Discuss:Mathematics, Logic, Philosophy:Rejecting Mysticism and Subjectivism
From da Vinci Concept
Rejecting Mysticism and Subjectivism
Truc_Ha - Wed Feb 25 22:22:59 2004
I am currently reading Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand and thought it would be interesting to hash out her ideas in the forum. I am currently on chapter 2.
To keep the discussion more coherent and organized, I'll break up my comments and interpretations into individual posts.
--Truc_Ha Wed Feb 25 22:22:59 2004
Truc_Ha - Wed Feb 25 22:26:18 2004
One of her axioms is that reality has primacy over consciousness. In other words, thought doesn't create reality, though reality is there for consciousness to perceive. Now before I am run over by shouts of "but I can have this thought and through action I can affect the world," let me elaborate.
Last fall, the medical curriculum went over cognitive development. One of the first developmental tasks a new born baby has is to learn the concept of the permanent object. This is defined as "the awareness that objects, people, and events exist independently of our perception of, or action on, them" (HDH Lecture 24, 2003, University of CT, School of Medicine). An illustration of this concept can be seen the fact that when the baby is no longer looking at the object, that ball is still there. Turn around, it's still there. Reality is independent of thought, though you can affect reality via physical actions that can come from thought.
I'll stop here. What do you think?
(Truc-Ha was on Chapter 2, w/o her book at hand)
[ Edited Thu Feb 26 2004, 11:35AM ]
--Truc_Ha Wed Feb 25 22:26:18 2004
Truc_Ha - Thu Feb 26 8:44:21 2004
What does this mean for subjectivism and mysticism?
Regarding subjectivism, I often hear the phrases: "everyone has the right to their own opinion" and "this is true for me, but it might not be true for you." These two statements are flawed.
The first implies that everyone's opinion is equally valid, that we have no right to judge whether or not others' opinions are right or wrong. No. Everyone may have an opinion, but if their thinking is not sound or if their experience of the world is incomplete, then those opinions are clearly less valid.
The second statement implies that consciousness has primacy over reality, that reality changes depending on the consciousness perceiving it. Again no. In a certain place, two different people may be at different levels of alertness and get different information; they may also be integrating the sensory perceptions into different concepts. But the objects in that place that are the source of the sensorium are the same; they are real; they are independent of their observers.
--Truc_Ha Thu Feb 26 8:44:21 2004
cbettles - Mon Mar 15 8:32:51 2004
As official devil's advocate on 'subjectivism' I would like to note my post on the Thrashing out the Inifinate Mysteries that I think relates a pretty good counter-arguement.
--cbettles Mon Mar 15 8:32:51 2004
sunny - Sun Mar 21 18:06:29 2004
| Regarding subjectivism, I often hear the phrases: "everyone has the right to their own opinion" and "this is true for me, but it might not be true for you." These two statements are flawed. |
| -- Truc_Ha |
I think that you are right. The first statement is only correct when stated without the implication. That is: 'Every individual may have opinions. They are free to have these opinions. This fact has nothing to do with the validity of these opinions.'
The concept 'opinion'
I would also state that a common use of the concept 'opinion' derives from a subjective philosophy. It is used, in a valid way, as a term to describe those truths that may inevitably change between individuals. "I appreciate the color blue" is an objective fact. "All people appreciate the color blue" is speculation based upon the objective fact that "I appreciate the color blue". "All people do not like the color blue" is the actual objective truth and is sufficient evidence to refute my initial speculation. In this regard what the term 'opinion' must contain for its validity as a concept, is context. It describes a truth within the context of that specific individual. That different people have different specific likes and dislikes is not a result of the truth of subjectivism, nor is it an example of subjectivism as a necessary philosophy to describe differences between individuals.
Another way in which 'opinion' is used is to describe partial and incomplete judgments by individual in cases where they lack sufficient evidence and do not care to obtain it. A statement of "This [false statement] is true" is not an opinion. It is simply a false statement. A statement of "This [statement] is true based upon [A B C D]" is not an opinion. It is a statement of fact (either true or false). A statement of "This [statement] may be true, but I am not certain" is not an opinion. It is a statement of the level of confidence one has in a given conclusion. The statement "Based on what I know, this [statement] is what I think follows" is also not opinion. It is a statement maintaining that your context may be insufficient, but your conclusion should follow if your premises are correct. But a statement of "This [statement] is what I think is true and I do not care to regard any further knowledge or examination regarding its truth" is exactly opinion.
When should this type of opinion be used? Never.
When is it commonly used? Whenever a system is based upon arbitrary premises and whenever an individual wants to subvert further discussion from discovering fallacy and inconsistency. It is the crux of many systems of belief and the fundamental problem that is the cause of most human societal problems.
Individual means different
The concept 'individual' is sufficient, with regard to the context of public and 'popular opinion' (the concept is valid when used in this context), to show the reason for differences between the conclusions of different men. Each individual has had their own life experience. Each may have sufficiently different knowledge to arrive at different conclusions regarding objective unknowns or complex and involved reasoning. Each may intuit upon initial examination different conclusions. Each may also draw incorrect conclusions, because of ignorance, stupidity, or a blatant disregard and discard of objective truth, a blanking of the mind. Each may through choice or ignorance, borrow the false conclusions of a given system, that is, accept the conclusions without their own rigorous analysis. Each of these may cause the divergence of individual truths when regarded within the context of a group.
When we are speaking of 'popular opinion', there is contention between individuals, but this this does not, in any way, mean that we need faithfully accept the 'opinion' of others as truth in order to prevent contentions. Belief systems are complex. Cultures are complex. Argument of the leaves (the conclusions) of a complex system is fruitless, unless you first make certain that you agree with the systems underlying principles. The problem that people have and that which tolerance addresses is precisely this.
Tolerance
I will not agree with a system or its conclusions that is based upon premises that I know to be incorrect. Nor will I argue the leaves of such systems with individual whom I know accept the fundamental premises of such systems (although it is quite appropriate to identify undesirable results) Arguments over the truth or falsity of the conclusions of false premises are inevitably fruitless. I will however, argue, to the best of my ability, the fundamentals of such systems, opinions, or beliefs. This is exactly the way that all social problems are solved. Examination of underlying premises in regard to objective truth. Tolerance cannot mean acceptance, but subjectivism preaches acceptance.
I tolerate a bad idea only so much as to accept the objective fact that this bad idea exists in your mind. I do not tolerate my forced participation or condolence. So much as no human rights are violated by your enacting this idea, it is acceptable, but my allowance does not mean that I should be forced or coerced into supporting your cause in ANY way. Tolerance does not mean the funding or supporting of special interest groups with tax dollars.
--sunny Sun Mar 21 18:06:29 2004
joryea - Tue Mar 23 18:17:26 2004
In response to your statement "everyone has the right to their own opinion" and "this is true for me, but it might not be true for you."... I agree that it is flawed, but only in its blatant disregard for others opinions. If it were only stated differently it might bring about a more comfortable feeling when reading or hearing it spoken. Perhaps: "everyone has the right to their own opinion, we simply have different choices upon what we wish (choose) to be true." You could say that this is faulty as well, for it implies that we all choose this truth that everyone has. Whether we choose it individually or together seems not to matter, it is the fact that it is chosen, according to this other statement. But, it also lets the reader, or whomever may be listening, know that during their life choices were perhaps made differently, therefore creating a different outcome. This can be accepted much more easily, for we can all understand how the experiences throughout our life shape and mold us into who we are, with the opinions we all have chosen to speak for (even opinions we were forced to believe).
Opinions and truths? Facts and Theories?
What are opinions exactly? What is truth? Yes, we have a dictionary terminology for all the words we use, but perhaps it needs a bit of a brushing up (Evolution is a good thing). We use a small amount of logic and facts to back up our opinions usually, and a large amount for what we call truths, unless the truths are more opinionated, which simply means they have less facts to back them up. Theories are theoretical, with less truth to back them up, and facts are so full of theories that we simply call it truth. A blatant fact, is accepted by all (most anyway) because that is the very definition of the word. Fact = truth. This logic, however useful it may be, is still flawed. Facts change all the time. As our theories change, the facts they make up change as well. So what is truth? The same thing as an opinion, only more accepted by the general population. And a fact? Many theories we have piled together to create facts. Within all facts lies theories. For to create fact, you must have the pieces of truth you have come to know to put it together with.
The truth in theories.
Before a theory, we have a hypothesis which proves the theory. The hypothesis is based usually upon previously hypothesized theories. So where does this seemingly endless pattern emerge? Opinions. We choose what we are experimenting with, how the experiment might turn out, and what truth might be found within the current theory (opinion) so it may become more relevant (less of an opinion).
So where does the foundation of theory lie. Within the opinions of each and every one of us, especially those of the past.
What am I trying to say?... Yes, the object that nobody acknowledges as existing still exists. I'm simply stating that the existence of such things is in fact, our own choice. Everything is choice. I feel people simply misinterpret mysticism and subjectivist as irrelevant when they have just as much a place as the scientific method. Logic can be used well in more than one way.
Thank you !dodge
--joryea Tue Mar 23 18:17:26 2004
charmed_quark - Sat Mar 27 13:46:45 2004
About facts, laws, hypothesis and theories. Joryea got it mostly right, but I'd like to add a bit more. A hypothesis is a belief system that has not let been tested or investigated. This is the starting point of discovery. A theory, in constrast to the popular usage, is a hypothesis that has been developed from previously understood concepts and has withstood scrutiny. The important thing that most people miss is that a theory is a stronger statement than a 'fact' or 'law'. A law is just an axiom or observation that we assume to be true, but it doen't necessarily have justification. For instance, Newton's 'laws' of motion and gravity were eventually shown to be incomplete approximations.
--charmed_quark Sat Mar 27 13:46:45 2004
sunny - Mon Mar 29 19:19:04 2004
Regarding Newton's Laws as an example of how a change in theory necessitates a subjective interpretation of knowledge: This is an incorrect interpretation. Newton's Laws of Motion have been shown to be sufficient approximations within a wide range of general applications. They are exact in that they can be applied explicitly and directly to reality within these applications. Context. Concepts, including 'natural' laws, always required application and ALWAYS require context. And context dropping to prove some subjective interpretation of 'what an axiom is' is a subjective re-writing of reality. No truth of Newton's laws of gravitation have been re-written by our advancement. They are and always will hold validity within their respective applications. Our advancement in knowledge has simply filled out new details and characteristics so that we can apply our knowledge to different scales and newly discovered physical entities.
Regarding hypotheses: Hypotheses are intuitions and best guesses regarding causal reality. As charmed_quark correctly identified, they might be said to be the pre-cursors of truth that describe reality. Once determined, through a rigorous experimental method, these reality truths are fallible only in their interpretation and application. It is the failing of the experimenter and experiment that undermines the certainty that we gain by the experimental method. In many instances the very formulation of the hypotheses itself (and thus experiment) is often the primary culprit in the subjectivising of theoretical knowledge. If a hypothesis is not exact, in both statement and application, it is usually very easy for any results to be re-interpreted to mean just about anything. Hypothesis formulation is not to be taken lightly. Testing through a valid method is similarly crucial.
I don't think that hypotheses qua hypotheses are not belief systems in any way. They are as 'charmed_quark' stated, precursors of discovery. Belief requires us to set discovery aside in lieu of acceptance of untested and untried speculation as truth. Belief is not a precursor to knowledge. Belief is a barrier to knowledge. I do not believe in scientific knowledge. I have confidence in it because I have an understanding of its methods and can check for myself its premises and the chain of logic used to derive its truths. I think that this is a necessary and critical distinction to make. I also think that it is often taken for granted or even intentionally subverted by those wishing to undermine the basis of a rational system of knowledge.
--sunny Mon Mar 29 19:19:04 2004
joryea - Sun Jul 25 10:41:17 2004
Newton had a human mind, but I would say, that he did not use it with vigor. The ideas he shared were from others, and no actual discovery of truth was made by him, nor any intention to uplift humanity through a process of discovery. This perhaps, is an opinion of my own, which I share in confidence, with you. To further back up this thesis on the falsity of Newton, I would like to introduce Kepler. The laws of motion which Newton defines are in fact, contrived, and abused, to the extent of redefining Keplers laws towards a more aristotilian model of the universe, instead of the currently worked with hypotheses of motion of the planets in there orbital pathways throughout the solar body our planet rests within. The ideas Newton supposedly proposed were a backwards ideology that in effect, actively destroyed the idea of universal principles of motion. His notion of the solar bodies was not based upon principle. It was based on perception, which is only a shadow of the truth we can only percieve within the active mind. Kepler's discovery of the orbital pathway of Mars around the sun, was the oposition to the popular belief reflected in Aristotles works, which in effect, opposed Plato, and the platonic method of discovering truth.
The idea's in which Newton followed, contrived from such philosophers as Aristotle, whom saw perception as truth, or: control what can be expressed, and you control what can be known (i.e., what was inexpressible can not be known). Rather than the pythagoreans and the method of Plato whom realized that the inexpressible was the frontier, not the barrier, of human thought.
To define anything as truth, or even a valid hypotheses, you must have sufficient vigor in your scientific methodology and ability to see outside of sense perception within the complex domain (human thought). The invisible principles in which the universal bodies are ordered harmoniously, is the frontier in which we as human beings, play with hypotheses; therefore, in respect to Newton's mechanics and supposed laws of motion, whether he in fact used vigor in his hypotheses to discover falsities in universal motion, is irrelevant, for he did not sway from his method of discerning truth, therefore enabling nothing to be accomplished for the benifit of human understanding, in effect, creating popular opinion which has stuffed many of the scientific minds of today into a box of percievable delusions.
Effects are not truth. And it is my understanding, that to discover the cause of such things as that which we percieve, we must look outside of the events occuring before our eyes, and into that which we have not yet thought. The invisible. The transendental. This, is what it is to be human. We can discover principles of truth in the ordering of universe and act upon them to change our relationship to the world before us. This perhaps is another topic of discussion. I appologize for straying from the current discussion. I suppose everything, in this sense, is connected, as all universal knowledge is, yet order within discussion is needed to develope ideas. If any would like, they may discuss the otherwize off topic ideas within this reply within a new forum, so as not to disturb this current discussion from its proccess of discovery.
The above is not truth nor opinion, is it hypotheses.
for any personalized discussions, you may contact me through via e-mail or phone.
changetheworldwjorye@yahoo.com
323-259-1860
I agree with charmedquark.. the universe is a wanderful place.
<span class='smallblacktext'>[ Edited Sun Jul 25 2004, 10:45AM ]</span>
--joryea Sun Jul 25 10:41:17 2004
joryea - Sun Jul 25 11:10:45 2004
With reguard to Truc_ha:
I see definite vigor in your work with Ayn Rand. Where could I find a good internet source on her, if you wouldn't mind sharing this with me? I find her philosophy agreeable, or, in the least, discussable.
I would say that Truc_ha has it right, when it comes to opinion. In fact, I would be even more strait forward as to say,"opinions are the destruction of humanity." In that, people today "feel" that there opinions are as relevant, or are, as truth. This, is bullshit, and is destroying the idea of truth. Peoples opinions are not valid whatsoever, as Truc_ha was perhaps stating, unless worked through with vigor and a truthful method of discovery. This however, I would state, in hypotheses, has now defined opinion as irrelevant (i.e., any kind of actual, valid opinion, is hypothese, not opinion). For when seeking truth with vigor, we continue to work with our hypotheses, and not let it stagnate as an axiom (i.e., opinion of the world seen automatically as truth when acting upon the world (please, correct me if I perhaps am missinterpreting the idea of an axiom)).
Upon the subject of reality as defined though my understanding of what Truc_ha has stated:
I would agree wholeheartedly, for it would be completely miscued to think of everyones individual reality as what is real. I would say that every individual percieves the real universe diferently, being that they are individuals (humans being, from what I understand, the only living form that acts in such a way to the real universe (as discovered thus far)). I would agree that what we percieve is real, and would be with or without the observer, as Truc_ha stated. I would say, to further emphasis this, that what is percieved is but an illusion of what truly is real, so as to form a shadow of the universe and its harmonic ordering within our percieved reality. This, from what I have come to hypothesize, will always be so, even though we will continue to achieve greater understanding of the invisible (to our sensorium(as Truc_ha called it), until such a time as we might reach infinite. Quite a paradox.. eh. Reach infinite? I don't think so.
I do love being human.
<span class='smallblacktext'>[ Edited Sun Jul 25 2004, 11:17AM ]</span>
--joryea Sun Jul 25 11:10:45 2004
charmed_quark - Sun Jul 25 18:48:16 2004
About Newton
He was surely went nuts later in life. Especially in regards to Leibniz and the embezzlement incident. But we should not underestimate his contribution to science and humanity. At the same time, his 'laws' were shown inaccurate during his lifetime. Example: G*m1*m2/r^2 is an insufficient approximation to account for the observed orbit of Mercury. This was one of the first success of GR.
My point is that, in scientific terms, a Law (gravitation, thermodynamics) is an unsupported observation that has been classically assumed to be true. A theory (GR, quantum, evolution) is based on logical reasoning based on many observations, mathematical models and previously established concepts. These are chapter one physics concepts, I don't know why the controversy.
About Kepler
He was nuts, too. He came up from with the laws of planetary motion through careful observation, some wacky geometry and a lot of luck. In his time they were only laws. They became theories went Newton used the Laws of Motion, Gravitation, and his new-fangled Calculus to set them on a solid foundation. Even though that theory was incomplete until GR, it nicely illustrates the difference between a law and a theory and why a theory is a more rigorous.
--charmed_quark Sun Jul 25 18:48:16 2004
charmed_quark - Sun Jul 25 19:02:34 2004
About opinions
Opinions are difference judgments based on difference value systems. Example: Conflicts in environmental issues usually boil down to a conflict between long-term sustainability and short-term standard of living. Subexample: It is true that dumping CO2 in the atmosphere will raise the global temperature. It is also true that if we stop using fossil fuel, our quality of life will drop. The correct course of action is based on a value judgement and there is NOT a universal mathematical formula that will make the decision for us.
That is why opinions matter, even when objective data is present.
--charmed_quark Sun Jul 25 19:02:34 2004
joryea - Sun Jul 25 21:39:39 2004
charmed_quark. I would say, with all due respect, that although correct obout objective truth, the idea that an opinion is going to save the human race is in fact, obsurd. Opinions have no power other than there lack there of. They are not vigorous, nor provide any kind of sufficient solidity to form concepts of truth in which we change the universe, nor uplift humanity through the act of, "shaping the universe". This is done through vigorous studies into the transendental, i.e. invisible. About universal mathematical formula's, your thinking in terms of algebraic equations I would suppose: geometry explains universal principles, not algebra. In fact, the method of algebra used today, is for all reasonable purposes, useless. Oh.. , about the environment: we are the environment (global warming and cooling is a natural process). and... the fossil fuel thing: Mag-lev train system (eurasian land-bridge project would be the key to that). I will explain further if wished.
--joryea Sun Jul 25 21:39:39 2004
joryea - Sun Jul 25 22:02:07 2004
I might get a bit carried away, so bear with me, if you would.
Newton. Leibniz and the embezzlement incident? You do know that Newton was employed by the England monarchy to destroy the ideas of Gottfried Leibniz? Newton didn't contribute to science and humanity. He actively suppressed the idea of actual truth, destroying the idea of the platonic method, and contradicting everything it is to be humane. He actively destroyed humanity. umm.. one more thing on Leibniz: The idea of "the pursuit of happiness" was in fact, from Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. He was a universal thinker, without which, the American Revolution would have never occured.
Physics today is completely broken, amongst the scientific community (for the most part). Truth, doesn't exist in today's physics. To prove me wrong (for I would greatly appreciate it), if you would be so kind, describe to me.. a single 'universal principle of truth'.
yes.. about Johannes Kepler.
Nice slanders, but that won't cut it. What you just stated about him, from all the reading and research I am currently working with, and the science of history that I've been studying, well.. lets put it this way; first of all, Newton stole that supposed calculus of his, from Leibniz and Kepler, and destroyed what it represented. Second, as I stated, Newton also plagerized the "laws of motion" of Kepler, and Leibniz, only, he destroyed the idea of those as well. He was working under the oligarchical powers of his time, and was, as stated, destroying the ideas of truth, and human understanding. I won't go into it with your idea of Kepler, unless you insist. Just for practical purposes though, I would state that you've been brainwashed by our educational systems, and don't have a sense of human history, therefore not enabling yourself to know someone such as Kepler, as a universal thinker, and one of the greatest minds of humanity itself. This is not an attack on you personally. This is an attack on the current method of destroying the idea of truth, funded by the financiers of the Lazard Freres oligarchy, and acted out by such foundations as, 'The Congress of Cultural Freedom', and 'The American Family Foundation'.
It is beautiful to be human, but we still have to fight for what that means.
for all intention on learning something about Kepler or Leibniz, a good sight to do this kind of research is: http://www.wlym.com (look under "Classics")
<span class='smallblacktext'>[ Edited Sun Jul 25 2004, 10:07PM ]</span>
--joryea Sun Jul 25 22:02:07 2004
charmed_quark - Mon Jul 26 19:19:19 2004
Before accusing each other of slander (a word that gets thrown around too much) lets cite some sources
Kepler
from Mysterium Cosmographicum by M. Ioanne Keplero:
The Earth's sphere is the measure of all other orbits. Circumscribe a dodecahedron around it. The sphere surrounding it will be that of Mars. Circumscribe a tetrahedron around Mars. The sphere surrounding it will be that of Jupiter. Circumscribe a cube around Jupiter. The surrounding sphere will be that of Saturn. Now, incribe a icosahedron inside the orbit of the Earth. The sphere inscribed in it will be that of Venus. Inscribe an octahedron inside Venus. The sphere in it will be that of Mercury. The you have the bais for the number of the planets.
Now if you haven't already noticed the bad reasoning present, let me quote Mario Livio, Head of the Science Division at the Hubble Space Telescope Science Institute:
Kepler's cosmological model, which was based on Platonic solids, was not only absolutely wrong, but it was crazy even for Kepler's time. The discovery of the planets Uranus in 1781 and Neptune in 1846 put the final nails into the coffin of an already moribund idea.
Netwon and Leibniz
From Introduction to Real Analysis by Robert G. Bartle and Donald R Sherbert
Their approaches to calculus were quite different and it is now evident that their discoveries were made independantly.
Newton was employed by the British as Warden of the British Mint in 1696, he was forced to resign after accusation of embezzlement.
Physics
It is the power of the scientific method and a mark of a good scientist never to accept any 'universal principle of truth'. Physics will truely be broken when we assume that everything we know is right and quit searching for new answers. That is why even the most tested and examined theories continue to be tested and examined.
Opinions
These exists today fundament questions that cannot be answered by emperical findings, but must be acted upon nonetheless. Most value conflict fall under this category. For another example: Freedom vs. Security. We can come up with courses of action that emphasize one or the other, but how do we decide which to favor and by what margin? Is there any experiment that can be performed? Is there data to graph? Is there a formula to derive? I don't think so. We have to weigh our opinions.
Algebra
Linear programming (a method of algebra) is the most widespread use of applied mathematics today. More so that calculus. And I having a hard time thinking of any application of geometry that doesn't require algebra. That's why algebra is a prerequite for geometry at most high schools.
Other topics
I actually am interested in mag-lev and the eurasian land-bridge project. Perhaps you could share your ideas in a another thread?
Speaking of which, if there is any further discussion of any of these subjects, other threads ought to be started.
--charmed_quark Mon Jul 26 19:19:19 2004
joryea - Wed Jul 28 1:54:52 2004
I will begin a new thread on the following topics, as you suggested, for that would only seem reasonable, since there are many to discuss individually. Although they all do relate, historically and scientifically speaking.
on Johannes Kepler:
You really shouldn't read someone elses interpretation of a universal mind being dismissed without doing the research into it yourself. Now, Newton did happen to think of the universe in a machanical way, which is absolutely wrong; it's constantly in a state of both changing and unchanging, not machanically structured in an exact explainable method. Kepler on the other hand, did what it took the Egyptians thousands of years, to not come up with, and accomplished the task of identifying the orbital pathways of solar bodies within our solar system. Yes, he didn't happen to have the hubble space telescope, and without it he determined the orbital pathways of seven orbital pathways, that are still used today. Your forgetting that Kepler was a universal genious. er.. maybe you never knew. Either way, if you would just look into his: The New Astronomy. Kepler wasn't just the founder of the new astronomy, he created quantum theory,.. just check out his snowflake paper. What were identifying here, is that someone said something about this great mind, Kepler, and you take it as truth, instead of someones lack of understanding. From what I know, that model of his, is not accurately, the orbital pathways. However, it is getting at the golden section, which is getting at the orbital pathways. He did discover, as you know, the orbital pathway of Mars. And by this method, the rest of the orbits were contrived. He is the founder of modern astronomy. As well, his understanding of the negentropy of the universe is phenomenal. The ideas of humanity, agape and such.. passed down from the teachings of the pythagoreans, and plato.. and the mathematics of Archimedes, as well as Erastothenes' circumfrance of the Earth, and other such related studies. This, my friend, is the science of history. Every thing is connected. Nothing is arbitrary in history. Tonalities, for instance, of the human voice, are in sink with the orbital pathways vibrations within our solar system. anyway, I'll create a forum to further discuss some of this.
Newton and Leibniz:
Again, your reading anothers works. Read Newton's works. He's destroying the platonic method of discovering truth. Again, perception is not truth. He tried to destroy Leibniz's new calculus. A good book to read to check up .. well.. you could read his dialogues. those are very awesome. I'm currently doing some work on this with a study group. Rigor. some of the stuff I'm reading I'm sorry to say that I don't know where you could find it, but, online at www.wlym.com you will be able to find some beautiful works nevertheless. Were still working on expanding our repetuar online. Oh,. about the independant discoveries: again, I press, Newton wanted to destroy the ideas of Leibniz, so of course they were different. Newton was popular with the nobles of the higherarchy, and Leibniz was humane and sublime. We may create a thread on this as well, but for now, lets do some more reading before just jumping into it. I'd like to give you some time to investigate, and I just began some more work on Leibniz, so I'd like a bit before going into depth on specific workings and ideas. Newton, well, hehe.. fuck Newton. but.. uh.. yeah.. do some research on his actual philosophies. You won't like him. He's inhumane in his workings. And yes, he was corrupt. Good thing for people like Colbare (studied under Mazarin. created the first sivil court justic system during the scientific revolution).
.
Physics: Test and examine. That's the problem. They don't take into account ordering principles of the universe. And if they do, they all have different opinions on exactly what those are, and so they.. well.. they stagnate.. with little progress: hence.. lack of fussion technology. Furthermore, when you take into account ordering principles of the universe, it not only is a method of discovery and introduction of new technologies, but if something is off, it is a clue into another ordering principle that in effect, further orders all that lies before it... hence.. higher ordering princple. Trancendental universal principles of truth. If you say there is no such thing as truth, then Aristotle is right, and everything is discovered through scientific experimentation upon the effects of sense perception. All actual discoveries of principle of truth were made outside of this box in which most of supposed science is done in today... hence.. most scientists are aristotilians, not scientists. .. i.e. they don't know truth... only blabber (which they argue over).
Algebra:
lets put it this way: your brainwashed. If you like I'll send you a proof upon actual mathematics, and not this formalistic algebraic stagnation through memorization of supposed crap that created geometry. That's just insane. Geometry created algebra. Algebra is simply a tool of explaining the geometry of the universe. But you discover the Geometry first, not the other way around. You can't discover anything with Algebra, when it comes to geometric truths of universal ordering. Algebra, again, explains the geometry, and that, is all.. when it comes to the universe, and the discoveries within it. I admit it is a useful tool. But the math today is taught by sadamizing you, then throwing you out into the abyss to fend for yourself, as though they actually developed a method for seeking truth through that kind of process. e-mail me to get the 1799 theorum of algebra, by Carl Gauss... if your interested in developing your concept of rigor.
Opinion.... through reason. perhaps can be useful. Reason, through cognition is better. Hypotheses. enough stated on this though. I'll just end up stating 'that people have no right to their own opinion'.. and most people get deffensive with that statement. Because.. they are sensitive to there self-delusions. If you'd like to begin a forum on this, I'll respond. Otherwize, I won't go into this any further.
I'll get some stuff to you on the Mag-lev and Eurasian land-bridge soon.. -k- give me a little bit... I'll try and see if I can find something on the internet.. or a way I can put some stuff on the internet.. perhaps send it to your e-mail, or maybe begin a forum here on it.
Thanks for your response.
[ Edited Wed Jul 28 2004, 02:04AM ]
--joryea Wed Jul 28 1:54:52 2004
