beyond the simple notion of "have faith and love thy neighbor".“

In the near end of Goethe's „Faust“, part II, an angel says to Faust:

„Wer immer strebend sich bemüht, // Den können wir erlösen.“
(Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Faust, Teil II, S. 376.)
Translation:
„Who strives always to the utmost, // For him there is salvation.“

And amongst others this is what the „Chorus mysticus“ sings when Faust is in heaven at last (... fortunately!):

„Alles Vergängliche ist nur ein Gleichnis.“
(Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Faust, Teil II, S. 383.)
Translation:
„All perishable is only an allegory.“

Add-on:

„Niemand ist mehr Sklave als der, der sich für frei hält, ohne es zu sein.“
(Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Die Wahlverwandtschaften, Band 6, S. 397.)
Translation:

„None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.“

James S. Saint wrote:

„Is that gal in the picture holding something up over her head, or just showing off? “ **

Both.

Let’s stick to the theme, the topic of this thread: „Universe and Time“.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Do you believe that the principles governing physics and the principles governing social dynamics are related?“ **

Yes.

What do you think about this?: **

James S. Saint wrote:

„This is an anime of a small seeded community forming over time;

You might also know it as a sub-atomic particle.“ **

Yes. Are you referring to a communal particle?

Copied post in another thread.

576) Arminius, 19.09.2014, 18:23, 18:54, 19:06, 19:27, 19:46, 19:51, 20:38, 21:07, 21:51, 23:17, 23:36   (2050-2060)

The base of religion and theology (also theism) is belief respectively faith. The German word for „belief“ is „Glaube“ (and „to believe“ = „glauben“), and this has its roots in the the term „FÜR WAHR HALTEN“ - HOLD FOR TRUE (ACCEPT AS TRUE) -, so that one can also say that philosophy, science, and something near have also their roots in what religion and theology have their roots; but science and philosophy are more elaborated and „higher“ than religion and theology. For belief there are also two sides and ways: (1.) a practical side and way and (2.) a theoretical side and way. (1.) The practical belief leads to religion and perhaps, if becoming an elaborated form, to science; (2.) the theoretical belief leads to theology and perhaps, if becoming a higher form, to philosophy. All cultures have this sides and gone this two ways but differently. When Westerners are saying that there is „a huge difference between religion and science and between theology and philosophy“, then they are saying more about themselves and their culture because that difference is not as huge as they always assume.

Theism is merely the ideologised form of theology. Antitheism is just another theism. Theology is the theoretical side and way (=> 2.) of belief, the belief in God („qeos“, „theós“ «» „God“). And if you don't want to belief in God, then you can call yourself „disbeliever“ but not „antitheist“ because an antitheist is just another theist, although or because of the attempt to become a disbeliever. Because of the fact that antitheism refers to theism and although both fighting against each other both a parts of Hegel's dialectic process and have to bow to it, thus became a synthesis, and in the case of theism there can merely be theism as the thesis, antitheism as the antithesis, and syntheism as the synthesis. And one can easily guess what syntheism is.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Dan was being sarcastic.“ **

He was being approximately as sarcastic as I was being (**|**).

Copied post in another thread.

Copied post in another thread.

According to Schopenhauer the WILL is Kant’s „thing-in-itself“ (I’ve been told that the better English term could be: „thing as such“), and Einstein often quoted Schopenhauer, agreed with Schopenhauer, but also with Kant, and the only one who was accepted as philosopher by Schopenhauer was Kant.

A machine will become clever enough, and then they start to apply its intelligence to itself and improve itself.

Arminius wrote:

„James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»How many machines are in the ›humanised (mechanised) world‹?« ** **

»›Approximately 1,966,514,816 computers‹ (2 billion).

›As of 2012, there are 1.1 billion automobiles on the earth, which is a 57% increase from the 700 million automobiles that were on earth's roads just 8 years earlier in 2004.‹

The number of »machines« is probably uncountable but just the two largest categories gets us to approx. 3 billion.« **

From whom (human/s) or what (machine/s) have you got that numbers?

Golem.de: „Roboter - Mensch: fast 1:1“ („robot - human: almost 1:1“), that means at least 7 billion robotics (!).“ ** **

Arminius wrote:

„James S. Saint wrote:

»Arminius wrote:

›To you, there is no hope for the human beings, right?‹ ** **

Just web searches, such as Number of cars in the world. No telling where they got their numbers.“ **

And Ask.com, right?“ ** **

James S. Saint wrote:

„I didn't do an exhaustive search. I just picked a couple that first sprang up. The others that I could see didn't seem to disagree. If you want an accurate count, you have to ask the question with far more detail. »Machines« is too ambiguous of a word. Do iPhones count as computers? Hell, I don't know and it isn't worth finding out.“ **

Arminius wrote:

„It is a pity that there is still no real census of machines, no real counting of machines.

The reproduction rate of humans is currently at 1.25. And the reproduction rate of the machines?“ ** **

What do you think about that?

James S. Saint wrote:

„All of those (**|**) are indicators of the »New Moon« rising to guide Man through the night and worshiped in Islam. They are the effects of instituting a new religion over an old one, »new wine in an old wine skin« (»Secular«). Islam increasingly publishes numerous videos associating Science and the Quran in order to maintain itself with the new order and religion of the new night and its false Sun, »Moon«.“ **

Maybe that that is the case in the Magic/Arabian/Islamic culture. Do you think that the Occidental culture intends to use this for own interests, for example in order to „cement“ their „global society“, thus their „society of the last men“?

Provided that one can be „in love with philosophy“, would like to know something about the reasons(s) or even cause(s) for that „love“ and wether it is because of merely one area, or more areas of the philosophy, or the philosophy itself as a whole.

Atheris wrote:

„Anti theist isn't just another theist, just like atheist (obviously) isn't just another theist.“ **

Any and every antitheist is (at last) another theist, and (unfortunately or fortunately) atheists prove permanently that they are also merely another theists. It is easily to prove.

Atheris wrote:

„Anti theist is simply a person who opposes the position of theism .... **

Yes, but at last antitheism can’t overcome the theism. There is no example in history. All examples show that if theology or theism is opposed by antitheology or antitheism the result is always a syntheism, consequently a new theism.

And that is really interesting!

Wizard wrote:

„Atheists define god as non existent and impossible. But why?“ **

Because those „atheists“ have just another God. In other words: those atheists who say that God does not exist and is impossible are antitheists because their „arguments“ are the same as those of the antitheists. Merely those atheist who say that there is no evidence for the existence of God are real atheists (so-called „agnostic atheists“). But those who allegedly „know“ that God does not exist are antitheists, thus another theists, because they merely have another God(s). We may not forget that metaphysically God is a personalised moral instance and the creator of the universe. Who is the personalised moral instance and the creator of the universe for the atheists? And does he exist? YES, he does! As a ghost of all ghostly ancestors. Should I name some of them? I think I don't have to because you probably know them anyway.

One can say that it is impossible to see, to recognise, to identify God, but one can not say that the existence of God is impossible. Those who say so are antitheists in the sense that they fight the theists with the (wanted or not wanted) result of another theists, namely: syntheists. For example: antimonotheists fight monotheists and get the polytheists as syntheists. There are many examples in history, especially in the Indian history. It is impossible to eliminate God out of the human brains. It is also impossible to eliminate the nothingness out of the human brains. It is a huge difference wether one says „God does not exist“ or „I do not know that God does not exist“. A real atheist does not say the former but the latter; an unreal atheist, thus an antitheist always says the former and never the latter, although the former is untrue because it is impossible to know wether God exists.

The African bushman knew nothing about steam maschines and guns of the White man (the Caucasian) before both met for the first time. Then the White man showed him some of them, and the bushman thought they were Gods. The same event in America, and here the so-called „Indios“ or „Indians“ didn't even know that horses existed, and they thought that one horseman and one horse together were one God.

Wether something is or not does not only depend on thinkling and imaging, because (for example) zero, the nothingnesss, or the infinity can be thought and imagined, but according to James’ „RM:AO“ they do not exist, because they have no affect.

Again my examples:

The African bushman knew nothing about steam maschines and guns of the White man (the Caucasian) before both met for the first time. Then the White man showed him some of them, and the bushman thought they were Gods. The same event in America, and here the so-called „Indios“ or „Indians“ didn't even know that horses existed, and they thought that one horseman and one horse together were one God.

I don't know wether the bushman and the „Indio“ („Indian“) could imagine the things and White humans before they saw them for the first time. But nevertheless: Those things and the White man existed. Do you know what I mean?

577) Arminius, 20.09.2014, 00:01, 00:24, 00:55, 01:19, 02:17, 03:42, 14:52, 23:22, 23:41   (2061-2069)

Wizard wrote:

„You're dodging the point, so I'm going to presume that I'm right about this topic and how atheists presume god is impossible from the onset/premise.“ **

One moment, please! I am dodging the point? Which point do you mean?

Wizard wrote:

„I disagree that humans can think of, or imagine, nothing.“ **

So you think and/or imagine nothing when you think of „zero“, or „nothing“, or the „nothingness“?

Wizard, you're dodging my last point:

Arminius wrote:

„So you think and/or imagine nothing when you think of »zero«, or »nothing«, or the »nothingness«?“ ** **

Do you think nothing then?

Wizard wrote:

„You're dodging the point that atheists pitifully, miserably attempt to define god as impossible, but fail of course. Because what is impossible to one person, can be possible to another.“ **

Ah, yes. Their attempts are just too pitiful, too miserable.

Wizard wrote:

„And yes, a person cannot think of nothing. Because to be cognizant, is to always think of something. Nothing does not exist. Everything exists.“ **

When I think of nothing or the nothingness I often think of the word „nothing“ („n-o-t-h-i-n-g“) or the word „nothingness“ („n-o-t-h-i-n-g-n-e-s-s“) because the words „nothing“ and „nothingness“ exist as well as (for example) the words „zero“ and „infinity“. What do you think when you think of God?

Kriswest wrote:

„I say this as an atheist. A god may exist for you but, not for me.“ **

So I guess that you can agree to this statement:

Arminius wrote:

„Merely those atheist who say that there is no evidence for the existence of God are real atheists (so-called »agnostic atheists«).
....
It is a huge difference wether one says »God does not exist« or »I do not know that God does not exist®. A real atheist does not say the former but the latter; an unreal atheist, thus an antitheist always says the former and never the latter, although the former is untrue because it is impossible to know wether God exists.“ ** **

2064

James S. Saint wrote:

„I think that the issue isn't the number of machines versus people, but rather exactly what the machines are being used for.“ **

Yes, that's right. But nevertheless, the number of the machines is important too.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Currently they are being used expressly and only to empower a global empire, humans are not relevant to them and thus are being annihilated slow enough so as to not cause alarm and rebellion.

The proper (and distant only use) of machines is for the enhancement of individuals in the effort to live. That means machines (as well as medicines and chemicals) that enhance the senses for each individual, analyze data for each individual, and move objects for each individual.

The improper use of machines (that should be outlawed) is having them replace individuals so as to satisfy a higher governing power's lust for more power. In a sense, a machine should be voted into existence democratically, except for the fact that people are being prevented from learning how to govern themselves and thus cannot vote effectively. Socialism detests public autonomy and thus socialists build machines solely to disable and/or eliminate the individual and empower the rulers even if it takes being rid of all other humans (the current plan).“ **

What shall the 99%-humans do?

Kriswest wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Kriswest wrote:

›I say this as an atheist. A god may exist for you but, not for me.‹ **

So I guess that you can agree to this statement:

Arminius wrote:

»Merely those atheist who say that there is no evidence for the existence of God are real atheists (so-called "agnostic atheists").
....
It is a huge difference wether one says „God does not exist“ or "I do not know that God does not exist". A real atheist does not say the former but the latter; an unreal atheist, thus an antitheist always says the former and never the latter, although the former is untrue because it is impossible to know wether God exists.« ** **

To a point yes and to a point no. The word theist and atheist and agnostic have different meanings to different people. You have a god, you have religion, you have no god, you have no religion, you have inbetween , you actually have religious atheists and non religious theists .... **

Do you not believe that there is very much lie, hypocrisy, blatancy, bravado, showing-off, just exhibitionism when some people behave, speak, think about anything and everything that has to do with „qeos“, „theós“, thus with God, with theology, with antitheology, with theisms, with antitheism, etc., often even then if those people „believe“ (!) that they are „atheists“, so that it is difficult to say who is more theistic - the theist or the antitheist or even the atheist?

What I was trying to make clear.

It is not possible to „know“ God because if it were the belief in him would make no sense anymore. Those who just want to oppose the theists say that they „know“ that God does not exist, although it is impossible to know that, and when they say „know“ they mean „believe“, so that one can never know wether the atheists or the antitheists are the real deists, the real believers in God respectively substituted God.

The Ancient Greek morpheme „a“ means „not“ / „non“, whereas the Ancient Greek morpheme „anti“ means „against“ / „contra“. So the atheist is someone who ignores theists, theism, and their god(s), whereas the antitheist is someone who opposes (fights against) theists, theism, and their god(s).

But how or with which weapons do antitheists oppose, fight against theists, theism, and their god(s)? They do it with their own theism, the antitheism, their owm god(s), the antigod(s).

The most atheists are merely antitheists because they can't ignore theists, theism, and their god(s).

In my thread „Talking about the END OF HISTORY“ it is said amongst others:

„History has not ended yet, although it seems to sink, to go down, to decline, to shrink.

History can’t have ended yet because the »historical existentials« haven't ended.

Arminius wrote:

»According to Ernst Nolte there are especially the following ›historical existentials‹:
•	Religion (God/Gods, a.s.o);
•	Rule (leadership, a.s.o.);
•	Nobleness (nobility, a.s.o.);
•	Classes;
•	State;
•	Great War;
•	City and country as contrast;
•	Education, especially in schools and universities;
•	Science;
•	Order of sexulality / demographics, economics;
•	Historiography / awareness of history!« ** **

There is no doubt that some of those examples of historical existentials have been shrinking, while other historical existentials have been expanding.

Since the beginning of the Western modern times:
1.	Religion has been becoming a more secular religion, a modern religion, thus an ideology; so religion has been expanding.
2.	Rule (leadership, a.s.o.) has been becoming a more hidden, secret, esoteric one; so rule has been expanding.
3.	Nobleness (nobility, a.s.o.) has also been becoming a more hidden, secret, esoteric one; so nobleness has been expanding.
4.	Classes have been changing: a richer becoming upper class, a shrinking middle class, an increasing lower class; so classes have been changing badly.
5.	State has been becoming a more and more powerless institution; so the state has been shrinking, and probably it will disappear. ** **
6.	Great war has been becoming smaller but much more wars and threatening; so we still can't say much about the end of this historical existential.
7.	City and country as contrast have been changing by expanding cities and shrinking countries; so the contrast will perhaps disappear.
8.	Education, especially in schools and universities, has been becoming a catastrophic issue; so education has been changing very badly.
9.	Science has been becoming a new religion for the most part; so science has been changing very badly.
10.	Order of sexulality / demographics, economics has been becoming a catastrophic issue too; so this order has been becoming a disorder.
11.	Historiography / awareness of history has been getting under ideological (modern religious) control; so historography has been changing badly!“ ** **

So the historical existentials state (=> 5.), city and country as contrast (=> 7.), education, especially in schools and universities (=> 8.), science (=> 9.), order of sexulality / demographics, economics (=> 10.), and last but not least historiography / awareness of history (=> 11.) will probably disappear during the next future, provided that humans will be alive then. But we still don't know whether the historical existentials religion (=> 1.), rule (=> 2.), nobleness (=> 3.), classes (=> 4.), graet war (=> 6.) will end as long as humans are alive.“ ** **

It is somehow scary that the state has been becoming a more and more powerless institution; so the state has been shrinking, and probably it will disappear (=> 5.). What do you think about that?

Obe wrote:

„Arminius: If St. James argument (**) is carried to its limit, there will not be any humanity left, except the 1%. Now lets look at the math. Let's say it will take another few hundred years to eliminate 99% of the population, and since can not calculate this exactly, a ball park figure should suffice. Let's say in a century or two the curve will be reduced incrementally by an increasing gradient of change. let's draw a straight line through the curve and calculate this way.

Say around 8 billion to 10 billion souls very roughly reduced to 1% leaving 100 million people world wide. That would be pretty much a fair equality to what the ancient world population was. I am not too certain of this number but i will look that up.

Now 100 million is a good re-start, but is it conceivable, that this kind of reduction is practical or even conceivable? Would not some bright soul or more than one, become wise to this and do something to try to prevent it? Or will the population like bleating sheep be led to the slaughter? I am very much in doubt that this economy or even one projected a few centuries into the future would be capable to develop this kind of feasibility.

I would propose that projects like Space X, and vastly extended space stations would be constructed and other like planets developed. Thereupon the uneducated and the misaligned, would be given another chance to re develop new frontiers. Their progenitors will look upon the 1% back on earth as Olympian Gods, as long as technological decay will not enable to form anything but myths. Although both versions are more fiction then fact, the later is more credible.“ **

But perhaps or probably (remember my estimate of thir probability: 80%) the machines will replace this 1%-humans as well.

Arminius wrote:

„A machine will become clever enough, and then they start to apply its intelligence to itself and improve itself.“ ** **

578) Arminius, 27.09.2014, 20:52, 21:07, 21:35, 22:23, 22:25, 22:39, 22:57, 23:50   (2070-2076)

Ben J. Schmoe wrote:

„Arminius is too perceptive for you, Dan~.

Your filthy lies don't get past him.

He knows you weren't being sarcastic!

Arminius wrote:

»So if you want to attack theism, then you also attack science.« ** **

Golden bullet.

Arminius wrote:

»Should my ILP membership be thought over?« ** **

It's run by these antitheist scum!

How could the humble theist hope for well balanced communication?“ **

Do you know the answer?

James S. Saint wrote:

„Thousands of years later, in English, one cannot go strictly by an ancient construct of the word.“ **

Why not? I can! And I do it without changing any linguistic form, neither of the Ancient Greek nor of the English language. So it is correct to do that. One merely has to arrange with one or more of the others about the meanings of the language forms (i.e.: the Ancient Greek language has disappeared but not its meanings and forms). And if that is the case, then referring to another language, especially to a „dead“ language like Ancient Greek, or Latin, or Sanskrit ... and others, is no problem at all.

James S. Saint wrote:

„English Prefix a-
1. a reduced form of the Old English preposition on, meaning »on«, »in«, »into«, »to«, »toward« preserved before a noun in a prepositional phrase, forming a predicate adjective or an adverbial element (afoot; abed; ashore; aside; away), or before an adjective (afar; aloud; alow), as a moribund prefix with a verb (acknowledge), and in archaic and dialectal use before a present participle in -ing (set the bells aringing); and added to a verb stem with the force of a present participle (ablaze; agape; aglow; astride; and originally, awry).

So strictly by the construction of »toward«, the word in English would be »toward-theism«, »into-theism«. English uses bits of many languages and often one ancient root is contrary to another.

Greek Prefix a-
prefix
1. not; without; opposite to: atonal, asocial

Not only has the formal definition of »atheism« been established for more than a century, but the use of the word hasn't changed a bit. Atheists believe that there is no God. The formal definition of Atheism is the doctrine that there is no God. Atheists proclaim there is no God and in arguments attempt to prove that there cannot be a God. They are God-haters. And for those who simply don't know or care, English as a specific word that means that, »Agnostic« (which uses that Greek root for »a-«: »a-gnostic« = »void-of-knowing«, »without-knowing, and also »against-knowing«).

Greek Prefix an-
prefix
1. not; without: anaphrodisiac

If they are so concerned, as they obviously are, why not just use the word, »Antheist«, »Antitheist«, or »Agnostic«. They don't because it is intended as a semantic game of rhetoric and feigned innocence. They worship their savior-god »Plausible Deniability«, the god of serpents, cowards, liars, and thieves.“ **

I prefer the original meaning of both the prefix „a“ and the prefix „anti“, so that I can correctly say: most modern atheists are antitheists. I know that the Western modernity changed the meaning of the Ancient Greek prefix „a“ because of rhetorical reasons. But all this rhetorical reasons don’t matter for those who know what is meant by the original morphemes „a“ and „anti“and what is meant by the rhetorical morphemes „a“ and „anti“.

Another example:

Are antifeminists called „afeminists“? What do antifeminists do? They refer to the feminists and their ideology, the feminism, so they are just another feminists when they merely oppose the feminists. Demanding the same advantages for antifeminists (i.e. „masculinists“) that feminists demand for themselves is just another feminism with the same ways and means and the only distinction which we can call „opposition“ or „fighting against“. Feminism, militarism, theism, ... and so on (there is just no end ...) - they are all part of Hegel's Dialektik, so they develop according to Hegel's dialectic process: thesis => antithesis => synthesis.

Mowk wrote:

»An adjective modifies the verb ....“ **

No. An adjective modifies a substantive (noun), and an adverb modifies a verb.

Mowk wrote:

„What I do have is an opinion, that the way you argue it, gives me, at least, the impression of a crackpot, and that is no insult .... My impression of you hasn't changed. You are nothing but a bully and you are and will be where you are as result. .... You are a bully. Just read your posts. .... You're a crackpot" on and on. .... Yeah, I'd call that being an intellectual bully. You think you are the owner of the playground and it is apparent in your contempt for anyone else playing on the playground. .... A bully will always deflect blame. - Bully. - And I don't need to feed a troll. .... Shit, You are such a putz.“ **

You don't want to insult James, want you?

James S. Saint wrote:

„Long ago just prior to Newton's fame, the enlightenment era crew, now called »scientists«, proposed that objects of mass (weight and inertia) were attracted to each other by a mysterious »force« to be called »gravity«. Newton became famous by forming a means of measuring the effect of this »force of gravity« so that it could be tested with a variety of mass objects. And after doing such testing, it was discovered that sure enough, masses did seem to behave as though there was a mysterious force attracting them and related to the amount of mass of each object..... The Modern Science concept of »Forces« is merely a Modern Science superstition stemming from the Newtonian era.

James S. Saint wrote:

Mowk wrote:

»An adjective modifies the verb, such that the verb does not get modified without it.« **

What »adjective« are you talking about? A »force« is a noun, not an adjective. »Gravitational« is an adjective of that noun, although »gravitation« is a noun.

Mowk wrote:

»Forces do exist. Perhaps, and I don't think anyone will argue, our knowledge of what we call a gravitational force is incomplete but I continue to see that the mathematics that applies the concepts can still calculate the required energy to escape it's "grasp" (perhaps 'grasp' isn't appropriately descriptive either, as it seems to evoke an effort or force that maintains it).« **

And here you state something of which you know so little about (physics) as though you had proof. Why do you believe that forces exist? You believe it because someone told you they do. And they told you that because they have a reliable predictive formula which they have demonstrated. That certainly is evidence of the possibility of something's existence. But it has not been falsifiably proven (a demand within science). Many predictive theories can be formulated out of complete non-sense. Something can't be falsifiably proven to exist until there is no other option left but for the entity to exist.

Mowk wrote:

»But the theoretical model works in an effort to predict how much energy is required to propel a mass into space and to determine return methods that counter its effects to prevent the result of a rather bug like splat against the windshield earth on the return trip. The theory has a functionally applicable component. It remains useful. Your choice might be to present something as or more useful.« **

Certainly true. But something being »practical« does not make it true. Newton's laws were practical only to later be stated as wrong. It was practical to calculate very many things throughout society based upon the theory of the gods of Rome, Greece, and Egypt. How practical something is at that moment depends upon how much precise detail is required concerning the specific subject. The Roman gods theory was of little use in predicting the path of a cannon ball. And the forces theory is of no use in explaining why the universe exists, why protons stick together, or why charged particles separate. They merely declare these things as »fundamental«, just as the Roman gods theories used to do, »it is just the way it is«, or in the Abramic religions, »I am that I am«.

Mowk wrote:

»They aren't claiming they know it is magic.« **

They claim that it is inexplicable (ie »magic«), at least until THEY can explain it in such a way as to make it appear as though they were right all along, no one else can for sure, nor is allowed to.

Mowk wrote:

»If you wish to change the circumstance of that lack of knowledge go for it, but I doubt that vector will take place arguing theories on an internet philosophy forum. I certainly don't have the mathematical background to argue with you regarding 'your' theory.« **

Why do you think it requires mathematics? Because they use mathematics? I made one single post on Physics Forums merely introducing the concepts and what I did to substantiate them because someone asked me of »your theory«. The post was immediately deleted and I was immediately banned for life for »arguing an alternate theory«. Is that the kind of forum you are recommending? All of the other »Science« forums do basically that same thing although usually with far less hysterical reaction. They do not permit controversy. They are there to preach THEIR gospel, not listen to alternatives. They have been invited to come here. Where are they?

On a philosophy forum, one would expect for a theory to be questioned in an inquisitive way. When I say, »It works like this«, there are three basic responses;
1) Why do you think it works that way (concerning some detail perhaps).
2) No, it works this other way instead (your response).
3) You are just demanding faith from us.

Philosophical thinking people, including scientists, would be expected to respond with option (1). Eugene Morrow did it (so as to defend his own theory), Sanjay did it (only contending with my definition of »conscious«), Mechanical Monster did it, Arminius did it. None of them have questioned it to my satisfaction and thus I know that none of them fully grasped it, but none of them could find anything contrary, logically unsound, or evidence to be otherwise. Science cannot argue with it. And thus on Science forms, it isn't even allowed to be mentioned (I have asked ahead of time. They say »NO!« without even seeing it), the exact same treatment one would expect from a defensive Church; »Doubting us is not allowed. You are the Devil«.“ **

Although I would have some questions for you, James, concerning „RM:AO“, I mostly agree with that what you are saying about the relationship between science and „RM:AO“. Scientists have problems when it comes to argue against „RM:AO“. For example: It is in fact impossible to show or even prove respectively disprove with physical means and methods what physics is; that is only possible with language and with philosophy. (This is roughly that what Heidegger once said in an interview.) „RM:AO“ is a kind of metaphysics, a kind of ontology. ILP is a philosophy forum, thus the ILP members should be happy, if someone had such a „RM:AO“. But what is the ILP reality? James S. Saint introduces „RM:AO“, but for many ILP members he seems to be a »burglar«, a »housebreaker«, and his „RM:AO“ his »machinegun«. This ILP members are not fair and also not typical for a philosophy forum.

Philosophy has also to be a realm of science, yes, but science has also to be a realm of philosophy. It is the interdependence which makes both successful - otherwise both become dictatorships, religions, new religions with new dogmas and new bondages which have been increasing for so long.

Zinnat, I didn't say „that religions are nothing but faith“ (**) or i.e. that religion and science are very much different because I said that they have much to do with each other, but nevertheless: they are not the same, that is also clear. They have the same root: belief.

Every culture is inimitable, and the Faustian culture is a science culture. Most of science is Faustian science, thus Faustian culture.

Faustians have a never-satisfied thirst for knowledge. Therefore the typical Faustian cloisters, abbeys, and consequently the relatively free universities, the typical Faustian systems of education and science.

That all is unique. That all lacks- in Non-Faustian cultures.

Dear Zinnat, your response confirms my statement.

Arminius wrote:

„The Non-Faustian cultures had and have a completely different idea when it comes to undertand what »nature«, »physics«, »universe«, »life«, ... means. This is even perceptible when you read i.e. Zinnat's texts because they indicate, although not always, his belonging to the Indian culture. Humans at different places and times understood, understand, and will understand their environment differently, they even have their own »worlds«, and so they also value and justify differently. If you know how »science« was and/or is understood by the Mesopotamian culture, by the Egyptian culture, by the Indian (or South-Asian) culture, by the Chinese (or East-Asian) culture, by the Apollonian culture (our ancestor), by the Inka/Maya culture, by the Magic/Arabian/Islamic culture, and the Faustian culture (the descendant of the Apollinian culture), then you know also the differences in their theories and even their philosophies (metaphysics, ontologies, ...). Merely the Faustian culture has developed a real science; partly ,and merely partly also the other cultures, partly because they had and have (a) a too hot climate, (b) a too dominant religion, so that something which could be called „science“ nearly remained or remains a religion, or (c) other conditions that prevented or prevent the developmet of a real science.

You may say (for example): »there wre the constructions of the Tower of Babel, the pyramids of the Egyptians and the Maya, the inventions and discoveries of the Mesopotamian culture, the Chinese (East-Asian) culture, the Apollonian culture (our ancestor)«. Alright, but they weren't like that what the Faustian constructions, inventions, and discoveries were and are. Merely the Faustian culture had and has a concept of an autonomous »science« and »technique/technology«. You may see what it means to have a more religious »science« and »technique/technology« when you look at thre current Faustian science which is again more dominated by religion than in former times of the Faustian culture, for example the era of the so-called „enlightenment“ („Aufklärung“). It is comparable to humans personal development: the most scientific time is the time of the adolescence and around the adolescence; the era of the „enlightenment“ („Aufklärung“) was such a time for the Faustian culture. A younger one is too unripe, an older one is already too ripe - for example too conservative, too philosophical, thus too wise - for science as an „enlightenment“ („Aufklärung“), but not too ripe for a more religious or philosophical (metaphysical, ontological) science.“ ** **

Arminius wrote:

„Did anyone of the other cultures invent theories of »relativity«, »gravitational force«, »electromagnetic force«, »strong nuclear force«, »weak nuclear force«, »speed of light«, »thermodynamics«, »quantum«, »big bang«, »inflation of the universe«, »black holes«, »dark matter«, „dark energy», ....?

That has not merely to do with the different times when those cultures had their best time in order to invent and form something like science and its theories. The Non-Faustian cultures invented theories for their religion, theology, philosophy, or just their states; they had not a really autonomous (system of) science, no universities (universities are invented by the Faustians, they are a pure Faustian form, institution). The »scientists« of the Non-Faustian cultures researched at home and the most of them also studied at home. If you now think of the library of Alexandria, then I have to remind you that it was no university in a Faustian sense.

My point is not that the theories of the Non-Faustians were not useful at all; my point is that they were not scientific (just in a Faustian sense). In the good old times of the Faustian science one could relatively freely study and research because the universities were relatively free then, and this was not possible in other cultures. So the university system, the unit of studies and research, and especially the relative freedom of all universities are unique, and abbeys and cloisters are their forerunners. Monks, namely Occidental (Faustian) monks, were the cultural ancestors of the students of the universities.

In Mesopotamia, especially in Egypt and China, not seldom also in orther cultures (except the Apollonian and the Faustian culture which are related), »scientists« or technicians were killed after important inventions or discoveries they had made. There was no scientific system, all that what we - the Faustians - call »science« lacked there, especially the relative freedom, the unit of studies and research. The universities as a system of science, thus of real science, is unique, is Faustian.

The current development of science shows whereto it tends: probably it will not vanish but become a new religion. Science came out of religion and will end as a new religion. The future scientists will probably be similar to the monks of the so-called »Middle Ages« but only a bit similar because their relative freedom will probably decrease but not vanish as long as the Faustian culture will exist.“ ** **

Arminius wrote:

„You have to know Goethe's »Faust«, especially the second part (but also the first part), in order to understand what is meant with »Faustian culture« and why all the other cultures are no specific or at least not as much science cultures as the Faustian culture is a science culture. But the Faustian culture is not only a science culture but just a Faustian culture, and as one of the most important parts it includes the part science. In any case, one has to read Goethe's »Faust« or Spengler's »Decline of the West« when it comes to really and well understand what »Faustian culture« means. The absolute, categorical will to knowledge is probably the most important example if one wants to know the impulse of Faust and the Faustians.

The other cultures are more religious, but not very much, except one which is the most religiuos of all cultures: the Magic/Arabian/Islamic culture; all so-called »monotheisms« have their origin in this culture because in the territory of that culture are a lot of deserts, and the monotheistic religions have much to do with deserts.

Religion belongs to culture, so each culture is religious, more or less. For example: the Magic/Arabian/Islamic culture is the most religious culture, the Faustian culture is the most scientific culture.

It is no coincidence or accident that the Faustian culture invented and discovered so much, and the consequences which can clearly be seen are the pollution of the planet Earth and its neighborhood, the unresponsible politics, the bad conscience, the hypocrisy, the lies, and as the next goal: the new religion. Science is Faustian science and nothing else, and one can easily guess what it means when it becomes a new religion.

Goethe has not only described the typical Western man with his »Faust«, but also predicted the future of the Western man.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Northern climate - very much advantageous for thinking and for science, thus for a Faustian culture (**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**).“ ** **

Arminius wrote:

„The base of religion and theology (also theism) is belief respectively faith. The German word for „belief“ is „Glaube“ (and „to believe“ = „glauben“), and this has its roots in the the term „FÜR WAHR HALTEN“ - HOLD FOR TRUE (ACCEPT AS TRUE) -, so that one can also say that philosophy, science, and something near have also their roots in what religion and theology have their roots; but science and philosophy are more elaborated and „higher“ than religion and theology. For belief there are also two sides and ways: (1.) a practical side and way and (2.) a theoretical side and way. (1.) The practical belief leads to religion and perhaps, if becoming an elaborated form, to science; (2.) the theoretical belief leads to theology and perhaps, if becoming a higher form, to philosophy. All cultures have this sides and gone this two ways but differently. When Westerners are saying that there is „a huge difference between religion and science and between theology and philosophy“, then they are saying more about themselves and their culture because that difference is not as huge as they always assume.“ ** ** (**|**).

Again:

The root of religion, theology, philosophy, science, and something near is belief as a „FÜR WAHR HALTEN“ - „HOLD FOR TRUE“ („ACCEPT AS TRUE“); but science and philosophy are more elaborated and „higher“ than religion and theology. For belief there are also two sides and ways: (1.) a practical side and way and (2.) a theoretical side and way. (1.) The practical belief leads to religion and perhaps, if becoming an elaborated form, to science; (2.) the theoretical belief leads to theology and perhaps, if becoming a higher form, to philosophy. All cultures have this sides and gone this two ways - but they did it differently. When the Westerners are saying that there is „a huge difference between religion and science and between theology and philosophy“, then they are saying more about themselves and their culture because that differences are not as huge as the Westerners always assume.

The Faustian culture has been declining since a time when the number of its population began to increase exponentially because of its first steam engines and their consequences, then the number of its population stagnated, and since about 1970 the number of its population has been shrinking. But if you look at all those machines, then you can say that the Faustian culture has not been declining because all those machines are Faustian machines, and their number has been increasing exponentially since the first Faustian steam engine. Unfortunately - because of the danger - those machines are able to replace all human beings (**|**).

Zinnat wrote:

„I am a traditional Hindu.“ **

Zinnat wrote:

„Arminius, ..., i am a proud Hindu ....“ **

Am I a proud Faustian?

All cultures have a good and a bad side. If there were not a Faustian culture there would not be the typical Faustian cloisters, abbeys, and consequently the relatively free universities, the typical Faustian systems of education and science, the technical and consequently the economical and social progress with all its good and bad sides.
__________________________________________________________

Now - please - let's stick a bit more to the theme, the topic of this thread: „Universe and Time“.

Zinnat wrote:

„Secondly, this concept of the presence of 96% matter and 4% antimatter does not seem to be logical.“ **

Not „96% matter and 4% antimatter“, as you say, but 96% „dark matter“ and 4% matter, as they say.

Zinnat wrote:

„As some define antimatter as a opposite of matter, how 4% of antimatter would have survived that long since Big-Bang? Why it did not intract with the same amout of matter and destroyed at the very moment it came into existence?“ **

Not „4% of antimatter“ but 96% „dark matter“ and merely 4% matter, Zinnat. They say: „In modern physics almost the entire Universe is missing: 96 percent. We can only account for just 4 percent of the Universe. This is because we can’t find enough mass in galaxies to maintain their rotational spiral shape and stop stars spinning off into deep space. To explain why galaxies are not breaking up mankind has come up with the idea that 96 percent of the Universe is Dark Matter! Dark Matter is just a name; we don’t have a clue what it is. The only thing we know is that Dark Matter does not shine like stars or reflect light or give off any detectable radiation it just creates a gravitational pull.“ **

They just don't know what „dark matter“ really is.

Zinnat wrote:

„Higgs-Bosan (if that is true) ....“ **

Higgs-boson, if that is true, yes.

When we close our eyes, we (1.) keep the eyes’ pupils moist (during the sleep the reflex for closing the lids does not work), (2.) protect the eyes from debris (foreign bodies; during the sleep the reflex for closing the lids does not work), (3.) turn off external stimuli, (4.) ensure the forming of the sleeping hormon Melatonin, (5.) treat the brain with care because it has less to do during the sleep with closed eyes.

Zinnat wrote:

„We need not to think for blinking so a sleeping person also can do that, just like the case of breathing.“ **

A sleeping person does not blink (see also => 1. and 2.). And breathing is not like blinking, Zinnat.

Maia wrote:

„I have no visual perception at all, having been born without optic nerves, so I don't see anything at all, not even darkness.“ **

You see nothing, not even darkness; so we can conclude that nothingness, if it exists, is not dark, not bright, not light, not coloured, has nothing to do with colours, not even black or white.

James S. Saint wrote:

„»What do you see when you watch the radio transmissions from an antenna?«
- Nothing.“ **

Caught! The nothingness exists: as „the radio transmissions from an antenna“!

According to the common physicists „the radio transmissions from an antenna“ are „the remains of the cosmological radiation (cosmic microwave radiation)“; but according to „RM:AO“ the cosmological radiation (cosmic microwave radiation) does not exist because the universe is indefinite, relating to both space and time, it has no beginning and no end, so it is eternal, indefinite.

Kriswest wrote:

„Empathy declines in masses. In less populated areas its still a staple.
Do I care if a million people in one metropolis do not care about each other? No.“ **

The great cultures are city cultures, and world history is city history and megacity history.

Kriswest wrote:

„And it is the cities that are declining.“ **

Globally the cities are rising, not declinig, not yet. In the year 2007 the global city poulation reached the mark of 50% (for comparison: 1950 it was 30%, and 2050 it will probably be 70%). But most cities of the Occidental culture are declining.

That is is very depressing. The future looks bleak.

A „proud Hindu“, Zinnat?

579) Arminius, 28.09.2014, 00:18, 00:28, 21:35, 22:34  (2078-2081)

Obe wrote:

It may be objected that machines will be able to ultimately self replicate, but such replication again will lead to the post utopian sexual replication, because the discovery by an ontology which would be evaluated by the machine as driven by a power? Pleasure and replication would necessitate the simulation of mammalian sexual behavior, and through the hedonistic progress, there would occur a con current devolution of intelligence, as the result of the shift in the primary focus away from the emphasis on intelligence, toward natural selection, via dominant characteristics?“ **

Humans’ pleasure and replication are already separated. So humans are now a species between animals (humans) and (humans,) machines or gods, not far away from (those) machines between humans and gods.

James S. Saint wrote:

„It is only a difference in words and names.“ **

Are you a friend of the motto or principle „NULLIUS IN VERBA“?

Zinnat, it was about the numbers of the percentage (**|**): what you wrote were the inverted numbers of the percentage (**)!

Reference: Viewtopic.php?f=4&t=185856&p=2497414#p2496074.

The common physicists have a huge problem with their own theory. In former days they said that antimatter disappeared because of the annihilation of matter and antimatter in the so-called „hadron epoch“ (10^-7 seconds after the „Big Bang“ until 10^-4 seconds after the „Big Bang“); but now they say antimatter exists today (13.8 billion years after the „Big Bang“). That's funny.

In this example they say „matter annihilates antimatter“ with the outcome: „animatter rare“, in earlier times they said „matter annihilates antimatter“ with the outcome: „no more antimatter“. That's funny, or, seriously said, they don't know anything about antimatter, they merely speculate (like their money lenders), they have no idea but bosses with dogmas.

580) Arminius, 29.09.2014, 00:13, 00:16, 02:18, 13:41, 23:58   (2082-2087)

I had a (maybe funny) mental connection: A new overman in the making as the topic of this thread, your statement that you are a „proud Hindu“, and the picture of this Indian man who looks like a happy and somehow typical Indian, so that he could also be a „proud Hindu“. Don’t take it too seriously, Zinnat.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Are you a friend of the motto or principle „NULLIUS IN VERBA“« ** **

You're kidding me, right?“ **

No.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Are you a friend of the German language?“ **

Yes.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»James S. Saint wrote:

„Are you a friend of the German language?“ **

Yes.« ** **

Just in case you don’t understand English sarcasm;
The same answer equally applies to the question that you asked.“ **

That’s not only „English sarcasm“, James.

Again (because it’s really interesting and amusing):

In this example they say „matter annihilates antimatter“ with the outcome: „animatter rare“, in earlier times they said „matter annihilates antimatter“ with the outcome: „no more antimatter“. That's funny, or, seriously said, they don't know anything about antimatter, they merely contradict themselves and speculate (like their money lenders), they have no idea but bosses with dogmas.

According to the following picture there is antimatter also today:

But if matter annihilated antimatter there could and would be no antimatter today. ** **

The „argument“ that „antineutrionos exist because they seldom interact with matter“ is a contradiction to the „statement“ that „matter annihilated antimatter in the hadron epoch“. ** **

There are many correlations (for example):

– Cultural development,
– fertility development,
– demographical development,
– educational development,
– intelligence (IQ) development,
– political development,
– economical development,
– wealth development,
– welfare development,
– artistic development,
– technical / technological development,
– mechanical development,
– civilisational development.

When the red coloured arise, then the green coloured arise merely a little bit, and the blue coloured lacks.
When the red coloured decline, then the green arise very much, and the blue coloured arises.
When the green coloured also decline, then the blue coloured declines as well, first a little bit, then much and very much.

The culture turns the light on, the civilisation of the culture turns the light off.

==>