User talk:Andrewa/Return of the Time Cube

This discussion seems to grow without limit, and other users are beggining to complain about difficulty updating my talk page. So I thought I'd give it a go in a page of its own.

Feel free to update it here. This is not an archive page, it's a live discussion. Andrewa 09:49, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Top Matter

The Bookmark headings are to make section edit work better. They're an experiment. They make the TOC useless unfortunately.

There are still a few formatting errors below, indenting not quite right. Andrewa 21:10, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

See also Talk:Time Cube/User talk archive and User talk:andrewa/archive4.

In the subsections below as here, the italicised comments with zero indent are mine. The unitalicised zero-indent comments are those of my anonymous correspondent. To see them in their original context and indenting, follow the links below the headings. Andrewa 06:36, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

What the theory is

See User talk:andrewa/archive4#What the theory is for previous discussion

• CASE 1: A sphere is as a fully rotated Cube.
• CASE 2: If the Earth wasn't rotating, it would be (approximately) a perfect Sphere. We may say however, that as a 3-dimensional object, it exists within the boundaries of a Cube. See Case 1; I will now refer to it as a Cube. Note that the orientation of the non-rotating cube is undefined.
• CASE 3: When the Earth rotates, dilation occurs along its rotational axis, such that the radius is less at the poles than at the equator. We may say that the Top and the Bottom of the Cube have now been defined as the North and South Poles, and that the Cube has been dilated.
• CASE 4: Rotation is actually a fundamental property of all gravitational bodies, as they all originate from rotational vortices; but the fact is that if they stopped rotating, they would form undilated Cubes. Thus we must refer to them as Cubes rather than rectangular prisms, in order to acknowledge Cubes as the perfect form.

Yes you can restate the argument if you wish. If you are unsure about any other terms then ask, but I think they are all probably correct.

OK. Here is my restatement, with some questions.

Proposition 1: A sphere is a fully rotated cube. I can find no sensible meaning to this statement.

About the three axes passing through the centres of opposite faces, rotate a cube to all its possible alignments, and the volume that is always within the cube is a Sphere.

That makes sense. Actually any three non-coplanar axes will achieve this result, not just the three you have chosen here.

And any other solid in place of the cube will also achieve this result. That is, any solid rotated to all of its possible alignments around any three non-coplanar lines passing through the solid will describe a sphere (the axes don't even need to pass through the solid, but let's assume they do for simplicity of thinking about it).

So, in this sense a sphere is also a fully rotated cone, and a sphere is a fully rotated tetrahedron, and... need I go on?

Proposition 2a: If the Earth wasn't rotating, it would more nearly approximate a perfect Sphere. Agree.

Proposition 2b: We may say however, that as a 3-dimensional object, it exists within the boundaries of a Cube. Agree.

Proposition 2c: We may therefore refer to the earth as a Cube. Similarly, we may refer to every finite object as a Cube, if that is what you wish.

Actually this only really applies to significant gravitational bodies like Earth. Gravity has caused the Earth's shape to closely approximate an ellipsoid, but if you zoom in to say, rock formations on Earth, you will see fractalic forms that represent Chaos rather than the fundamental forces of the universe. So you could envision an imaginary cube around a teapot, but actually the teapot is gravitationally insignificant. Living organisms such as humans are also gravitationally insignificant,

Hmmmm... How about Phobos and Deimos? Do you consider these gravitational bodies? Where do you draw the line?

Actually there is no line, rather we may assign probabilities to different bodies; for instance, Earth could be .9999, quasi-gravitational bodies like those you mentioned could be .5, and a teapot could be .0000001 (negligible).

How did you arrive at these figures?

Obviously they are not real figures, I just made them up to help explain the concept.

Then how do you decide which bodies are gravitationally significant? By guesswork?

Yes I was just going by intuition, as you most likely were when you identified Phobos and Deimos as borderline. I think it would be possible to mathematically calculate a gravitational significance factor for different bodies, however it could be quite complicated and involve many variables such as size, composition, temperature, rotation speed etc.

Exactly. Now, remember why this whole subject came up. Newton's laws, and every mainstream theory since, applies to every gravitational body. Time Cube applies a different set of laws depending on whether the body is significant. This is bad enough, but in addition it now seems that there is no scientific way to tell which set of laws applies. Is this really a superior theory?

Bookmark

It is not a question of Time Cube either applying or not applying. It is a question of it applying to different extents, depending on the gravitational significance value I mentioned above. For values approaching zero, Chaos is more applicable. For values approaching 1, the Time Cube is more applicable. I have already described shape properties that may allow an approximate gravitational significance value to be determined (there may be some objects, like very precisely manufactured spheres, that don't conform with these rules, but they are statistical outliers) and if a more accurate value is to be determined then a research team will probably be required to further research the matter.

So, in one corner we have physics, including Newton's theory, which has simplicity and has predicted the motions of the planets, and Einstein's theories, which have predicted the equivalence of mass and energy and the gravitational deflection of light. In the other corner we have Time Cube, which becomes more complex by the minute and has predicted nothing verifiable.

While I am not aware of any verifiable PREDICTIONS, I do know of observations that strongly support Time Cube. For instance, have you noticed that most animals have 4 limbs, each generally having 4 fingers/toes on the end? Only lower order animals have extra limbs between the front and back pairs. Humans and other primates have an opposable thumb as an extra, special finger; this is not the case on the 5-toe human foot, but scientists have predicted that the smallest toe is vestigial and will disappear over the course of further human evolution. So this complies with the Cubic concept of Four being the Supreme Number of the Universe.

I have already explained why I reject the necessity of predictions. I think that Time Cube concurs with all known observations, and is favoured over other theories by Occam's razor. I think predictivity is a bit of a trap; if something can be observed by modern science then it probably has been, but if it can't then it won't count as a verifiable predition. This significantly narrows the field for predictions.

(I must agree that physics is in 1 corner; it fails to represent the 4-corner Cubic unity. However, Time Cube is most certainly not an Academic/religious 1-corner concept; it represents all 4 simultaneous corner-quadrants.)

Bookmark

This is a continuation of anon's comment: "such as size, composition, temperature, rotation speed etc." above. - note added by JesseW 08:27, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

An analogy for this is that you would not hesitate in stepping off a 10 cm step, but you would certainly refrain from stepping off a 100 m cliff. So where do you draw the line between safe and unsafe heights? I'd say there is no definite answer; there would be some heights where you would have trouble intuitively deciding whether it would be safe or not. And it would also be possible to use statistics about injuries people suffered when falling from different heights to determine a probability function that covers a range of heights.

Agreed.

In everyday life, we often have no need for scientific standards of proof. To demand them would be quite ridiculous. Agreed?

Bookmark

If by "scientific" you are referring to current mainstream Academian science then yes, I agree. However I think that we must demand rational thought in order to prevent brainwashing.

Agreed. So, how do we decide when it's rational to demand empirical evidence, in your opinion?

Well, I'd say that all beliefs should be based on empirical observations; therefore I demand that empirical data and associated reasoning be provided as substantiation for beliefs. For instance, by citing the Earth's shape and rotational properties (empirical evidence) and the 4/16 rotation principle (associated reasoning), I can substantiate the belief that there are 4 simultaneous days in 1 earth rotation.

Bookmark

This is a continuation of Andrewa's comment: "Where do you draw the line?" above. - note added by JesseW 08:27, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Newton's theory of gravitation applies to bodies of any size and at any distance, as do those of Einstein and all (IMO) credible theories of gravitation that have followed. Your theory seems to be a giant step backwards if it can't handle teapots at least as well as Newton does, see below.

This is a continuation of anon's comment: "humans are also gravitationally insignificant," above. - note added by JesseW 08:27, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

however since the fundamental forces of the universe caused them to evolve from chaos, they may display Cubic forms (EG: Your head has 4 corners -- nose, 2 ears and a back corner -- but you only have a 1-corner face, proving you to be only 1/4 of the godly self-image you think you represent).

Lots here. Would you care to elaborate this proof for a start? I'm serious, it seems to offer some hope of clarifying what you mean by corner.

The head exists between Top and Bottom parameters. Considering it in terms of a horizontal plane, we may create an axis along the plane of bilateral symmetry, and then create another axis perpendicular to that, creating the 4 corners (nose and back being the majors and the 2 ears being the minors). See #Graphical representation (website). However, you only have a 1-corner face; in terms of the 4 perpendicular directions on a 2D plane, your face corresponds to the direction in which you walk. Also, you go around 4 corners in a lifetime -- Baby, Child, Parent, Grandparent. At any one time, you're only 1/4 or 1-Corner.

Just to double-check, you are offering this as proving you to be only 1/4 of the godly self-image you think you represent?

Yes. Was God born? Will he age and die? Does he have any parents, and has he had or will he have god-children with a female god?

These are excellent rhetorical questions. They expose the shallowness of our attempts to understand God anthopomorphically, but we have no better concepts.

The Bible seems to portray God as a human spirit though, doesn't it?

Yes.

For instance, Genesis says that God created humans in his own image, and I think there are some parts that describe God speaking to humans in human languages.

Correct.

Bookmark

Well if the mystical man in the sky doesn't want you to think of him as being anthropomorphic then why did he write the Bible such that he is described as being anthropomorphic?

Hmmm. I assume you mean God. IMO you will find it very difficult to evaluate other viewpoints if you use terminology with such strong presuppositions. In answer to your question, he did. As I said above, we have no better concepts. Is that any clearer?

That is not clear to me at all. I asked "Why did he do this", and your answer is "He did". That doesn't make sense.

Is the Bible not the Word of God?

It depends on what you mean by the Word of God. This is another example of terminology with enormous presuppositions. I'd prefer to avoid it here, but I'd like to answer your question.

I have no trouble describing the Bible as the Word of God in worship situations or in many others. I object strongly to using the phrase in a rational discussion where the authority of the Bible is itself at issue. In the first instance it is a helpful and accurate description, in the second it is misleading, prejudicial, and inaccurate.

My point is that if the Bible is considered an absolute authority, then everything in it must be considered true, with the exception of any contradictions. So unless the anthropomorphic description is contradicted by something else, then to doubt it would constitute a nonacceptance of the Bible's authority. If the Bible is not an authority, then auxiliary evidence is required for what it says. If you think that some of it is true and some parts are false then you should justify this selectivity.

This is a continuation of anon's comment: "God speaking to humans in human languages." above. - note added by JesseW 08:27, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Now if you define "God" as "the fundamental laws of the universe"

If you define "Pope" as "Andrew Alder" then I can prove that I am the Pope. But why would anyone do this?

In other words, I don't accept this definition.

That is not a problem; I mentioned this definition because it is how some people think of God.

I was once in that category myself, at the age of about fifteen or so, having been raised in a church that rarely read the Bible and whose members thought that science had made religion almost obsolete and would soon complete the process. I think many professional clergy now adopt this position, as it allows them to remain in employment while not in any practical way believing in God.

But it's not a good belief system. Criticise it if you like, but I think the Yes, Prime Minister episode The Bishop's Gambit has already provided a devastating commentary which is a hard act to follow. I certainly don't think that such a belief system has any rational basis.

Bookmark

This is a continuation of anon's comment: "fundamental laws of the universe" above. - note added by JesseW 08:27, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

then I'd say that Time Cube is an excellent concept in this regard,

In this regard it is an excellent example, certainly. Agreed.

Please clarify and justify this statement.

Clarification: I'd say Time Cube is an excellent example of something poorly defined. Justification: I'd say this because I believe it's true, just as you'd say whatever it is you said you'd say above.

OK; I would have thought that "the fundamental laws of the universe" is a fairly clear definition, therefore not poor.

but I very strongly doubt that the Bible would support this.

Agreed. Well, I guess you could define "support" as "say nothing either way", and then it will support many things. And this would fit well with your saying "reject" when you mean "have no opinion either way".

Actually I think the Bible may contradict Time Cube.

Here we go again. Does that mean you don't know?

Well actually I'm fairly sure that it contradicts Time Cube. One of the ways in which it may do this is with the anthropomorphic description of God; I have explained the error of the self-aggrandising 1-corner human-god concept.

When I say that I reject God, I mean that I have concluded that to believe in God would be irrational.

When you say you reject God, you mean many different things. This is the third contradictory explanation you have given.

I stand by the explanation above. Please quote my contradicting explanations.

But that's quite fair enough to reject God. I hope that when you consider the evidence you may reconsider.

Bookmark

This is a continuation of anon's comment: "he have god-children with a female god?" above. - note added by JesseW 08:27, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As far as I know, the answer to these is NO

Do you have any evidence for this?

This is a serious question. You seem happy to demand high standards of logic and consistency from others, and this is good. But then you seem to exempt yourself from these standards.

It was just that my impression of God was that he is a human-like singularity that exists in an adult state forever, and wasn't born and will not die. If you have a different notion of God then you should explain it, however if you want it to comply with the JudeoChristian religion then you should probably support it with Bible quotes. You are more knowledgeable about religion than I, so I will leave this to you.

Some time ago a friend posed the following question to me: "Why is it that so many churches whose theology is impeccable are dead, and so many churches that are theologically flawed are alive?" This question was very relevant to her position at the time, she was about to leave a dead but theologically sound church and join one that was alive but had seriously flawed beliefs. Having degrees in mathematics and linguistics, she cares very much for the truth, and was understandably distressed by this decision.

Bookmark

What led your friend to conclude that the Bible is the truth? What led YOU to conclude this?

As for my friend, you'd really need to ask her, and she's in the Solomon Islands and off email for the moment so it will take a while.

For me, first I think we must ask what the Bible is the truth might mean. When we receive a chemistry data book, our expectations are completely different to when we receive a letter from a friend. If the chemistry book has the atomic weight wrong for phosphorus, we would expect an erratum and a very embarrassed publisher. But if the friend said they'd had a lovely dinner and it cost them only $5US but because they got an exchange rate wrong the dinner had actually cost $10, we don't expect them to immediately write us a correction when they get their Amex statement.

The Bible I think is a genre closer to the letter than the chemistry book. If the creation of the animals isn't in quite the right order in Genesis, there's no need to change it. If the Book of Kings talks of a circle with a circumference three times its diameter (and it does) there's no call to put in the modern value of pi instead. In fact, in both cases this would be misleading.

If the Bible is the authoritative Word of God then it must all be true, with the exception of any contradictions. I think I may be seeing some duplicity here; do you or don't you believe in the Bible?

Several different things influenced my decision to regard the Bible as special. The love of other people who did read the Bible is probably the most important. This, and frustration at some of the illogical things they seemed to quote the Bible as saying, lead me to read it for myself, cover to cover in order as printed, over the long University break of Christmas 1971. Australian universities have their long break in the southern hemisphere summer.

Being Australian myself, I am aware of this fact. I generally do not evaluate the veracity of beliefs based on the personal qualities of people who believe them; the fact that many people do, to varying extents, practise such irrationality, is the basis for "ad hominem" attacks.

This reading didn't answer all my questions, and it raised a lot more. But it did give the key to understanding why some people who claimed to read the Bible seemed to be the better for it, and others were the worse. It became quite obvious that many who claimed to read it were actually reading only the parts that suited them, and even then took some very strange interpretations. And it also became obvious that many who criticised the Bible hadn't read it either. There were so many valid, obvious and troubling questions that I'd never heard my aggressively atheist and agnostic friends ask, and surely they would have asked them had they known about them.

Well, please do pose these questions in this discussion if you have not already done so.

But I was also very impressed by what I read. Some books just grab me. Origin of Species is another that did. The Bible was impressive. It reeked of honest and perceptive people struggling to find God, or if you like to find purpose in life. It answered many of my questions, often in surprising and refreshing ways. It sometimes challenged me to change, and when I was honest with myself I found these changes were always good, however painful they might seem when first suggested.

I am thinking that Time Cube could give people a better purpose in life than JudeoChristian religions. Perhaps the people who wrote the Bible would have accepted Time Cube, had it become known to them. Bear in mind that Time Cube is quite a recent discovery; Dr Ray researched it over the last few decades, and created the TimeCube.com website in 1997.

You wanted a concise, succinct, logical answer I know. The best I can give you is a journey. This is a little of it, and probably enough for now.

Bookmark

This is a continuation of Andrewa's comment: "was understandably distressed by this decision." above. - note added by JesseW 08:27, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Our conclusion was that theology is not of primary importance to a church. It's important, but less important than faith, for example. Faith is demonstrated in many ways. Having the courage to examine your own beliefs is one of them, and leads to sound theology. But it's only one of them, and not the most important. Jesus seems to place much more emphasis on actions than on words. Taking care of the helpless, for example. Micah 6:8 is a very famous verse: He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the Lord require? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God. (NIV)

I think that Jesus was placing emphasis on actions based on words. The quote above says: "He has showed you, O man, what is good."

Agreed.

How did Jesus show people this?

Lots of ways, I think. We don't have the eyewitnesses to interview any more, unfortunately, but they were impressed enough that ten out of the twelve of Jesus' inner circle died violently because of the risks they knowingly took to tell people about Jesus.

I think it is true that many people back then were very impressed by Christianity; but would they perhaps have been more impressed by Time Cube? I certainly think that Time Cube transcends religious beliefs, and I have explained several reasons why.

Did he do something good and then did God appear in the clouds saying that what he did was Good?

There are a couple of accounts of similar events, none of them exactly that. Jesus' baptism and the Transfiguration are two that come to mind. But many people who find the Bible a wonderful basis for their lives also think that both of these stories didn't actually happen as described.

We may need to clarify what exactly we are discussing. Is it the veracity of Christian beliefs, or is it the benefits of following Christian morality?

No I think Jesus merely asserted that certain actions were good and would get people into heaven or whatever. So he was encouraging people to unquestioningly act according to his Words.

I don't think that's at all consistent with the evidence.

Well, how did Jesus prove to people that following his teachings would get them into heaven? I know that the Bible says Jesus performed miracles and such, but even if this was the case, it would be a strawman to cite it as evidence for his teachings being true.

Bookmark

This is a continuation of anon's comment: "the answer to these is NO" above. - note added by JesseW 08:27, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

and therefore your fictitious Word-God is cornered as a Queer.

Hmmmm... Are you trying to be funny here?

No. Why are a large proportion of people born homosexual or bisexual (semi-homosexual)? I'd say it's a natural means of population control, as there can be negative consequences for a species if overpopulation occurs. So if God does not perpetuate by having children through sexual reproduction then he is as a queer.

Ridiculous. My homosexual friends all regard the word "queer" as at least mildly offensive, just BTW. But there are so many logical errors in that last argument it's hard to know where to start. Do you really regard it as valid?

Bookmark

I stand by what I wrote. How about you specify these "many logical errors". I think that "Queer" is a good term to describe sexual orientations that differ from the standard heterosexuality by which all higher species perpetuate.

OK. I just didn't want to waste time on a throwaway line. This is a public forum, and you may offend people needlessly IMO.

First logical problem: You state that a large proportion of people are born homosexual or bisexual, but I think that's an open question. It depends what we mean by homosexual and bisexual. There are political reasons for wanting to find a "gay gene", but what one would be is carefully left vague. My suspicion is that there's a continuum of orientations, and that given the right circumstances, pressures and opportunities, almost all people are capable of homosexuality or bisexuality, just as we are all capable of theft, adultery and murder. Your argument seems to depend on there being a line we can draw between so-called queers and straights. Can you justify this?

Yes there is a continuum; one can be semi-queer, just as a species can be semi-good or semi-evil. But the simplest way of expressing the "good and evil" paradigm is "Good perpetuates and evil bombs out" rather than "That which is mostly good tends to perpetuate, that which is in-between has 50-50 chance of doing either, etc." so I choose to express it in the simpler way; you should be able to see how this applies to the concept of heterosexuals reproducing and queers not doing so.

I agree that there are various factors influencing sexual orientation; for humans, the WordVirus, and for all animals, social factors such as population size, and genetics.

Bookmark

This is a continuation of anon's comment: "Word-God is cornered as a Queer." above. - note added by JesseW 08:27, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Most likely, one of the reasons you adhere to Christianity is that it gives you the delusion of eternal life (any evidence for this concept?) and this, to some extent, could cause you to ignore the fact that when you die you will cease to exist. If you do take this fact into account, then as an animal, you need to procreate, and as a WordVirus, you need to infect the brains of other humans (such as your children -- as Gene Ray said, "You Word-Murder Your Children."). But if you ignore it, according to your religion, then clearly, in order for the religious WordVirus to survive, there needs to be some other incentive for you to infect people with it -- hence the concepts of "heaven" and "hell", and proselytising others to save them from going to hell.

Lots here. Some of what you say above is true, and I think it reflects on some bad experiences you have had with other Christians. I've already agreed that the first cause argument for the existence of God is not valid IMO. Are there other arguments that have been put to you that are in your view equally illogical?

Yes -- the argument that the Bible is evidence for the existence of God. As I have explained, this is illogical because the Words in the Bible could quite possibly be fictitious.

Hmmmm. You could similarly argue, and many have, that we have no knowledge of the world at all, because our senses sometimes deceive us. Ultimately, this leads to the brain in the bottle puzzle case of epistemology. There's a theoretical sense in which this is true. But in practice, we go on living and assuming we are not hallucinating. It's reasonable to do so.

Bookmark

Yes, but what does this have to do with the veracity of the Bible?

You were criticising an argument (which you haven't described explicitly) on the basis that the Bible could be fictitious. What I was pointing out is that we can equally well doubt the inputs from our senses. They can be fictitious too. So to say that the Bible could possibly be fictitious isn't saying much at all.

But in regard to the "brain in bottle" theory, we have a better concept -- our minds exist within our bodies, which perpetuate through sexual reproduction as part of a community. There being no evidence for the "brain in bottle" theory, I reject it, and can therefore accept the superior, observable theory as Truth. Similarly, we can explain the universe as existing as we observe it, without a God, implying that the Bible is fictitious, which is indeed a possibility; and we could also explain it in terms of an unobservable God as described by the Bible, but why believe something unsubstantiated when there is a substantiated alternative which doesn't require the existence of the unsubstantiated thing?

Bookmark

Rene Descartes is widely regarded by many to have founded modern philosophy with his Meditations and his Discourse on the Method. These pioneered a skeptical framework and are widely studied because they are both enormously influential on all philosophers since, and seem accessible to laypeople. But Descartes himself chose to remain a Christian, for the purposes of regulating his daily life (admittedly some have claimed it was purely so as not to upset the church). As a philosophy undergraduate I personally benefitted enormously by studying the Phenomenology of Edmund Husserl, which he saw as continuing Descartes' program of skepticism. Husserl later converted to Christianity, but without disavowing his skepticism.

Well, did Husserl have any good reasons for converting to Christianity?

I've never read any reasons he gave. I don't even know whether he ever published them.

Well without giving any supporting arguments, there's no point saying Christianity is compatible with skepticism. Husserl might have been a hypocrite though.

Bookmark

The whole idea of evidence for a concept is a tricky one. It's good to validate concepts, as to use inconsistent ones can lead to subtle errors. But this is not nearly so easy as providing evidence for a proposition. We can never prove anything to be consistent, so the normal method of validating a concept is to show that if other already accepted concepts are consistent, then so is the one in question. There are many issues here, and mostly people don't bother, we just uncritically adopt concepts used by others we trust.

Eternal Life is an important concept, and I don't think you do it justice. For me it certainly doesn't cause me to ignore the fact that when I die I will cease to exist in this temporal world, just the opposite. Jesus used the concept of eternal life to stress the importance of our behaviour in this earthly life.

Well I'd say that our behaviour is only important because of how it affects the future of life on Earth. It sounds like Jesus doesn't want people to care about the future, only about whether they as individuals get into Heaven (and it may be that many Christians only proselytise in order to give themselves an advantage in this regard). This selfish mentality is NOT compliant with Cubicism.

It's not compatible to Christianity either IMO. But Jesus clearly says that many will call themselves Christians who aren't at all. On the other hand, he doesn't give us any right to decide who is a Christian and who is not. This can get quite complicated.

Bookmark

Well maybe you can give me some reasons why I should believe Jesus' teachings.

I hope I can give you some good reasons to logically examine them. But whether you follow them is your choice entirely.

Reason One: You have a finite and irreplaceable lifetime, which is vanishing irreversibly by the minute. It is important to use it well. In order to use it well, those of us of a more philosophical nature (we both are this IMO) need to understand what is worthwhile. This understanding requires terminology. Are you with me so far?

Yes; I would say that it is worthwhile to take actions that are likely to increase humanity's chances of perpetuating and evolving for a long time into the future. Also note that although your current form ceases to exist when you die, the matter and energy of which you are comprised continue to exist, and are dissipated to a low-level form, as part of the reservoir for new higher-order forms.

Bookmark

The Christians I know evangelise for two reasons. Firstly, we think this is what God wants us to do. Secondly, it's a natural part of loving others to want the best for them.

But then, the only record I have of this is the Bible, and you don't consider that evidence. So to answer your question, I'd have to say I have no evidence that you will accept.

It depends what sort of evidence you are talking about and what the evidence is supposed to show. As I've already explained, I do not consider the Bible to be valid evidence for the existence of God.

Among other things, the Bible is the best record we have of the life of Jesus. IMO it's reasonable to believe that the words of Jesus as recorded in it are either his exact words (and in many cases they may well be) or that at least they are consistent with the things that he really did say.

Yes I think it may be reasonable to believe this for some of the descriptions of Jesus.

I hope that you will reconsider your rejection of the Bible at some point. That doesn't mean that you need to agree that (as one terrible children's song puts it) every single word of it is true. I certainly don't believe that myself. Words are not true or false, any more than concepts are, so while I know what they're trying to say in the song I think this is appallingly badly put. Is this the sort of negative experience you have had with other Christians?

The main negative experience I've had with other Christians is their tendency to use rhetoric, "ad hominem" attacks, strawmen etc. instead of actual arguments. I'd say that word-based concepts are true if they accurately represent reality. Now if the bible is not all true, how can one know how to interpret it correctly?

That's a problem whether or not the Bible is all true. My experience is that when people really want to do what God says, or what the Bible says, or both, they have little problem in finding out what it says. The problem tends to be that people know what they should be doing and don't want to do it.

If you set out to prove a prejudice using the Bible, eventually you'll convince yourself that you've succeeded. Of course that proves nothing.

Bookmark

Well I guess you are saying that the Bible shouldn't be taken literally, rather one should focus on its overall message.

Linguistically, it's a lot more difficult to define literal meaning than most people suspect. On the other hand literal translation has a very well-defined technical meaning. There are several criteria but you could think of it as a word-for-word translation. There are two problems. Firstly, it's quite impossible for any translation to be 100% literal. In practice the criteria conflict and you need to compromise. Secondly, a very literal translation is generally speaking an extremely poor translation.

Better translations focus on the meaning, both of the overall message and the details. This is called dynamic equivalence translation.

But what if God wants you to take it literally? How do you know he doesn't? Maybe he put contradictions in there to force people to look at the bigger picture. Anyway, I still don't see any reason not to think of the bible as fiction.

Normally, by take it literally people seem to mean take a ridiculous meaning. I'm confident that God doesn't want that. And certainly there are paradoxes in the Bible, and yes I think that one function of these is as obstacles to fundamentalism.

Above you said that the Bible can be used to prove anything -- are you talking about the whole bible, or only parts of it? I think in order to prove that the Bible complies with a given moral statement, you would have to examine the whole bible and take into account everything relating to the statement.

I don't think you could prove two separate, contradicting viewpoints this way, although you could prove that the Bible is ambivalent about some points. But I think it is also definite about other points; if there is nothing in it that contradicts the creation account in Genesis, then assuming that it is authoritative, we may conclude that the world was indeed created in six days. After all, God could have easily created some fake fossil evidence and such to test your faith in his Word, couldn't he? (I don't believe this due to my rejection of the initial assumption.)

But as to it being fiction, I think you'll find that this is just as unsatisfactory as the fundamentalist approach. In fact they seem to me to be very similar approaches. Both take an extreme and simplistic view that ignores the evidence. Neither is credible IMO.

Well, I've yet to see the evidence for the Bible's supernatural claims.

All I hope is that that some day you will overcome your understandable prejudice enough to evaluate the Bible as evidence. There is some evidence that you want to. You raised the subject, just as you raised the subject of God.

Again, what sort of evidence is it supposed to be and what is it supposed to show?

Where to start. It shows lots of things. The Gospels and to some extent the Epistles show what sort of person Jesus was. The Psalms show how to worship God. Would you like to comment on those for a start?

Well the descriptions of Jesus may be biased and therefore inaccurate, but they do serve as a description of how Christians should act and of how true fundamentalist Christians think of Jesus. The description of how to worship God would also be something that at least true fundamentalist Christians believe in. But on what basis would you classify these descriptions as evidence?

The Psalms are evidence of what God is like, because they have helped many generations to put their worship of God into words. These people report that the Psalms are good, and my experience is similar. The Gospels you seem to accept as some sort of evidence above, where you agree that at least some of Jesus' reported words have at least some basis in truth. As to the possibility of bias which you have quite correctly pointed out, all verbal evidence suffers from this possibility, including of course the Cubic Scriptures.

Correct, and this is why we must verify verbal evidence ourselves. I agree with Gene Ray that people should SEEK and DEBATE Time Cube rather than unquestioningly accepting Dr Ray's scriptures.

Fundamentalists do believe some things that I believe, but let's put that into logical perspective. Not everything a fundamentalist believes is ipso facto false!

Not that I want to be too hard on the Christian fundamentalist. In a time of worship, I would much prefer to be with a fundamentalist than with an unbeliever. In a time of rational discussion, I'd much prefer a thinking unbeliever to an unthinking fundamentalist (if you will forgive the possible tautology there; it seems to me that thinking and fundamentalism are opposites).

Well, if you accept the Bible as authority, then the only thinking you have to do is about the contradictions and about how you can best apply its teachings in your life.

Obviously you don't disapprove of all proselytising, as you do it yourself. Christian evangelism is motivated by two beliefs. Firstly, most (not all) Christians believe that Christianity is a good thing for all those who adopt it. Secondly, Christians are called to care not just for each other, but for everyone. So we want to share the Good News for the benefit of others. There are some other motives as well but IMO these are the main ones. How about you? What motivates your proselytising?

Unlike Christianity, Time Cube has nothing to do with fictitious notions of an afterlife. Time Cube is really more about rational thought than just automatically believing doctrine (eg. God, Heaven and hell, Jesus as a messiah) and unquestioningly following Jesus' teachings.

I'm skeptical of this. The Time Cube concepts make no sense. There's another agenda there somewhere IMO.

Bookmark

I do not have any hidden agendas. But I think that you might. Why don't you explain the nature of this supposed agenda of mine?

I don't want to speculate on what it might be. And I could be wrong. But on the evidence I have, it's the obvious conclusion. Is there anything in Cubic Morality that prohibits deception?

Yes of course; I have explained that Word is evil due to its high level of corruptibility.

I hope I've been clear that I regard deception as evil. What might my hidden agenda be, do you think? Is having one consistent with the other things I've said?

I am thinking that you may be participating in this discussion merely to closed-mindedly affirm your own closed-minded beliefs, rather than to honestly evaluate them; and that you are veiling this by faking objectivity and rationality (the things you've said may be lies). I am basing this on the fact that you have, on multiple occasions, ignored arguments I have posed against your viewpoints, and merely reasserted the viewpoints.

Bookmark

It is not my intention to persuade people to unquestioningly accept Dr. Ray's scriptures; rather, my "proselytising" should merely act as a catalyst to their own independent thought. See #What counts as evidence? for the purpose of Time Cube.

Neither is it the purpose of evangelism to persuade people of anything. All we can hope to do is to get them to ask God humbly Are you really there? And that's all that is needed.

Well did you ask this question at some point in your life?

Many times. Some more memorable than others. Where to start.

Did God then give you some sort of answer?

Yes.

Do you suppose that it might be a good idea to describe the answer? If so, could you please do this?

I would think that God, being omnipotent, would be able to give me some incontrovertible evidence for his existence if he wanted to.

He could have made you a robot if he wished, with no free will at all. But that's not why you were created. He has provided you with evidence. What do you mean by incontrovertible?

Well, for instance, if he were to have a messiah perform miracles for me, then he would have to do it in such a way that I would be sure that it was not just an illusion and that something supernatural had really occurred. To avoid a strawman, this supernatural event would need to directly confirm that, for instance, everything in the Bible is true. I will not accept unsubstantiated verbal concepts.

He has not done so, so I conclude that either he doesn't really want me to believe in him, in which case all's good and well, or he doesn't exist, in which case all's good and well.

There's another possibility, which is what I believe: God may wish you to make an informed and intelligent choice.

Whether or not God exists, we do indeed have a choice of what to believe, so I think I will make mine based on reality and not on any unsubstantiated concepts.

Bookmark

The concept of hell has often been used in ways that were both unhelpful and downright inaccurate IMO. The justification for using it at all is found in the Bible, as are my reasons for thinking that fire and brimstone sermons are both wrong and unhelpful.

Where in the Bible can I find these?

You can find a justification for hell in Luke 16:19-31, sometimes called the Parable of the Rich Man. Note however, that it doesn't justify the "believe or else" line taken by some preachers at all. Instead the threat is "behave or else". There are no mind games being played here.

Bookmark

So the justification for hell is to get people to behave the way Jesus wants them to.

Sort of. It's a warning of what will happen if they don't.

I think there is a mind game occurring.

I suppose it depends what you mean by a mind game. What I meant is that Jesus isn't talking about what people must believe in order to be saved. Instead he's saying what they should do. I have heard lots of preachers say words equivalent to believe or go to hell, and I think they are missing the point completely.

There is no way of actually verifying the existence of hell, so for people to believe it, some brainwashing must occur.

You can't take a theodolite and survey hell, certainly. But that's not what the story is talking about.

I don't care about theolodites; I merely require some means of verifying that verbal claims reflect reality.

In the bible quote you referred to, it says that "If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead." Why is it that God or Abraham or whoever, refuses to communicate himself in any way other than having people speak Words? Doesn't this create the risk of someone lying and falsely claiming to be speaking the word of god? How can we possibly know who to believe?

Jesus says there will be false prophets. He says we'll know them by their fruits. I have met a few false prophets. I didn't think they were very hard to see through, but many were deceived.

The more competent false prophets can make claims like "I'm a true prophet and anyone else is false". I don't want to be deceived, so I am not inclined to believe in Jesus' alleged divinity unless I see some strong evidence of it (I have explained why I do not consider the Bible evidence of anything supernatural).

How will we know? I think there's a clue in the emphasis Jesus puts on actions rather than words. Let me make some analogies. First analogy: One of the surest ways to be miserable is to live for your own happiness. Happiness comes from striving for more worthwhile goals. That's part of what Confucius was saying about love in the quote I gave before. Second analogy: One of the riskiest things to do in business is to take no risks. This normally guarantees failure.

I agree with both of those analogies, however you are not a messiah and nor is everything you say necessarily true due to your having stated them. It is the same with Jesus; I don't agree with everything he said, I don't think he was a messiah, and I don't think any Christian teachings that I do agree with suggest otherwise.

Bookmark

Proposition 2d: Note that the orientation of the non-rotating cube is undefined. Why?

Because you can rotate the bounding cube to any alignment with the centre of each face intersecting with the sphere's surface (see my explanation of Proposition 1). This is not the case when the sphere/cube is dilated.

Hmmm. Why not just define your coordinate system to take account of this dilation? See below.

How would this define the orientation of the non-rotating Cube? You must take into account that the non-rotating gravitational body could be set into rotation about any axis.

You don't appear to have answered the question. In response to yours, it wouldn't.

Well I suppose you could define a coordinate system according to the rotational dilation, but what difference would it make?

It would restore the symmetry to the cube. You would then be able to explore why what you call a cube has four corners rather than eight vertices like most cubes. Until you explain this, it will remain a mystery as to why you call it a cube rather than a square, which is the regular geometrical figure that has four corners in the normal sense. I suggested the possibility of choosing non-inertial axes as an alternative to Gene Ray's assertion (which you have repeated) that a rotating cube is not really a cube at all, which again begs the question of why you would decide to call it a cube in the first place.

By "CORNERS", Gene means "VERTICAL EDGES"; that is, the edges of the Cube that are parallel to the rotational axis (which passes through the centre of one face and the centre of the opposite face). A Cube-like room has 4 corners; the CORNERS are the VERTICAL EDGES. Of course a Cube has 8 Vertices, or "Tricorners" as Gene Ray calls them.

When we refer to the corners of a cube-shaped room, we mean the corners of its floor. If you told a naughty child to "stand in the corner" of a room with a square floor but smooth walls with no edges leading up to a domed roof, they'd have no trouble knowing what you meant. On the other hand, if the room had a circular floor, they wouldn't know where to go even if the ceiling was square. They'd probably stand under one of the ceiling corners, and the closer an identifiable edge came to the floor the more confident they would be that they'd found a corner to stand in. These shapes are both geometrically possible, just BTW, although the first takes a little imagination to visualise.

Bookmark

Well it doesn't really matter; what is important is that Gene Ray has defined corners as the VERTICAL EDGES of the cube, more specifically the ones that are parallel to the rotational axis; and this is the definition I am using.

Understood. Every other cube has eight corners or 24, depending on how you count them. But yours has four. Every other regular four-cornered figure is a square or a tetrahedron. But yours is a cube. It's not quite a square circle, but it has similar logical status. And then you criticise other things because they might be fictitious. Interesting.

Interesting that you are completely ignoring the clear definition that I have put forth. A cube's VERTICAL EDGES number FOUR, not eight nor 24. So if we define CORNERS as VERTICAL EDGES, then a cube has 4 CORNERS. It's that simple.

Furthermore, it is not good to hear that you are punishing children who question the religious word-lies that you are trying to brainwash them into believing.

I'm doing none of those things. In Australia they are all illegal.

Actually it is perfectly legal to rote indoctrinate children and to punish them through isolation if they question your authority. Psychology has shown that primates, particularly infants, experience sadness and lasting emotional suppression if isolated for a while. So making a child stand in a corner or anywhere else in isolation has a similar emotional effect to physical punishment. As Dr Ray said: "Humans are enslaved by word, the most efficient mind control. Shackles & whips are obsolete." " Education is but mind control, no whips or shackles required."

Bookmark

Given this, the only reason not to call it a rotating cube is because the cube is dilated. But as the rotational speed approaches zero, the dilated cube/rectangular prism approaches an undilated Cube form.

Understood. It still seems a clumsy and misleading model to me.

Well, it is a valid model, is it not? If not, how is it invalid?

It's not a valid model. It would be a valid model if it allowed you to make accurate, testable predictions. It's invalid because it doesn't. Clumsy and misleading are my subjective assessments at why the model is invalid, but if it made verified predictions I'd admit they were wrong.

Actually, I have explained why predictions are not required. All that is required for it to be valid is for it to match the existing observations.

Bookmark

Perhaps I should first have asked, what do you mean by the orientation of the cube is undefined?

You can rotate it to infinite orientations around the sphere -- see Proposition 1. As a bounding cube (like the domain and range of a finite 2D entity in mathematics) each face has to touch the sphere and it has to contain the sphere within itself. But when rotation causes the sphere and therefore the cube to become dilated, there are only 2*4 = 8 valid alignments if I am not mistaken.

I think that you are mistaken. There are still arbitrarily many alignments, depending perhaps what you mean by valid. Is this somehow linked to your rejection of infinity?

No I don't think this is linked to the rejection of Infinity. Actually, yes I was mistaken, silly me; the dilated cube can be rotated to infinite alignments about the rotational axis, but can only be rotated to 4 possible alignments about the other two perpendicular axes. The alignment about the rotational axis is defined by an external factor such as the Sun shining upon the Earth.

I think you're still mistaken. But again you haven't answered the question. What do you mean by the orientation of the cube is undefined?

How am I mistaken? A valid alignment for the Cube is one where it contains the entire Earth within it and each of its faces intersects with the surface of the Earth, with two of these intersections occurring at the North and South poles.

There are six of these.

No, remember that the Cube is dilated just as the Earth is dilated. If the Earth was undilated due to zero rotation, then there wouldn't be any North and South poles (except for possibly the magnetic ones, but that's not what I'm talking about).

Actually, if we take a sphere and arbitrarily define two opposite points as the poles, then there would be infinite alignments to which the Cube could be rotated about the axis passing through the poles, each complying with my description above. But yes, I should have specified that I was talking about the rotationally dilated Cube.

So where the Earth is dilated, we must, in order to achieve a valid alignment, first dilate the Cube by the same magnitude. It can then be rotated to infinite alignments about the rotational/dilational axis, but only to 4 possible alignments about the other two. The Cube's orientation is undefined because there are infinite valid alignments/orientations.

Sorry, I have no idea what you mean.

The Cube is dilated along the Earth's rotational axis, just as the Earth is; it intersects with Earth's surface at the poles and at four points on the equator; and it can be rotated to infinite valid alignments about the rotational axis. (It can only be rotated to 4 different valid alignments about the two other axes perpendicular to the rotational axis; these two axes form the equator plane.)

If you are wondering why I'm using the concept of infinity above even though I rejected it, the reason is as I explained -- in practice, infinity is used to represent very large numbers. The Earth's rotation is not a perfect continuum. If you zoom in enough, you'll find that it is quantised at the lowest level.

You seem comfortable with the concept of a limit, although you reject infinity. There's no way you can consistently reject one and not both.

Again, Infinity is used to represent very large or small numbers.

Sort of. Infinity is not a number.

Yes, but in all practical applications, nothing is infinite; infinity is merely used to represent finite extremes. I certainly believe that there are finite extremes that can be approximated by infinity, but I reject the notion of anything actually being infinite.

We may closely approximate Earth's rotation with a continuous function; that doesn't mean that it actually is continuous. It is quantised at the lowest level.

So it appears. This is a fascinating thing.

Do you know of any evidence of anything actually being infinite?

No, and it's not surprising. Infinity represents something impossibly big in the physical sense.

Yes, it is impossible. I thought you said that you "didn't know" whether space went on forever or had finite limits; based on your statement that infinity is impossible, we may conclude that the universe must be finite. Furthermore, to resolve the issue of there being more space outside the existing finite space, ad infinitum, I propose that space folds back on itself. I am basing this on my belief that the universe is comprehensible to humans.

But IMO there's an even more fascinating question. We assume that the universe is in a sense continuous. It's the way our brains observe things. (This is fascinating in itself, as our mental processes appear to be discrete or digital in their nature at the neurone level. But I digress.) Having assumed a continuous universe, we have experimentally determined that at least some parts of it are quantised (discrete), starting with Millikan's oil drop experiment although the ideas go back to Democritus at least and are fundamental to Avogadro's work and that of many others who preceded Millikan. Question: Can we design a model of the Universe that is purely discrete? Or, if we start out from the assumption that it is discrete, will our experimental data then force us to conclude that parts of it are also continuous?

I think it will. Proving this is one of my current research interests. Projective geometry may provide one of the keys to this.

I think that the Universe is entirely discrete; please post any evidence/reasoning to the contrary that you may come up with.

Bookmark

Proposition 3a: When the Earth rotates, dilation occurs along its rotational axis, such that the radius is less at the poles than at the equator. Agree.

Proposition 3b: We may say that the Top and the Bottom of the Cube have now been defined as the North and South Poles... Yes, you are free to do that.

Proposition 3c: and (we may say) that the Cube has been dilated. No. The Earth was defined to be a (technical term) Cube because it could be enclosed by a (geometric) cube. This is still true, so in terms of your definition, the Earth remains a Cube (just as perfect as ever).

Actually each face of the cube has to touch the object it bounds, so the Cube is indeed dilated.

This seems to be very important. Progress! Why does each face need to touch the object it bounds? Is there some sort of minimum volume?

Why, in mathematics, do the domain and range of a function have to create a rectangle that touches the function it bounds? See #Graphical representation (website).

They don't. What makes you think they do?

They do for finite entities such as a unit circle, that don't have features like points on their edges where they are undefined.

Hmmmmm... Do you realise that a unit circle isn't the graph of a function?

Yes, that's why I called it an "entity" rather than a "function".

In that case, again you haven't answered the question. You asked Why, in mathematics, do the domain and range of a function have to create a rectangle that touches the function it bounds? and I replied They don't. What makes you think they do? It seems that again, you were name-dropping technical terms that you are quite frankly not competent to use. You wish to support the Time Cube with the prestige of science and mathematics, but you are not prepared to follow the discipline that has produced their successes. Don't you see a problem here?

Bookmark

Yes I do. The problem is that you misunderstood my intentions. I was merely attempting to explain these concepts to you in terms of your own mathematical background. Time Cube is NOT reliant on mainstream Academian thought.

A misguided attempt I'm afraid. My strong advice is to stick to using words you understand.

My strong advice is to not accuse me of incorrect terminology use without explaining exactly what is incorrect about it.

If you are not satisfied with my use of terminology then it may be more appropriate for you to suggest alternative terminology rather than using it in order to call me ignorant.

I would if I had any idea what you were trying to say, and when your intention is clear I have made many suggestions.

But you have ignored them. You should, for example, call the badly named Time Cube a square not a cube if its most important feature is that it has four corners.

I have clearly defined "corners" as "edges parallel to the rotational axis" where the rotational axis passes through the centre of one face and the centre of the opposite face.

Yes. Perhaps it's not intended to be confusing, I don't know. But if you did want to be confusing, this is a good way to achieve it.

I don't think it's confusing at all, as it is quite a simple definition. I think that the more complex areas of Academian science are far more confusing than the concepts I'm describing.

Bookmark

You should not use the word sum to mean product. My advice here, as before, is not to pretend that you know what technical terms mean when you obviously don't. There's no disgrace in not knowing terms such as function, domain and range. What is sad is when people who have no expertise in a field try to correct those who do, and ignore their advice. This appears to be exactly what Gene Ray is doing, too.

Actually I think what's sad is when Academians such as yourself merely assert that they are right, using their qualifications to claim authority, and ignore any arguments to the contrary. How is Gene Ray using terminology incorrectly?

See above. I'm not sure I qualify as an academic, but I'm trying hard to become one.

I consider you an Academian since you are promoting Academian thought.

Bookmark

Or are you again using established technical terms in special private ways that just seem to indicate ignorance? You were very upset before when I suggested that you were using the word sum in a way that would get marked wrong in any primary school. Well, this is now junior high school work, but it seems to me that you are doing no better.

Do you still maintain that I was using "sum" incorrectly?

Yes. See above.

If so, here are my last comments on the subject again: "Algorithmically speaking: FOR each of the 4 space corners {ADD 4 Time Corners to the total number of SpaceTime configurations}". This is a technically correct algorithm, right?

I have no idea what you mean. It would normally be called a product.

Regardless of what you choose to call it, the algorithm is correct in that, in compliance with my initial sentence, it gives 16 total spacetime configurations (starting from zero), right?

The question I'm asking is, is sum a good description of this algorithm? And I still maintain that it is not a correct description at all.

I wasn't using "sum" to describe the entire algorithm; I was using it to describe the part of the algorithm involving addition. If the algorithm doesn't give 16, please explain why.

So how does my initial sentence, "4 Time Corners for each of the 4 Space Corners sum to 16 SpaceTime configurations", fail to represent that algorithm?

It represents it but it represents it badly. One of the principle drivers of mathematics is to express things concisely.

So it DOES represent it. How would you represent it better?

I 'd probably say there are four Time Corners and four Space Corners, and a SpaceTime configuration consists of any Time Corner together with any Space Corner, so there are sixteen possible SpaceTime configurations. Is that what you mean?

Yes, that is correct. The point of my initial description was there are 4 people representing Time Corners, and each has 4 Space Corners, so add up all the space corners and you get 4+4+4+4 = 16. I suppose you could also say there are 4 Space Corners for each of the 4 Time Corners, so multiply the 4 space corners by the 4 time corners to get 16. Note that the "for each" is not connected with the "multiply" here, whereas "for each" was connected with "sum" in my initial sentence.

Furthermore, how does YOUR corrected version, "4 Time Corners for each of the 4 Space Corners MULTIPLY(Product) to 16 SpaceTime configurations", represent this algorithm better than the original phrase?

It expresses it a simpler, more natural and more useful way, that better reflects the structure. Similarly, if a child were to answer "3+1" when asked to perform the sum "2+2" in class, we'd correct them gently. It's not the answer required, although it is in a sense correct.

Your corrected version equates to FOR each of the 4 space corners {MULTIPLY 4 Time Corners by the total number of SpaceTime configurations}. Will this give the correct answer? If we start with zero total spacetime configurations, we will end up with zero. I think that you made an error by ignoring the "For each" in my initial sentence.

I agree that this corrected version is still terrible. If I really said that I must have been very tired. See above for my version.

The version you have written is correct, and hopefully you are no longer tired.

" "The algorithm calculates the total number of SpaceTime configurations', where a SpaceTime configuration is defined as a unique combination of one Space Corner and one Time Corner, and a Corner, in the context of the Earth's rotation, is defined as either 1. Sunup; 2. Midday; 3. Sundown; 4. Midnight; (4 different corners), with Space Corners and Time Corners being specific types of corners. So given these definitions, and without necessarily understanding their real-world applications, you should now be able to evaluate the algorithm and the associated prosaic statement "4 Time Corners for each of the 4 Space Corners sum to 16 SpaceTime configurations"."

So you said before. The mathematics I have studied has produced modern science, sent Apollo to the Moon and so on. The mathematics you have invented appears to have no use other than to defend the untestable, unverifiable and vacuous Time Cube "theory" against logical challenges. In your opinion, doesn't that constitute empirical evidence that mainstream mathematics is superior?

No mathematics has been invented. You have failed to expose any inconsistency in my initial sentence, "4 Time Corners for each of the 4 Space Corners sum to 16 SpaceTime configurations". I think that you failed to read this correctly and are now afraid to acknowledge your mistake.

My experience has been that it's best to acknowledge mistakes as soon as you are aware of having made them. But I'm not yet convinced this was a mistake. I still think the word sum is incorrect here.

I was going to let this drop as peripheral until you started making ridiculous assertions about range and domain. Then I thought no, there's something more here. It's a pattern.

Well, won't it be "interesting" when you finally explicitly describe the patterns and hidden agendas you keep talking about.

Now you have not yet exposed any flaws in this algorithmic description;

See above.

when I initially posted this, you simply wrote "I still think it would be better to avoid the word sum here."

And it would.

I think this comment may also apply to your views about whether repeatedly making unsubstantiated assertions will convince people that you are right.

I'm treating this as a conversation. If anyone else finds it useful, great. I think most people would wonder why I bother replying to you at all, but I'm finding it rewarding and I hope you are too.

I'm finding it rewarding when you make arguments rather than merely asserting your beliefs.

Well that's fine, but I personally happen to think that the description I used was the best way to convey the concept; and again, since you have not actually exposed any flaws in my description, I'd say you would have no grounds whatsoever for marking it "wrong". In fact, asserting that I am wrong in spite of your failure to refute my previous arguments to the contrary is simply not acceptable in the context of a rational debate. Ignoring previous progress in the debate indicates a closed-minded mentality that is not at all conducive to rational thought.

See above.

I suggest that you resolve this issue by either showing that the description I quoted above is logically invalid, or acknowledging that it is logically valid (and would therefore be marked "correct").

(Sigh) It's not a matter of validity. It's just a matter of incorrect use of standard terminology, such as is common for the poorer students in elementary school.

I still haven't seen a valid argument for my use of "sum" being incorrect.

See below.

FYI, "I am a mathematician and therefore I'm always right" is NOT a valid argument.

Agreed. How easy it would make things if it was! If I've ever used this argument I will retract it and apologise.

You have not used it explicitly but I think that it is present when you make assertions and don't properly substantiate them. For instance, in the previous debate you asserted that I was using "ad hominem" incorrectly, and you responded to my arguments to the contrary either with more assertions or by ignoring them. You didn't really substantiate your initial assertion.

And I was "very upset" ("wishful thinking", perhaps? See #What counts as evidence?) because firstly, as far as I could see (and still as far as I can see today) my use of "sum" was valid, and secondly, you seemed to be using your argument to the contrary as a basis for "ad hominem" attacks. Now if you are not trying to use the "ad hominem" tactic, then it may be best for you to avoid describing me with such terms as "foolish" and "ignorant". And if you think I am using the term "ad hominem" incorrectly, then maybe you should actually respond to my last comments on this subject from the archived debate, instead of merely reasserting your initial viewpoint.

What would count as evidence that your use of sum was incorrect?

1. Show that the algorithm I described does not give 16 spacetime configurations, or 2. show that my initial sentence, "4 Time Corners for each of the 4 Space Corners sum to 16 SpaceTime configurations", doesn't match the algorithm. You have not yet done any of these; all you have done is expressed your opinion, eg. "it represents it badly", "I still think it would be better to avoid the word sum here."; and asserted that you are correct.

Let's take 2. Now, your algorithm has two inputs, the number of Space Corners and the number of Time Corners, correct?

Correct.

Bookmark

If it's just a matter of contact, this can be achieved with any platonic solid, not just with a cube. The sphere is called the inscribed sphere of the solid.

See Proposition 4d.

This doesn't seem to contradict that.

Yes I'm referring to the explanation of why the Cube is perfect.

So, it's not just a matter of contact?

It is also a matter of representing the fundamental property of ROTATION.

Does that mean no?

Yes it means "no"; contact is not the only criterion.

OK. And you've already answered my next question. So, why can't a tetrahedron or a dodecahedron represent this?

The graphical explanation justifies the 4-corner-quadrant representation of the rotational plane. The 4-corner square is projected along the rotational axis to create a dilated Cube enclosing the gravitational body. I don't think that shapes other than the Cube can match this simple harmonic representation.

Bookmark

(Did you ever read the Superman comic books about the Bizarro world?)

No but if they are on any websites then link to them and I will check them out.

I don't know of any, if I find them I'll link to them from the article. They came to mind because the Bizarro world was cube shaped (but described as a square world).

Proposition 4a: Rotation is actually a fundamental property of all gravitational bodies, No. A gravitational body can be arbitrarily close to rest.

True but see proposition 4b for what I meant by "fundamental property".

You don't explain it there either.

I meant that rotation is a fundamental property in that it is how gravitational bodies are formed. Also, I think you'll find that most gravitational bodies do tend to have significant angular momentum (the more significant the gravitational body, the more true this is -- see Proposition 2c).

You still haven't dealt with the main problem with this model, and that's that Newton provided a superior one centuries ago. There are even better ones that follow of course.

You do not seem to understand the difference between a "significant" and "insignificant" gravitational body.

Agreed, and still true.

Now of course all objects exert a gravitational force, be they teapots or planets or whatever. But if Jesus used his magical powers to mould the Earth into a teapot shape, I'd say it'd just collapse back into a sphere due to it being a significant gravitational body. Now I don't see any normal manmade teapots doing that sort of thing, so maybe we could describe their gravitational properties using the word "NEGLIGIBLE".

Maybe we could. But why would we want to?

For the same reason that scientists would want to describe relativistic effects as negligible in the context of a space mission. As you have explained, it simplifies our analysis of things.

You seem to have misunderstood. The relativistic effects are not assessed to be negligible. They are not assessed at all in the Newtonian model.

Bookmark

So relativistic effects are significant in the context of a space mission?

Not in the case of Apollo, which was the particular example I gave. They will eventually become significant.

I thought you said they were negligible.

They are for current missions.

OK, so it is the scientists who assess the relativistic effects as negligible, not the Newtonian model. The scientists use the Newtonian model on the basis of their assessment.

The use of newtonian models in space missions is an example of the use of infinity to represent very large numbers. If you take the speed of light to be infinity in the relativistic equations, you get the newtonian equations, right?

Hmmm. They assume that c is a constant. But if we make it a variable and consider what happens as c approaches infinity, then yes, we do get a Newtonian model I think. I'm not completely convinced that we can do that validly, but if we can then that's the result, yes. But why would you want to? Surely you're not proposing that the assumption it is a constant is wrong? That's pretty radical if so.

No, I'm proposing that c is a very big speed in terms of small speeds, so it can be fairly accurately represented by infinity in such contexts as current space missions where things go at small speeds. If things are going at speeds approaching c, then the use of infinity becomes inaccurate.

Bookmark

Do you agree that significant gravitational bodies are formed by ROTATION?

No. As I said when you raised this before.

See below

After all, if the Solar System or the Milky Way galaxy didn't have any rotation, we would not exist today as we would be in the Sun or in a black hole, right?

Maybe. IMO that's probably true, but it's still conjecture. It's a counterfactual.

Actually I think astronomical observations have shown that any given system of matter, such as the solar system or milky way galaxy, tends to accelerate towards its centre of mass.

I doubt this very much. I think this acceleration does occur, because Newton's equation predicts it, and I think this is assumed by all astronomers. As it is assumed, it can't be shown whether or not it's occurring, that would be a circular argument. But you don't seem to understand the problem of circular arguments elsewhere, so I guess you won't understand this either.

Bookmark

Occam's razor is a circular argument?

No.

I think that the gravitational model with the centre of mass near the centre of the Sun explains the motion of the solar system far more simply than, say, the Geocentric theory, which requires the other planets to be spiralling around within torii or something.

Agree, except about the torii or something. I think they were convolutes of some sort, hence convoluted came to mean needlessly complicated.

You also accuse me of making circular arguments elsewhere; which of my arguments are you referring to?

See below.

Do you have any evidence of this NOT occurring?

No.

So it is supported by all the existing data (not contradicted by anything) and is the simplest explanation. I think it may be favoured by Occam's razor.

It is consistent with all existing data, yes. Agree about Occam's razor.

If not, then we can reject that notion on the basis of lack of evidence.

If by reject you mean take no position as to whether it is true or false, yes.

By "reject" I mean "regard as an invalid belief, and not believe".

What I want to clarify is whether or not this rejection is a basis for believing the negation of the belief you have rejected. You seem to use the word ambiguously at times.

Not by itself it's not, but taken in combination with an opposing, substantiated belief, yes it is. So it can potentially be an partial basis for the negation.

So logically, systems of matter without any rotation would always tend to collapse, right?

Yes, they tend to collapse if the gravitational force is not fully counteracted. A teapot wouldn't collapse because the bonds between its molecules are quite sufficient to counteract the very small gravitational force between them.

(You seem to be answering your own question here.)

The first sentence answers your question and the second sentence is an example illustrating what I mean.

Wrong. That is, it's true, but it's not logically shown. You've again confused the normal meaning of reject as show to be false with your private meaning of reject as take no position. If you take no position, you don't know either way.

Again, my meaning of "reject" is "regard as an invalid belief, and not believe".

See above.

Bookmark

Do you know Newton's equation for gravitational force?

Yes, F = (G * m₁ * m₂)/r². Try using it to calculate the gravitational force between the spout and handle of a teapot, I'm sure the answer will be really big.

Good. Now, this applies to any two objects. Agreed?

Yes, so does this mean that there is a really big gravitational force between the spout and handle of a teapot that must be taken into consideration by teapot designers if they want to prevent their teapot from imploding?

No. But it means that this force can be calculated by any teapot designer who cares to using Newton's equation. This doesn't matter so much for a teapot, we can guess quite well, but the equation holds so we don't need to guess. For larger objects, such as Phobos and Deimos, the Time Cube still requires us to guess, while Newton allows us to perform the calculation.

We are only required to guess until a research team derives from Time Cube a more accurate model that generates better approximations.

And that, I predict, means forever.

I disagree with this prediction as I don't like pessimistic, nihilistic beliefs.

Bookmark

Proposition 4b: ...as they all originate from rotational vortices; No. This is hypothised to be true of astronomical bodies, and it may well be so. Are you saying that the Time Cube theory extends this to all bodies, or are you using body or gravitational body in some special sense?

Yes I mean astronomical bodies. I am aware that smaller masses exert a gravitational force, however since this force is negligible I don't classify them as a gravitational body.

How does this explain fundamental property? See above.

Both the Newtonian and Einsteinian models explain the gravitational behaviour of small bodies identically to large ones, and it has generally been assumed that a theory of everything would do the same. At the very least it needs to account for their behaviour somehow.

Yes, Time Cube doesn't require that small bodies not exert any gravitational force whatsoever. However, there is a difference between an insignificant gravitational body and a significant one. For instance, have you noticed that small bodies can be any shape, but large bodies (eg. planets, stars, galaxies) tend to have a shape that reflects the laws of gravity and their rotation?

How does this explain fundamental property?

But you are on to something here. Perhaps not what you think. The very smallest bodies appear to tend to spherical shapes too. This tells us a great deal about human perception.

I was under the impression that forces other than gravity can explain the spherical shape of atoms. What about the attractive force between opposite charges? Positive and negative exist as "equal opposites" like the north and south poles of the Earth, and within the atom the Proton is harmonic to femininity and the Electron is harmonic to masculinity. Neutrons are harmonic to children, grandparents and homosexuals.

The idea of a theory of everything is to explain every fundamental force in terms of a single force or field. So, this single force would then explain the shapes of both large and small objects. It would be more general than Newton's equation you quoted above, not less general as the Time Cube seems to be.

It could be that gravity is a special electric field induced by atoms, different from the field caused by a single charged particle. Have there been any experiments involving interaction of antimatter atoms and matter atoms?

Some are proposed. There have been observations that neutrinos and antineutrinos both 'fall' in the same direction. There has been at least one proposal to measure the gravitational deflection of atoms of anti-hydrogen, but I don't think it has yet been done, I could be wrong here.

I think that if gravity is indeed electromagnetic, then antimatter would produce antigravity due to its opposite electric charges.

Many laypeople do think this, but I don't know of any physicist who does. I think the idea may come from science fiction.

Bookmark

Well I think the above is logical. What if gravity is only generated from atoms? Has it been shown to also be generated (not just obeyed) by subatomic particles? If not then I don't think the neutrino observations count as evidence to the contrary.

What's the difference between generating and obeying gravity?

But just as a teapot and kitchen sink are different even if they are made out of the same type of metal, hasn't science shown that gravity and the field caused by a single electric charge are different?

No. What makes you think it has?

Don't scientists say that there are four fundamental forces, two of which are the gravitational force and the electromagnetic force?

Yes. And just as James Clerk Maxwell showed that electromagnetic forces and light could both be expressed by one set of equations, and thus considered the same phenomenon, so the weak nuclear force and the electromagnetic force have been expressed as a single set of equations, now known as the electroweak force. The remaining one is the strong nuclear force.

Why would these be considered different forces if there is nothing distinguishing them from each other?

They wouldn't be. That's the whole idea of a theory of everything. What did you think it meant?

OK, so given that electromagnetism and gravity have not yet been reconciled (as far as I know), I conclude that there is something distinguishing them from each other, meaning that they are different as I said.

Bookmark

Proposition 4c: ...but the fact is that if they stopped rotating, they would form undilated Cubes. True, as by your definition every finite body is a Cube.

Proposition 4d: Thus we must refer to them as Cubes rather than rectangular prisms, You haven't defined what you mean by a rectangular prism, so it's not obvious what you mean here. But the obvious definition would be that any body that may be enclosed by a (geometric) rectangular prism is one. That would make every body a rectangular prism, but it wouldn't force us to call them that rather than Cubes. Every body is a Cube too. Similarly, every body is also a sphere, every sphere is a tetrahedron, and every tetrahedron is a cone. Need I go on?

See #Graphical representation (website) for the issue of the harmonicity of perpendicularity, which invalidates the alternative representations above.

How?

The fundamental properties of a Cube are perpendicularity and the equal length, width, height (it's not biased in any dimension and its orientation is interchangeable, see Proposition 2d).

Again you have not answered the question.

What is the minimum amount of information needed to represent the limits of a finite body in a plane (i.e. to represent it as finite rather than infinite)?

For a figure in a plane, this would be a point (x,y) and a distance r, to define a limiting circle, plus we need to specify whether or not the boundary is included if we wish the solution to be unique. From what follows I think you mean a solid in 3-space, but I think this answer may be useful in understanding why the solution you give below is incorrect. It may also have some bearing on the confusion you seem to have between a square and a cube.

There is no confusion between the square and cube; the CORNERS are the VERTICAL EDGES.

See above.

Think of the Cube as a square projected along the rotational axis. You are right about the sphere parameters being the minimum representation; see below for why this complies with the theory.

I'd say it is a domain, a range and one more set of 2 values for the other axis.

And you'd be wrong. It's a point (x,y,z) and a distance r, perhaps plus a boundary indication as before. This can be expressed as four signed numbers (using the sign of the radius to indicate whether or not the boundary is included if we like) which represent a lot less information than the six signed numbers of your solution. So your solution is not the minimum amount of information at all, even ignoring the question of boundary inclusion which you have not addressed at all.

I think I did address boundary inclusion; the sphere that you have proposed must be the smallest possible such that it contains the entire volume of the object within it. This would mean that the sphere's surface would intersect with the object at several points, right?

Correct, assuming that the object's boundary is included in the object.

You may be thinking of mathematical entities which have undefined points on their boundaries, but I see no reason why this should be applicable to real-life objects.

Correct that I was thinking of mathematical entities. Your use of the word undefined here again clashes with accepted mathematical usage I think.

I don't think so, so this statement isn't very helpful as you have not explained HOW it conflicts with the accepted usage.

I acknowledge that your sphere solution is correct in terms of the criteria I mentioned, and it makes sense in terms of the Cubic principles I described in #What the theory is, since when a significant gravitational body is not rotating and is a sphere, the orientation of the bounding cube is undefined -- so it may be represented as a sphere, which as we've established, is as a fully rotated Cube.

We've established that any fully rotated body is a sphere.

However, the sphere fails to represent Rotation. Let us take the centre of Earth, or whatever body we're considering, as the Origin. Then we require only 1 parameter, the radius, to represent the non-rotating Cube. When it is rotating, however, we require a scalar representing rotational speed, to which the magnitude of dilation is proportional; and we require an angle representing the angular displacement at any time. These values can be used to define the position of a bounding dilated Cube (the angle represents the position of one of the corners).

So, does my demolition of your argument that was based on the (false) assumption that the cube represented the minimum of information (etc) have any consequences at all?

No, because the corrected version complies with what I described in #What the theory is. My erroneous argument resulted from a mistake on my part, not a flaw in the TIME CUBE.

This would define a rectangular prism -- in the case of a sphere, a CUBE. This minimum is related to the harmonicity of perpendicularity (see #Graphical representation (website)).

I think you'd better find another rationale for the cube. When your mistakes are corrected this argument seems to support the idea that a sphere would be an even more perfect solution, and in fact spheres are used in analysis for exactly this purpose and reason. Using the standard metric in 3-space, balls are spherical.

The rationale is ROTATION. Rotation is a fundamental property of the universe, is it not? Relativity shows that the laws of conservation of linear momentum are not absolute, but conservation of angular momentum isn't affected by relativity, right?

I'm not sure what you mean by affected here.

Bookmark

Well, the conservation of angular momentum is ABSOLUTE; the rules don't bend for high angular speeds as is the case for linear momentum at high rectolinear velocities, right?

I don't know what you mean by absolute here. Conservation is assumed to apply to both linear and rotational momentum.

I could be wrong but I am fairly sure that the rotational version of the Newtonian laws apply in all situations, whereas the linear laws do not apply on the quantum level and at speeds approaching c.

I think you'll find that everything in the universe exists as a cycle in some way or another. Can you think of anything that is not cyclical?

I can't think of any empirical evidence either way. So, you would need to reject both the belief that everything is cyclical, and the belief that some things are not cyclical, wouldn't you?

Well, I would reject the belief of anything not being cyclical.

But everything that I know of IS cyclical; and since I have never observed anything that isn't cyclical, I'd say that non-cyclicality is philosophically irrelevant to my existence.

Then you appear to have discovered the Fountain of Youth. Let me know when you start getting younger and I'll call the reporters.

The fountain of youth is actually the creation of babies through sexual reproduction -- no need to younger yourself. When you die, the energy and matter of which you are comprised is dissipated to a low-level form, and may then be transformed back to a high-level form, thus forming a cycle.

I tend to go with theories that have ample evidence supporting them and none contradicting them, and ones that are favoured by Occam's razor.

Like the Time Cube? (;->

Yes; I have given and am continuing to give evidence supporting it and have yet to see any against it; and I believe that it is a simple and fully coherent representation, as opposed to the fragmented and convoluted Academian theories.

Bookmark

Proposition 4e: in order to acknowledge Cubes as the perfect form. Why? I kinda like the dodecahedron myself. Andrewa 06:36, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Have you any justification for your worship of the dodecahedron? I think there was a theory regarding space folding back on itself, which stated that the universe is dodecahedron-shaped. Time Cube doesn't comply with dodecahedrons, but it does support the theory of space folding back on itself, in accordance with the rejection of the notion of infinity.

I don't worship the dodecahedron. The point was simply that the choice of the cube seems arbitrary.

See Proposition 4d.

This says nothing about worship. Did you perhaps mention worship flippantly?

Well if you think that the dodecahedron is the perfect form then I suppose you worship it. If you were only joking then it doesn't really matter.

I wasn't joking. I don't think of either the cube or the dodecahedron as perfect in any sense that inspires worship. Do you?

You were not joking?

Correct. That's what I said, just two sentences ago.

Oh OK, I was just double-checking.

So you do think that the dodecahedron is the perfect form?

Incorrect. I don't think that either the cube or the dodecahedron is the perfect form. You've been trying to put those words into my mouth for some time. It won't work.

Bookmark

You said: "in order to acknowledge Cubes as the perfect form. Why? I kinda like the dodecahedron myself" -- this seems to imply that you regard the dodecahedron as the perfect form.

No. I just think that you have yet to justify your belief that the Cube is the perfect form.

Yes, but you "kinda like the dodecahedron"? Given that I said that Cubes are the perfect form, I think this implies that you regard the dodecahedron as such.

If you do not regard the dodecahedron as perfect, then I guess you were just joking with the above.

Bad guess.

But if you don't regard it as perfect AND weren't joking, then what you said seems contradictory.

How?

If you were not joking, then what you wrote seems contradictory because as I explained, because it implies that you regard the dodecahedron as the perfect form, whereas you have said that this is not the case.

Also I might add that accusing me of putting words into your mouth or whatever, along with the other tactics that you have been using and continue to use in order to discredit me, won't work in regard to disproving Time Cube.

I agree they won't work, that's one reason I don't use them. I think that honesty and logic are far more effective. The more important reason is that I think that knowledge is good, and therefore deception is evil.

They may, however, work in regard to brainwashing dummies into believing that it is false, which serves as a convenient alternative to giving actual evidence supporting this belief. They also serve to reinforce your own irrational beliefs.

They seem rational to me. But then the Time Cube seems rational to you, doesn't it?

Yes, but I have made several arguments supporting Time Cube, whereas I haven't seen any good arguments that religious and other supernatural beliefs are true.

As I've said, I regard the Cube as the perfect form, and as far as worshipping is concerned, I think it would be better to direct any worship-related emotions towards Time Cube rather than towards religions such as Christianity, which, as you know, I currently regard as fictitious.

I think you have still failed to answer the question. Do you worship it? Do you worship anything? Do you even know what worship is?

I do not know what your definition of worship is, so maybe you should state it instead of being arrogant. The Cube is the perfect form but I don't think I really worship it, nor anything else.

You raised the topic of worship. What did you mean by it?

To revere something and apply religious emotions to it. I think that closed-minded irrational beliefs are generally based on worship rather than the more scientific/logical approach.

Bookmark

In what sense does Time Cube reject infinity? Is it then incompatible with projective geometry? Andrewa 10:25, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Time Cube rejects infinity in the same sense that it rejects God. Do you have any evidence for the concept of infinity? I am reminded of the subtitle "Jupiter and Beyond the Infinite" in 2001: A Space Odyssey. In regard to projective geometry, as Gene Ray said: "3-Dimensional math as in length, width and height are erroneous when applied within a Cube like room for they do not account for the 4-corner perspective dimensions of difference as in '4-dimensional space'.".

Again, you haven't answered the questions.

No, I have explained the rejection of God on the basis of lack of evidence (and refuted the possible evidence of the first-cause argument and the argument that religion wouldn't exist if it weren't true) and I do not consider there to be any evidence in support of Infinity (including what you've written below, as I explain below).

So by Time Cube disproves God you simply meant that you couldn't find any evidence for or against God?

That's what I meant by "Time Cube rejects God", but as for disproving, I'd say the alternative 4-corner Cubic explanation I have proposed in #What the theory is may constitute evidence against God.

So, do you similarly reject the belief that God does not exist?

Bookmark

I agree in the absence of evidence one must reject both the "for" and "against" beliefs, but I think that there IS evidence supporting the nonexistence of God, which I am explaining to you elsewhere; therefore I do not reject atheism.

What is this evidence?

The existence of the alternative Time Cube theory which is more reality-based, and dictates that God is fictitious; and the fact that there is a probability of Christianity definitely being false due to contradictions between religions, whereas there is no calculable probability for God due to his decision to remain unobservable. It is empirically observable that beliefs can be fictitious, which supports Time Cube; but I have not observed anything supernatural, so there is a lack of anti-Cubic evidence. I am selecting the better substantiated belief.

Bookmark

I read the article about projective geometry but I do not understand exactly what it is, so if you like you can explain it to me.

Projective Geometry is geometry to which points at infinity are added. In the projective plane, any two (straight) lines meet at a single point, and the definition of parallel lines is that their point of intersection is on the line at infinity. It's easily proved that all points at infinity are colinear. Similarly, in projective space there is a plane at infinity. It's all very elegant, and many theorems of Euclidean Geometry are far more easily proved using Projective Geometry. Every mathematician to whom I have spoken on the subject (and that's quite a few as Projective Geometry was one of my four 3rd year topics) regards Projective Geometry as equally valid to Euclidean Geometry. But it's a fringe topic, rather like nonstandard analysis, and it's almost twenty years since I studied it, so if you want to go further I'll need to get some of my books back from storage. Or, any good undergraduate library should have an introductory text, and if you want to reject the whole concept of infinity, it's a topic which would reward some study.

Well from your description, it sounds like projective geometry mathematically represents the absurdity of Infinity. Parallel lines never intersect, so infinity must represent impossibility -- the antithesis of how things actually are.

What evidence have you that parallel lines never intersect?

Bookmark

I'd say it's self-evident that parallel lines never intersect.

I think it was a bit of a surprise to everyone to find that there are equally valid geometries in which they do.

Well, based on the statement "parallel lines never intersect", we can say parallel lines intersect at "never". But they don't actually intersect because "never" is negative. Infinity represents "never"; as you said, infinity is impossible.

Do you therefore reject non-euclidean geometry?

I reject any model that distorts the coordinate system such that parallel lines do intersect. Is there evidence of such distortion actually occurring in spacetime?

Yes.

Please explain it.

Bookmark

In reply to yours, infinity as a concept is used in many branches of mathematics, which appear to be consistent and have been of much use in science.

Infinity as a number is more controversial, but you say concept.

Will you accept this as evidence? Andrewa 04:28, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No because in my experience, infinity is generally used in science to represent very large numbers (or very small numbers, or whatever). I know of no evidence of anything actually being infinite in reality.

In a way you are right. Infinity is a way of speaking of an impossibly big number. If we use it as a number, we will get paradoxes as a result. But to use it in expressions such as "the limit as x approaches infinity" seems harmless and has proven very useful. Do you reject these usages too?

Try giving some examples of how the expressions you described are applied to real-life situations. I think you'll find that infinity is merely used to represent finite extremes.

Exactly. Agreed.

Bookmark

So nothing is actually infinite in reality, therefore I reject infinity.

OK. So, do you accept the mathematical topic of real analysis?

I do not accept continuity; I believe that the universe is discrete at the lowest level.

Belief in God

See User talk:andrewa/archive4#Belief in God for previous discussion

I assume if science is "working" then we are gaining an accurate and complete understanding of the universe.

Exactly. Now, what makes you think science will do this? I agree it does. But what evidence do we have? Andrewa

Well we can't know whether there are higher levels of existence, like a god, unless the higher levels somehow reveal themselves to us. So in terms of defining the universe as "all that exists", from our perspective the universe is everything we can see or otherwise detect. The evidence of science "working" in this regard would be that it logically explains and completely links together everything we know, and does not rely on hypothetical unobserved phenomena to do so. Certainly there could be higher levels of existence that aren't revealing themselves to us, but since we cannot detect them they are philosophically irrelevant to human existence and therefore do not need to be covered by science.

Lots going on here.

I should perhaps have clarified something before. Science works towards this complete understanding. There is no hope of ever getting there. That's most important.

But regardless of whether you agree with that, I think we can agree that it's not there yet. So, if the evidence you want is a complete explanation, that's not very hopeful, because we don't have this evidence.

So you still haven't given any reason for believing that science works, and I don't think you can. We have a similar problem with logic. By using logic we can show that logic works. But is there any way of demonstrating that logic works, without using logic? I claim no. And, since in logic we consider a circular argument to be invalid, that means we can't logically demonstrate that logic works. We assume it does, and I'm happy to. And I'm also happy to assume that science works. I believe that they both work.

Actually I'd say logic and science work if they fully explain and link together EVERYTHING. This is not yet the case, but I do not agree with your assertion "There is no hope of ever getting there.".

It's not terribly important whether we will ever get there IMO, nor IMO is it possible to tell in any scientific sense whether on not we'll ever get there. But what matters is that we're not there already, and this seems agreed.

So, if it's not yet the case, then this doesn't provide any reason for believing that science works. Science does work, and we know it works. But our reasons for believing this are not themselves scientific. Similarly, our reasons for trusting logic can't be provided by logic. Andrewa 10:25, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

My point was that when we do arrive at a theory of everything, that will validate the logic/science that was used to formulate it.

Understood. And my point was that in the meantime, we both still believe it. But it can't be because of this evidence, because we agree we don't yet have this evidence. So why do we believe it now? Andrewa 04:28, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

YOU believe it because you have been brainwashed as such. I do not consider mainstream science to be ultimately valid; I'd say only TIME CUBE explains everything. So I think Time Cube needs to be further evaluated to verify that this is the case.

Lots here that I'd like to explore.

The first question seems to be, are you now saying you don't share my faith in science, after all?

I do not have any faith that mainstream science is capable of completely explaining and linking together EVERYTHING. However, it has explained and linked together various subsets of everything.

This seems needlessly complicated. I think you're wanting this both ways. On the one hand, you want to criticise Christianity for not being scientifically provable (and you're quite right, it's not). On the other hand, you don't want to subject your own beliefs to the same scrutiny or criticism.

Bookmark

I don't require Christianity to be proven using the conventions of mainstream Academian science. But I do require some means of validating it. How can the supernatural claims in the Bible be validated?

By attempting to live by its counsels. You will find it enormously challenging and rewarding, and I predict that once you have seriously tried it you will never want to go back.

But does this really confirm its supernatural claims? I'm thinking that it may just make you feel good, regardless of whether the beliefs are true or not. I think that it may make some people feel good but others would not be so receptive to it -- it depends on the temperament. If you are claiming that the Christian morality is good, regardless of whether the beliefs are true or not, then I need to know how it will be the most effective way of enabling humanity to perpetuate and evolve into the future. I think that it suppresses negative emotions -- you said that confession or something of the like gives room for negative emotions, but I think that this merely represents a less rigid system and that the negative emotions are still suppressed, only not so strongly. Negative emotions have evolved over millions of generations; they have been naturally selected as part of a very effective means of survival. So suppressing them upsets the long-standing balance of nature, and could be very dangerous with regard to the continued survival of Humanity.

It's very possible that the person who wrote them just made them up, or distorted the truth;

It's not credible. Of Jesus' twelve closest friends, one betrayed him (Judas), one died of old age (John), and the other ten died violent deaths for the sake of the Gospel. These ten had known Jesus, one of them (Peter) had seen him die, and the other nine all had the opportunity to cross-examine Peter on the matter. The oldest of the Gospels, Mark, is said by William Barclay to be Peter's preaching notes.

Only one person saw Jesus die? So if that person was lying or had a hallucination or something, then the millions of people who believe what he said have been deceived.

and what they wrote down may have been inaccurate in the first place, such as stories transmitted through word of mouth over several generations.

The accuracy of the Old Testament is certainly dependent on oral transmission. We westerners think of oral tradition as a sort of chinese whisper and miss the point badly. Oral traditions are capable of surprising accuracy in cultures that depend on them. The custodians would rather die than make a mistake, and are highly trained, so the accuracy is good.

This could be the case, but since they are merely transmitting the message and not validating it, they could be transmitting something that was inaccurate in the first place.

How can we know that this was not the case?

See above.

I have provided and am still in the process of providing much evidence for Time Cube.

Have you? Earlier you were demanding scientific evidence of Christianity. I have I hope convinced you that there is none, and now it seems there is none for the Time Cube either. Earlier you were quoting mathematical jargon in support of the Time Cube. Now it seems you have little idea what these words mean. The only evidence you have provided for Time Cube is that you claim to think it's true.

Sometimes you put these claims in capital letters or big fonts, and sometimes you use technical terms that you don't understand in ways that don't make sense. But basically, you are just repeating the claim that you think it's true, over and over. That may be appropriate for a mantra. It's completely out of place for a scientific theory.

No, I think that I am making legitimate arguments for Time Cube in #What the theory is, and the graphical representation helps explain the 4/16 rotation principle. You have not refuted this proof of 4 simultaneous days in a single rotation of Earth. I don't require a proof of Christianity

I said before, you have a good brain. I'm sure there's something more useful you could be doing with it than promoting Time Cube (which I admit you do very well).

Well, I find that Time Cube makes sense, and I have seen no legitimate refutations of it. So I am sticking with it; like Dr Ray, I would like it to be further evaluated.

You alone are responsible for what you choose to believe. But what you say you believe seems sadly lacking of any sort of consistency or usefulness. It's not a credible parody of Christianity or of any of the other major religions.

And that is not relevant in the slightest, because Time Cube isn't a parody of anything; rather, it is a representation of the Ultimate Ineffable Cubic Truth of the Universe, by which your Christian religion and that upon which it depends will ultimately be judged.

I agree that we will be judged. How do you express your faith in this judgement?

By taking action to try to make it a favourable judgement.

This isn't to say I have no reasons for believing them, or no evidence that they work. I do have evidence that both logic and science work. But to examine this evidence by using logic or science, respectively, is invalid. Indeed, I can't use any form of linear reasoning for these particular enquiries. It must be what we call global reasoning.

Food for thought? Andrewa 06:36, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

WordVirus

See User talk:andrewa/archive4#Wordvirus for previous discussion

Hmmmm. Is this really what you call science? It still seems like conjecture to me, at best. Andrewa 14:15, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

No I think I have given some evidence for the concept of the WordVirus. It has very strong similarities to biological viruses in that it infects a host and then uses the host to infect other hosts, and also creates copies of itself that exist independently in non-living forms such as the Bible. But certainly the WordVirus is much more complex than the explanations I've already given (the work of Richard Dawkins may explain some of the complexities) and research is required to further evaluate the concepts and trends I have described above.

OK. This ties in perhaps with Gene Ray's claim that words are evil, I suppose? See #serious research below. Andrewa 06:36, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Argument that all religions are false

See User talk:andrewa/archive4#Argument that all religions are false for previous discussion

Yes I said I didn't present "a positive logical proof that ALL religion is false" -- rather I showed that most religion must be false. Yes the argument is better restated as "since most religions contradict each other, only a few could be true".

I have no problem with accepting this argument or its conclusion, as restated. But it's a much more modest claim than your earlier claim that Time Cube disproves God, which started this string.

Yes actually that statement is related to the perpetuality of Time Cube vs. the 1-corner nature of God. However we've not yet reached that conceptual level in this discussion.

Alors, continuons. I'm skeptical. I guess you know that.

Religious beliefs generally concern higher planes of existence from which the universe is controlled and/or was created. See further down for "evidence".

Again, I have no problem with this. Firstly, it's vague enough to be harmless. Secondly, depending on what you mean by a higher plane of existence, it could even be true of what I believe.

Actually there are also quasi-religious beliefs about other supernatural phenomena, like reincarnation and magic and such.

Agreed.

OK here is a better version: Since most religions contradict each other, only a few could possibly be true. This means that the others are definitely false. This constitutes evidence that any given religion may be false.

No. You could similarly argue that most people can walk; this constitutes evidence that any given person can walk. I have a number of friends who will testify that this conclusion is false.

No, you said "any given person can walk" but I said "any given religion may be false" -- so you should have said "any given person may be able to walk" or "any given person can probably walk".

Where did this probably come from? It's not part of your argument above.

"May be" is interchangeable with "is probably". It's NOT interchangeable with "is definitely".

The second statement is true, and important. The first is not true here. To see why, let's restate your original conclusion as this constitutes evidence that any given religion is probably false. (This then would imply, choosing Christianity as the religion, this constitutes evidence that Christianity is probably false.)

Do you see the problem with this argument?

The parallel would be this constitutes evidence that any given person can probably walk. That makes the problem with the argument clear I think. It's true that if the person is chosen at random, then they can probably walk, but as stated, it's not true.

They have to be chosen at random in regard to the criterion of ability to walk. I could choose a person who has the same hair colour and eye colour as me and that wouldn't be random in the context of all possible criteria, but it WOULD be random in the context of ability to walk since the criteria I mentioned are independent from a person's ability to walk. So tell me how selection of Christianity would be biased.

It's not a matter of bias. The problem is that you can't go from the generalisation to the particular case of a person (or a religion), except in the special case that they are chosen at random. Even then it doesn't tell you much.

You have ignored my argument that a non-random selection is random in the context of a limited set of criteria provided that those criteria do not include the ones on which the selection was based.

No. I've looked at it. It's irrelevant. The core issue is that you can't go from a statement "Most A are B to a conclusion The A currently under discussion is probably B". You can go to a statement "If I choose an A at random it will probably be B", but that's not the same thing at all.

Bookmark

It is relevant, because there is no link between the veracity of Christianity and the fact that we are discussing it, is there?

Yes, there is. The link is that I believe Christianity. This is linked to the claim that it is true. We may not agree about the nature of the link.

I'm not talking about the claim that it's true, I'm talking about whether it's actually true. I haven't seen any good evidence in support of it, so I don't think we can know whether it's true (unless we find something contradicting it that is true, but that isn't what we're discussing here).

So that means that it has effectively been chosen at random in regard to the criterion of its veracity.

No. This assumes that my beliefs are unfounded. You can argue that, but you can't assume it.

I think that it can be assumed, based on the lack of foundation (as far as I know) and the possibility that it is false. You claim that it is founded but I am not seeing any good foundation for it.

Now I don't see any link between the veracity of Christianity and the fact that you believe in it, so if I were to select Christianity based solely on the fact that you believe in it, then that would be random with regard to whether it is true or not, right?

Wrong. We chose Christianity as the subject at the start of this discussion, by the very fact that it's the religion of one of the participants. So it's a very special case in the context of this discussion.

But does the fact that it is your religion or the fact that we are discussing it have anything to do with whether it is true or not? No, I don't think so.

And I do think so. Nice try.

Well, I have argued to the contrary above.

So again, it has effectively been chosen at random in regard to its veracity. You have again failed to refute my argument that selection is random in regard to a limited set of criteria as long as any criteria on which the selection was based do not fall within that set. I guess that you are closed-mindedly refusing to accept that it is true.

And you are refusing to accept that it is false. So the main difference seems to be that I respect your opinions.

I am arguing that it is true and refusing to accept that it's false on the basis of there being arguments against it and no supporting arguments.

If we now choose a religion at random, it will probably be false, but that means that in some cases it may be true. And it probably won't be Christianity, it will probably be another religion. So the fact that it will probably be false doesn't tell us anything about Christianity. Christianity might be a case that is true.

Also according to my argument, Christianity might be true, but I reject this possibility on the basis of the evidence to the contrary that I'm currently explaining to you; see below.

You have yet to present any evidence.

You were attempting to show that Christianity is false. So far, all you have produced is evidence that most religions are false. I agreed some time ago that this is the case, but it doesn't tell us anything about Christianity. Do you have any other arguments, or does your belief that Christianity is false rest on this one alone?

See #What the theory is, where I am explaining the fictitious 1-corner nature of the WordGod concept common to JudeoChristian beliefs and others. If the WordGod belief is false then Jesus couldn't be a messiah, which would prove Christianity to be fictitious, right?

Wrong again. This depends on your personal beliefs and jargon, which seem to have no basis.

So you think that Christianity could be true even if the JudeoChristian God doesn't exist?

Wrong again. If this God does not exist, then Christianity is false.

Yes that's what I said in the first place. I do not regard "WordGod" as terminology alien to Christianity; is there not a bible verse that says that God is Word?

Bookmark

Well of course if there is some evidence for religious beliefs then the notion of them being true cannot be dismissed due to lack thereof, however at present I'm not aware of any evidence so I stand by my rejection of religious beliefs. However you must agree that it is rational to reject beliefs with no evidence supporting them right?

Wrong. Well, it depends what you mean by "reject". If you mean that you claim that something isn't true without having any evidence either way, then that means that you do believe something (specifically the negation of the proposition in question) without evidence. If you just mean that you don't form an opinion either way, then that's fair enough.

Actually I have proven in #What counts as evidence? that it's possible for beliefs to be fictitious,

I'd be a bit surprised if anybody disagreed with this. It's trivial. I disagree that you've ever proved it, I can't even remember discussing it.

Here's the proof again: "I can prove that it is possible for words to be fictitious: when you finish reading this sentence, your head will explode. Is your head still intact? If so, what I wrote must have been fiction."

OK! Yes, that's valid. I didn't see what you were getting at before. I still think it's trivial, and I have trouble sometimes deciding whether you are being serious, which is probably why I overlooked your meaning before. Why is it useful to prove this?

It's useful to prove all beliefs yourself instead of just accepting what you're taught, and ideally I would always do so.

Agreed.

so if there isn't any evidence for a belief then it is probably fiction and as such should not be taken seriously.

Again, the problem here is in deciding what evidence we will accept. If you mean scientific evidence, then this would mean throwing out science too, as there's no scientific evidence that science works, and there can't be any.

I mean empirical evidence. Why is it that scientists favour experimental data that can be reproduced? It's because the testimony of a small number of scientists could be inaccurate, and the best way to gain knowledge is by making direct empirical observations rather than relying on Word.

Agreed for some sorts of knowledge. I consider the belief that science itself works to also be knowledge. Do you?

I think this is related to the concept of the WordVirus reflecting on its existence in order to evolve. Yes, I'd say that this is something that can occur and can succeed in facilitating memetic evolution. This is the purpose of Time Cube -- to allow humans to guide their evolution based on knowledge of the Ineffable Cubic Truth.

OK. So, if you believe that science works (you don’t seem consistent in this but it’s what you seem to be saying here), what evidence is there for this belief?

It depends how you define "works". Mainstream Academian science cannot yet fully explain and link together everything, so it doesn't yet "work" in that regard.

True. And neither can Time Cube yet, I think that was agreed.

Bookmark

Actually I think that Time Cube is a valid Theory of Everything. A research team will be required in order to verify this.

See above.

But it has succeeded in explaining and linking together empirical observations within various subsets of everything, so it working in that it is giving us an improved albeit incomplete understanding of the universe.

Good. And we can see benefits in science in improving our understanding, and the fact that scientific knowledge produces useful things such as solar cells, chemotherapy for cancer, aluminium metal and UHT milk. That is evidence that science works. Agreed?

It is evidence that science has succeeded in explaining and linking together certain subsets of everything. I am avoiding "works" because it's too vague and also I think you are using it to refer to the advancement of the WordVirus.

But science has succeeded at something, and you accept the evidence of this. Progress.

Bookmark

We can reject theories on the grounds of lack of evidence because even if they true, until we see evidence supporting them they are philosophically irrelevant to our existence.

I like this last argument very much. But it's only valid if by evidence you mean all the effects of a phenomenon, not just those that are observed. If there is any such evidence that you haven't considered, for whatever reason, then the law it demonstrates can still affect you.

Then the effects on me would count as observable evidence, making the phenomenon relevant to my existence.

Yes. Exactly.

So is there any observable evidence for God?

Yes, but you won't accept it.

Are you saying that the bible is evidence for the existence of God?

No. It is evidence IMO, but that's not what I was saying here. It's irrelevant I would have thought, as you have consistently said you don't consider the Bible as evidence. But see above for more on this topic.

Bookmark

And I have justified my nonacceptance of the Bible, have I not?

No.

I think I have; its supernatural claims do not seem to be empirically verifiable, meaning that I must rationally reject them. Furthermore, Time Cube contradicts its supernatural claims, meaning that these may be considered false.

What other evidence is there for the existence of the mystical man in the sky?

See various other threads.

If so, then should I accept a book of fairy-tales as evidence for the existence of giant beanstalks?

No, you should apply a great deal more intelligence and discrimination to your reading than that. You should consider the story of Jack and the Beanstalk, for example, as evidence of certain beliefs and traditions. Personally I doubt that any adult without severe learning difficulties has ever considered the beanstalk to be real.

Well, having applied intelligence and discrimination to religious teachings, I conclude that there is no mystical man in the sky, nor any other supernatural phenomena; and that the JudeoChristian God is but a fictitious cultural belief that has propagated quite successfully over a few hundred generations.

Fair enough. As I said before, you alone are responsible for what you choose to believe. And you are also the one these beliefs most affect.

But people do believe ridiculous things because of the Bible. That dinosaurs didn't ever exist, for example. You've already read my web page on Creation Science so you know my views on that topic. So perhaps people believe in beanstalks too. If so, I think that they're wrong, and that their ignorance is a bad thing. Agreed?

Well, you haven't actually seen dinosaurs, only the fossils, which God could easily have faked. It comes down to the authority of what is written in the Bible. If by "ignorance" you mean false beliefs, then yes it is a bad thing, but if you mean lack of beliefs, then this is probably a good thing because, as is generally the case with non-human animals, it allows people to follow their natural Cubic instincts without being impeded by the WordVirus.

Yes. In regard to your academic/religious beliefs, my current view is that you are wrong and ignorant. I have yet to see evidence to the contrary.

I'm very sorry you see me that way. I don't yet know what to make of you, although I have some theories. But I'm glad you are prepared to spend your time discussing these things with me.

In what areas do you think I am ignorant?

You are ignorant of the Ineffable Cubic Truth of the Universe.

Bookmark

I don't see him striking me down with lightning or anything like that, and since the words in the bible that relate to supernatural phenomena aren't supported by empirical evidence, I don't see any reason why I should treat them more seriously than a book of fairy-tales.

I think I have dealt with the problem of providing empirical evidence for (or against) supernatural phenomena elsewhere. There can't ever be any, either way. The demonstrations given to Gideon and the Prophets of Baal were not given to scientifically literate people, so they don't count IMO. And in any case, they are again in the Bible. It's really hard to have a serious discussion of Christianity without referring to it.

So the only evidence for your belief in the existence of supernatural phenomena is verbal accounts

True. I think your evidence for relativity is the same, correct?

Bookmark

My evidence for relativity is accounts (both verbal and numerical) and image-based evidence that could easily be fictitious (below)?

No. That's not what I said.

Well, firstly, the evidence for relativity encompasses more than just verbal accounts, and secondly, this evidence could not easily be fictitious, whereas this is not the case with the Biblical accounts of supernatural phenomena, as I have explained.

Try not to misleadingly separate the restrictive clause in future.

I'm truly sorry you find it misleading. That was not my intent.

As I've explained, the data supporting relativity couldn't EASILY be fictitious,

Agree.

unlike the Bible.

Disagree, see above.

that could easily be fictitious?

No. That's a big step. Conspiracy theories abound to explain the resurrection, for example. They are mentioned in the Bible and there is unlikely to be any end to them. But, it's not easy to explain away it and many other accounts.

Well I have a conspiracy theory about Jack and the Beanstalk; there weren't really any giant beanstalks or people, as someone just made up the story. Is this conspiracy theory very far-fetched? No, I think it is very possible indeed that it is true.

Agree. But I wouldn't call it a conspiracy theory. I rather think that if you did believe this you would have missed the whole point of the story. Sitting on my niece's bed hearing her read me that story just before lights out, it's actually quite a good story.

So it makes you feel good even though it's false? Are you claiming that the Christian beliefs are true or not? Is it just that they make you feel good?

Now I know of no validation mechanisms for the biblical descriptions of supernatural phenomena,

What would count as a validation mechanism?

Actually witnessing them in such a way that I wouldn't really doubt that they were supernatural (i.e. couldn't rationalise them in terms of reality as I currently understand it).

so I consider "conspiracy theories" that they were fictitious or exaggerated accounts of natural events to be quite probably true.

The evidence being...?

The contradictions between various supernatural beliefs, which necessitate most of them being false. There are lots of court cases and UFO sightings and such where people have been shown to have misleading memories or to be lying, so we have the well-established possibility of the supernatural claims being false, and the unsubstantiated possibility of them being true.

I admit I'm not yet sure whether all the events in the Bible can be explained scientifically. On one hand I'd like it to be true, it's a neat theory, and that's what science does. On the other hand, some events, and the resurrection in particular, are so improbable that I doubt a scientific explanation will ever be found.

Maybe I am biased but I would really prefer evidence that is more solid.

So would I. Wouldn't we all. The crowds asked Jesus for a miracle. That's human. He refused. That's God.

God sure is a bit of a dickhead, isn't he.

I don't think so, no. I don't understand all his actions, true. But I learned long ago that some people are a lot cleverer than I am.

I think I will exercise my free will and believe in reality-based philosophies.

Anyway, if God were to exist and he really wanted me to believe in him then he would surely be capable of giving me concrete evidence for his existence,

And he has. Well, it depends what you mean by concrete. Did you read the Luke passage I gave you above in reply to your request for information about hell? What did you think of the last sentence?

The last sentence involved God refusing to give concrete evidence. Wouldn't it be nice if God so loved the world that he could give us some damn concrete evidence?

It sounds so logical. But would you really want to be a robot?

No; and God can prove himself to me and still give me the choice of whether or not to believe in him, can't he? Furthermore, unquestioningly following the morality dictated by Jesus and others seems rather robotic to me.

so given that he hasn't done so I conclude that either he doesn't exist or he is OK with me believing that he doesn't exist, which means there isn't really any problem.

Hmmmm. So, why do you continue with this conversation?

To find out if you have any good evidence as I think you may have claimed, or if you were just brainwashed into believing bad evidence, as I suspect may be the case.

Alors, continuons.

Bookmark

So this is evidence in a very broad sense indeed. For example, the fact that somebody else believes something is evidence in this sense. It may not be very good evidence (or it may be, and sometimes is), but if you have no other evidence and if the matter is important then the evidence you do have deserves evaluation regardless.

You seem happy to accept the testimonies of mathematicians about Black Holes and Relativity, see below.

See #Relativity. I'm not perfect, but I do know about some of the evidence for the above. I don't know of any evidence or logic supporting God (I've refuted the first-cause argument, and also the argument that for a religion to have come into existence it must be true).

What is the evidence that you accept that supports Relativity?

Primarily, astronomical observations of gravity-lensing and time dilation evident in atomic clocks subjected to different velocities.

Have you personally performed any of these observations?

No I have not -- as I said, I'm not perfect. But it seems to me that it would require a large conspiracy within Academia to propagate false empirical data. Particularly in the case of the astronomical observations, there are many people capable of verifying them, so do you suppose that every astronomer in the world has been sworn to secrecy? Since I am not perfect I must make some assumptions, but I'd say the best assumptions to make are those that are more probable -- in this case, assuming that the verbal accounts of the observations I mentioned are in fact correct.

Great. Good logic. Now, do you have the courage to apply it to questions such as what is worthwhile?

Bookmark

That question seems very vague. What exactly do you mean by "worthwhile", and how exactly does it apply to my logic above?

I believe that everyone is capable of contributing something important to history. The secret of life is to make the best contribution we possibly can. This is worthwhile. Knowledge is worthwhile, as are several other things. Does that help?

That helps clarify "worthwhile", but you haven't explained how my logic applies to the question "what is worthwhile".

Bookmark

But my impression of the creation of the Bible is that it would NOT require any improbable conspiracies for its contents to be inaccurate. As far as I know, there were no means of verifying biblical accounts of supernatural phenomena, and each section of the bible was written by only one person, meaning that they could easily get away with misrepresenting the truth or including lies in what they wrote. Furthermore, certain sections of the bible (eg. Genesis) could not possibly be based on first-hand observation, so how can we possibly know that the author was making a verbatim transcription of what the mystical man in the sky said to him and not partially or totally making it up himself?

I consider the Bible to be a speech act of God. As such there are many possible errors of transmission. We have four Gospels, for example, which give sometimes conflicting impressions, and the very important ending of one of them seems to have been added by a later writer. None of them can be assessed in the same way as a modern biography, and if we try we quickly see that they are a different genre of literature completely. Personally, I have no problem with the claim that the author was partially or totally making it up himself. I would say partially of course.

It's up to both God and myself to allow for these errors in transmission if we want to communicate by this means, and we do make these allowances. Some Christians don't make these allowances, and as a result they make ridiculous statements such as the song I mentioned above, or find themselves backed into an intellectual corner with regard to dinosaurs. That's very sad.

Bookmark

Well, I don't consider the bible to have been written by a mystical man in the sky, nor any other supernatural entity. I consider it to be a combination of fictionalised historical accounts and complete fiction. Certainly it is possible for religious scriptures to be inaccurate, as I have shown.

I think you're being a bit hard on it, see above. The evidence is that there's more to it than that.

But is there any concrete evidence for supernatural phenomena?

As I have said several times, there isn't and can't be.

Well then as far as I'm concerned, there is no rational basis for believing in them; the only basis can be emotional.

I don't know of any, so I'm going with the option that has evidence supporting it and none against it, particularly in light of the fact that Time Cube provides a superior Godless model of the universe.

Godless, yes. Superior, no. There are some very impressive Godless models, but Time Cube is just nonsense.

On the contrary, I think I have succeeded in making sensible descriptions of various Cubic concepts.

Bookmark

Two questions arise in the event of the second meaning.

• Are you really sure that there isn't any evidence either way? None at all?

No evidence for god,

A very important point. None that you have found. But where have you looked, and how have you looked?

I have not made a huge effort to find evidence, but I have encountered many attempts at proving the existence of God, all of which I can refute. One way in which I've looked is by asking you for evidence, and that hasn't yet yielded anything.

I hope that if you answer my questions, you'll find the evidence you have been seeking.

If you mean no scientific evidence, I would agree.

But if you mean evidence in the very broad sense that you used it above, then this is obviously false. So either you have rejected some evidence, or you haven't looked very well. I suspect the former.

What evidence have you considered? Why have you rejected it?

See #What counts as evidence? for why I tend to reject verbal evidence that can't be tested by empirical observations or logic.

Again, you haven't answered the question.

Evidence I've considered is VERBAL evidence such as the Bible and what religious people have written on the Internet and elsewhere.

OK. But you don't seem to reject all verbal evidence. You seem to think that Gene Ray's words are worthy of some respect. Are there any other people whose words carry sufficient weight that you would believe at least some of what they say without verifying it all by your own first-hand observations and calculations?

Dr. Ray has only really discovered the logic of Time Cube himself. The empirical observations on which Time Cube relies have already been made by other people. I have considered all of Dr Ray's logic myself and it is mostly valid (the main exception being the theory of there being only 4 races, which is an oversimplification).

I think this means yes. If so, verbal (or if you prefer VERBAL) evidence is admissable after all, agreed?

Bookmark

No. Dr Ray's scriptures are not evidence themselves. They merely describe the verifiable evidence. I only support what he says because I have evaluated it and found it to be valid. However, since I know of no way of verifying the Bible's supernatural descriptions, I consider them to be invalid.

You are free to reject the supernatural on these grounds, certainly. They are quite logical. If your only goal is to understand what happens in the Universe, I think you can do without God. If your goal is to spread your seed, whether DNA or something more intellectual, then you can do that without very much thought at all and many do. But if you have any higher goal I think you will find you need to talk to God about it.

Please describe the higher goals you refer to. Are they selfish goals, such as the attainment of eternal life?

Bookmark

but as for the "other way", I've shown that most religions must be fictitious.

Agree sort of.

I think it's very badly phrased. Fictitious means deliberately invented, and you haven't shown that at all. And I don't think that the word must is helpful. It seems to have no function here other than to express your feelings on the matter. Use of such redundant words is characteristic of rhetoric rather than reason. There's also a minor matter I didn't raise before about how you count religions in order to decide what most would mean. IMO it would be better to avoid this issue. All you have shown so far is that some (but not necessarily all) religions are false.

When I say that religious beliefs are "fictitious", what I mean is that they are a product of human imagination, rather than an accurate representation of empirical observations. I think my use of "must" is OK. Since most religions contradict each other, then in order for the situation to be logically sound, most of them MUST be false, right? Logic, not just my personal opinion, necessitates this.

Lots here. Imagination is needed in science as much as in any other intellectual endeavour. Newton, Gallileo, da Vinci, Aristotle, Einstein, Lord Rutherford... all exceptionally imaginative people. And whatever the flaws of the Time Cube, it's certainly imaginative! So, we should not despise imagination.

Yes but if an imagined concept does not accurately reflect reality then it is FICTITIOUS, and therefore should not be accepted as fact.

Agree. Well, it's rather badly phrased. Concepts aren't facts, see above.

What is a "fact"? It's a verbal representation of empirical observations, right? It's a mental concept of how things exist in reality. So a concept IS a fact if it accurately reflects reality.

No, but it's just a matter of terminology. It doesn't affect your argument on this occasion. Let's deal with this when we need to.

You still haven't answered any of my objections to your reasoning. Let's agree to disagree on whether you've demonstrated that most religions are false rather than just some. I think it's true anyway, I just think your argument is weak on this particular point. Perhaps we've taken that particular discussion as far as we can.

Here is a better organised version of my argument:

• We can reject theories on the grounds of lack of evidence because even if they are true, until we see evidence supporting them they are philosophically irrelevant to our existence.

Agree.

• Possible evidence supporting religion is the argument "If there is no God, then the universe couldn't exist". But if God created everything, who created God? This could only be resolved by infinite gods, and so, according to my rejection of the notion of Infinity due to there being no evidence supporting it, at the highest level of existence the universe must be Perpetual -- so there's no reason why our existence couldn't be the highest level,

Agree.

and since (as far as I know) there's no evidence to the contrary, we may reject theories about higher levels.

It depends what you mean by reject. See below.

• More possible evidence supporting religion is the argument "If God doesn't exist then why do people believe in him, and how did the bible come to exist etc.". But since most religions contradict each other, some of them must be false; this proves that it is possible for people to have false religious beliefs, which invalidates the argument that religious beliefs must be true.

Agree.

• I don't know of any other evidence supporting religious beliefs, so I therefore reject all of them on the basis of lack of evidence.

By reject, do you mean (1) believe to be false, or do you mean (2) take no position as to whether they are true or false, or do you mean (3) something else?

Yes, (2) is the logical one.

Agreed. I think this is very important.

We can move from (2) to (1) based on some evidence against God; see #What the theory is.

Agreed.

The important thing is, you can't go from the agreed statement that most religions are false to the conclusion that all religions are false. So if your interest is in checking the truth or otherwise of a particular religion (in this case Christianity) it's not really a lot of help to know that some, or even most, religions are false, any more than knowing that most of the people in the world won't marry you is any help in predicting whether the one you've just met will.

Oh well, to hell with probability and statistics then.

Amen. (;->

But if you mean that if Christianity is true then many other religions are false, then I'd agree.

• If you are, then what counts as evidence? Have you perhaps been hasty in dismissing evidence that others accept? Andrewa 06:36, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Well you probably accept the bible as evidence, but there are many explanations for the supernatural claims therein other than them being true (see [#What counts as evidence?]).

Yes, I accept the Bible as evidence. Do you?

No I don't. See #What counts as evidence?.

Why not?

Because I have shown that it is possible for religious beliefs to be false, and so I've concluded that the best explanation for the Bible is that the supernatural claims it contains were caused by delusions or hallucinations or bad memory or people just making up fiction. Why should I believe in the unobservable God instead of this more rational explanation?

For exactly the same reason you can't understand a symphony simply in terms of its fourier analysis, although in some ways that is the simplest explanation of what you hear. Andrewa 22:26, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well the signal analysis can quantify the information that is being transmitted as sound, but we require an understanding of certain aspects of how the brain and the WordVirus work in order to understand the qualitative properties of the information.

You don't think there's some value in the music that's not obvious from the fourier analysis?

Bookmark

Yes I do think so; the value in question encompasses the qualitative properties, and as I said above, these can be evaluated through knowledge of how the brain and WordVirus function in regard to music.

They can indeed. But I would argue that however clever the electrophysiologist and Word-Virologist are, their understanding will never match that of the trained musician. The best way of understanding music is as music.

This is due to the limitations of the current WordVirus. It could potentially evolve (probably in concurrence with human evolution) to a superior form where the music could be fully understood. The higher WordVirus might develop more sophisticated music though.

Now based on my understanding of how the brain and WordVirus work, I'd say that God is part of a fictitious belief system (a subvirus that adds to and modifies the basic WordVirus) that causes the believer to proselytise others, thus ensuring the continued propagation of the religion.

I disagree about it being fictitious, of course, but I think the rest of the description is quite accurate. The problem is that it's also incomplete.

Well then why don't you complete it.

I'm not competent enough with the WordVirus jargon.

Well you must have been able to understand the description to deem it accurate, and surely you can complete it without using Cubic terminology if you so desire.

But I still see no reason why I should think that religious beliefs are not merely fictitious.

Surely you should then reject (in your sense of the word) the belief that they are fictitious for lack of evidence.

No, because there is evidence that they can be fictitious,

Note the can be here.

I don't think there is evidence that they can be true.

and furthermore, Time Cube provides a godless T.O.E., thus disproving the theory that God must exist in order for the universe to exist.

You can pop the champagne if you like, but I agreed that this argument was invalid right at the start. So you haven't a lot of progress to celebrate IMO.

There being no real evidence for God (or at least, none presented to me as yet) but ample evidence against,

Such as?

The 1-corner human-god entity as opposed to the 4-corner cubic spirit, as I described in #What the theory is.

I choose the Atheist belief, for I believe that when a theory is fully supported by evidence and there is no evidence contradicting it, then the theory is True.

Fair enough. Thank you for a spirited discussion.

The discussion need not conclude if you have more arguments.

Bookmark

It's interesting I think that you speculate that I might accept it as evidence, but you don't commit yourself either way.

Why, exactly? I'm not psychic so I couldn't know for sure whether you accept the Bible as evidence, but I do know that this is the case for most if not all people of JudeoChristian faith so I reasoned that it is therefore probably the case for you. What's wrong with that?

I think it could have been more helpful. Stating your own view and asking mine are both far better ways to start out IMO. If you feel that I'm being evasive, then that's the time to speculate on what I might or might not believe. Andrewa 04:28, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The Bible is not the only evidence. But it is important evidence IMO. Your thoughts on this? Andrewa 10:25, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Relativity

See User talk:andrewa/archive4#Relativity for previous discussion

Relativity disproved the Newtonian notions of infinite light-speed etc., meaning that it is not applicable in all situations and is therefore only useful as an approximation. It is not useful in the context of a "theory of everything".

OK. There were of course two major papers on Relativity, Special Relativity and General Relativity. Would you say that Special Relativity is similarly disproved by General Relativity? I need an answer to this before proceeding, there's no point in my examining views you don't hold. Andrewa 14:15, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

I am not an expert on these subjects so I can't really answer this specific question, however in general I'd say the superiority of theories may be judged by these criteria:

• A superior theory in the context of a specific set of observations, fits these observations better than other theories.

• A superior Theory of Everything covers more observations than other theories, and its explanation of observations already covered by other theories is equally or more valid than the explanations given by the other theories.

• And if two theories are equal according to the above criteria, then Occam's Razor may be used to decide between them.

So for relativity vs. Newton mechanics, at low speeds the relativistic effects are negligible so in the context of these specific observations Occam's razor favours Newton. But if we're considering a Theory of Everything then without using occam's razor, we can say that Relativity is superior as it gives equally valid explanations and explains a greater range of observations, in that it covers velocities approaching lightspeed whereas Newton does not. If you explain the differences between general and special relativity, I may be able to evaluate them according to these criteria.

I think you have the general picture. As for explaining the differences, general relativity is (as the name implies) a more general model still than special relativity, and its equations may be used in more circumstances without producing paradox and error. Have a look at those Wikipedia articles for a start, and my personal page rejecting Creation Science for some examples of the limitations of science. If you want to go further, then probably a good course in vector calculus is the first step.

Your article says that relativity disproves the concept of a centre of mass. Can you explain why this is the case?

My article does not say that. Andrewa 10:25, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

OK, so then do you consider the concept of centre of mass to be valid in the context of a theory of everything, and if not, why?

I see no reason to doubt its validity. AFAIK the only person who has ever even raised this question is you. I'm not even completely sure I know what you mean by valid here. But to assume that an object (even in the broadest terms) has a centre of mass doesn't seem to create any problems. The location of this centre of mass may be different for different observers, I'll need to think carefully about whether that is possible, in some cases at least the effects of relative velocity cancel out and the centre of mass remains the same for all inertial observers at least. Does the Time Cube model assume or predict whether the centre of a body's mass is the same for all observers? Andrewa 04:28, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well obviously the centre of mass in question is that of the Earth-Sun system, and as far as I know it is close to the centre of the Sun, meaning that the heliocentric theory is not far from the truth (whereas the geocentric theory is very far from the truth -- about 1.5*10¹¹ m in fact). As far as I know, Time Cube is consistent with relativity observations; but even if the centre of mass of the solar system were far away from the sun for observers passing by in a spaceship at a high velocity, it wouldn't really matter since that reference frame would just be a construct of the WordVirus that wouldn't be relevant to the reference frame of most other matter.

I think that means no. Andrewa 22:05, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It seems that you have no knowledge of the mathematics that are the basis of Relativity, or that predict the existence of Black Holes (see #Cosmogeny below). So, is it fair to say that you have accepted the testimonies of others as to the correctness of Relativity, and the existence of Black Holes? Andrewa 06:36, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Yes this is true to an extent, as my knowledge of these subjects is incomplete (but I am familiar with some aspects of them).

This familiarity seems to be limited to a non-mathematical treatment. So, do you consider that there is non-mathematical evidence for Relativity or Black Holes? If so, what?

I do know some of the equations relating to linear spacetime dilation.

Great. Have you verified them? How? Andrewa 01:02, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I have to an extent checked that the observations match the general predictions of the equations.

I'm most impressed. That's more than I have ever done or felt I needed to do.

Also, I have considered the circumstances that would be necessary for Relativity to be false -- see #Argument that all religions are false.

Or (as I asked before) are you happy to accept the opinions of mathematicians as evidence?

No, I am NOT happy to accept verbal doctrine without evaluating it myself, and although I may do this sometimes, I prefer not to. To an extent, I have evaluated relativity myself; I haven't just unquestioningly accepted unsubstantiated beliefs.

How have you done this?

See above.

I'm not perfect, but then again neither are most other people. Actually I'd say that in regard to Time Cube I am superior to most others, since I have not just dismissed it in spite of my inability to disprove it or show that it is irrational.

My advice is not to take it too personally. It's not you who are superior or otherwise. Thinking in this way generally makes people miserable. You are valuable, and valued, regardless of the correctness or otherwise of your theories. Andrewa 04:28, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

What exactly does this mean? Are you suggesting that I abandon rational thought since it could make me "miserable", and instead mindlessly believe concepts that don't have any evidence supporting them?

No, I'm certainly not suggesting you abandon rational thought. I'm suggesting you apply it. I'm suggesting you examine you own beliefs as critically as you do those of others, and certain you'll get some surprises if you do. Self-awareness is a good thing. Agreed? Andrewa 22:05, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes.

What counts as evidence?

See User talk:andrewa/archive4#What counts as evidence? for previous discussion

Well I don't know about individual testimonies. If you were a scientist several centuries ago and were looking for evidence of the notion of the Earth being round, would you be more inclined towards astronomical observations or the testimony of someone who claimed to have sailed around the world?

As for religious testimonies, there are many explanations of why people might say things that ostensibly support religious beliefs, other than the religious beliefs being true. They may have just imagined supernatural experiences, possibly due to psychological unbalance (which could be induced, possibly deliberately), they may have gained a false impression of real events or they may just be knowingly speaking fiction for some reason. I can prove that it is possible for words to be fictitious: when you finish reading this sentence, your head will explode. Is your head still intact? If so, what I wrote must have been fiction. So surely concepts communicated in Words need to be somehow verifiable, as I said. If you direct me to the testimonies you are referring to, I may be able to evaluate them more specifically.

Jesus said that actions are more important than words. The testimonies I value most are the actions of Christians, such as Nelson Mandela. He didn't just talk about Christianity. More important, he displayed it. Andrewa 06:36, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Gene Ray said the same thing as Jesus: "There is no damn word god. Truth is physical, word a lie. It is what you do, not utter. Without deed, word starves. Word god lends not a hand." "All words equal not 1 deed. Try words to stop tornado. Truth of Cube is ineffable. Nature outlaws word gods. Cubeless word is adult evil. Word enslaves the children."

This doesn't seem to me to be what Jesus says at all. Jesus did say You will know the truth and the truth will set you free. But he didn't despise words. What he despised were words that were not reflected in action. This says that too, but it seems to go beyond it.

I was only referring to the statement "actions are more important than words". Also, what were Jesus' definitions of "truth" and "free"? I do not consider the notion of Jesus being a messiah to represent "truth", nor do I consider people with religious beliefs such as Christianity to be "free".

You're getting into pretty deep theology here, and I doubt you understand it any more than you do tensor calculus. Let's deal with the more basic things first. You stated before that Time Cube disproves God. Are we making any progress towards explaining this?

Yes, in #What the theory is, proposition 2c (which relates to the 4/16 rotation principle, see #Graphical representation (website)) and in #Argument that all religions are false. What we are discussing here is whether you can justify your religious beliefs.

I missed this before. Yes, that's one thing we are discussing. It's symmetrical as I see it. We are each questioning the other's beliefs, and explaining our own. Andrewa 01:20, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Language is one of the things that your mind is made of. It's one of the most powerful ways of thinking and of course communicating.

Define "mind". It's the WordVirus, right?

Maybe. I use it as another atomic term. IMO the WordVirus is a negative, emotive and generally unhelpful term for part of human consciousness. Whether it is all there is to human consciousness is speculation AFAIK. So it may be, but I don't think it's safe to assume it is.

Define "consciousness".

If you like, I can define consciousness as the processes that constitute the mind. Does that help?

It is only helpful if you define "mind". I think that you are using it to refer to the WordVirus.

In my experience, this word may refer to the WordVirus, or to the state of sentience common to all higher animals (any evidence against this?), or both.

No empirical evidence that I know for or against this. Any that you know?

Well I think it may have been demonstrated that non-human animals do tend to have functioning eyes, ears, nose etc. and they also have a brain, similar to what humans have, so is it so far-fetched to conclude that they may be SENTIENT? If they are not sentient, then when humans became a separate species they must have magically transformed from non-sentient to sentient. Do you think that this was the case, or do you not accept the theories of evolution? Some people (mostly religious) believe that non-human animals are as non-sentient, emotionless robots. Do you think this is the case?

I think that the human species has a unique place and responsibility on Earth, and possibly in the cosmos. That IMO is the main theme of Genesis 1:1 - 2:3.

Bookmark

This does not answer the question,

OK. I thought it had. You asked is it so far-fetched to conclude that they may be SENTIENT? Answer: It depends what you mean by SENTIENT. There's a lot there!

Sentient = the capacity to sense and be conscious of your body and immediate environment.

You then asked If they are not sentient, then when humans became a separate species they must have magically transformed from non-sentient to sentient. Do you think that this was the case, or do you not accept the theories of evolution? Answer: I don't think evolution has anything to do with magic, but as you correctly imply there are several theories of evolution. I accept Origin of Species, it's possibly the best scientific thesis yet written. I haven't yet read The Descent of Man, so I can't comment on that. I don't think that evolution explains the origins of life. So in summary, I accept some but not all theories of evolution.

You asked Some people (mostly religious) believe that non-human animals are as non-sentient, emotionless robots. Do you think this is the case? Answer: No. But I thought this was what you were leading up to with all the previous stuff, and that the answer I gave would be more progress along your line of thought than these direct answers. I was wrong.

So would you agree that higher animals (not so much insects etc.) can see, hear, feel etc. as we do, and the main difference is that they have less intelligence and verbal capacity?

and nor is it helpful since you have not described the exact nature of this "unique place and responsibility".

OK. Let's pursue your line of thought instead. I think we'll get back to this, it will just take a bit longer.

I accept the Theory of Evolution as Darwin described it in Origin of Species, which is one of the most impressive books I have ever read. Obviously you haven't read my Creation Science page too carefully or you would know that. I argue for it very forcefully there.

I don't accept the primeval soup theory of the origin of life, and neither does the scientific community any more. The acceptance of this theory without performing the relevant calculations, and the subsequent teaching of it in science classrooms, is one of the scandals of 20th century science, and one of the things that now fuels the Creation Science movement.

I don't think life formed randomly in a primordial soup, without anything guiding its formation. I think that it evolved from fundamental chemical processes (the most basic form of metabolism) and crystal structures that occurred in the Hadean era. This would involve slightly more complex structures randomly forming, and being able to replicate themselves more efficiently through speeding up the chemical reactions or the crystallisation. I don't think abiogenesis depends upon the unlikely event of a simple bacterium forming spontaneously. Do you reject all theories of abiogenesis?

No. I certainly have grave doubts about the Miller-Urey experiment, but I don't think abiogenesis is incompatible with the Bible, any more than I think the existence of extinct species such as large dinosaurs and other megafauna are incompatible with it.

I am thinking that the complex system of life evolved gradually from chemical systems so simple as to not be considered life. It was not a drastic jump from nothing to something; rather, it was a gradual transition, and it is not really possible to draw a definite line between life and non-life.

Also, can you give evidence for creation science being superior to abiogenesis theories?

No. As my web page says, I regard creation science as a load of well-intentioned rubbish. Abiogenesis theories aren't a lot better yet and the acceptance of the Miller-Urey hypothesis was nothing short of a scandal, but they still aren't quite as bad as creation science.

I think in terms of evolution that something did happen, some watershed that made human beings sentient in a sense that my basset-hound, wonderful companion that she was, was not. But that's a guess. I could be wrong.

Well I see no reason to believe that humans are mentally different from other animals in any way other than the increased intelligence/learning capacity and associated language capabilities.

Agreed. Do you think these are insignificant, from a moral point of view?

In terms of Cubic morality, the capacity for a WordVirus means that the future of humanity is very uncertain; we may well be evil, inducing an armageddon, but there still exists the capacity for Good. Christianity has been a major change in the WordVirus over the past hundred or so generations; perhaps Time Cube is the next big change.

If you are talking about animal rights and such, arbitrary moralities are determined by Word-humans, not by non-word-animals, and as such we may arbitrarily choose to treat animals however we like given that they cannot verbally object to their treatment.

These are related to the physical feature of the opposable thumb that has been able to evolve for optimal use of tools due to the hands not being required for locomotion,

Agree. I think that the hidden ovulation of the human female has a lot to do with it too.

This is something that I do not know about; please explain it.

and I think humans may also have more sophisticated vocal mechanisms.

Agreed that this is connected with the development of human intelligence/learning capacity and associated language capabilities, but my guess is that these are the result of this development. As they developed they further encouraged this development, true.

Yes, all of this evolved together as a system.

As Gene Ray said: "Man is the only evil animal. Man is the only word animal. Word equates instituted evil. Word adultism is anti-child. A 'word god' can be erased. Word brings a Babel curse. Get ready for armageddon. Beliefs equate pornography, for they coexist on the web. There is no damn word god. Truth is physical, word a lie. It is what you do, not utter. Without deed, word starves. Word god lends not a hand."

Advise him to tone it down a bit. As Andrew Alder said, People shout because they can't find any better reason for people to listen to them. The remarkable thing is that most of their listeners know this, and the shouters know they know.

I don't think it is about the reasoning; rather, it is about the predominant irrationality of the intended audience. Dr Ray must be strident for his discovery to transcend obscurity; now that it has done so, people like me can learn about it and realise that it is quite rational and substantiated.

Bookmark

Also, why do you consider the term "WordVirus" to be emotive? Have I not demonstrated a strong analogy between the WordVirus and biological virii? Maybe it is just that my description contradicts your Christian worldview, thus causing negative emotions.

I consider it emotive because the term virus is normally used to describe something bad (not always, the GPL is a viral licence). Yes, you have demonstrated this analogy. And maybe that's wishful thinking on your part.

Words can be evil, certainly. They can be malicious, they can be confusing, they can be ill-considered, they can be hurtful, they can be used to manipulate and control. But other words can be loving, clarifying, well-considered, empowering and healing. Words can be wonderful.

But you are referring to Christian morality here, right?

Wrong. I'm looking for common ground.

I don't know whether "common ground" is relevant, since my impression of Christian morality is that it is just arbitrary doctrine that people unquestioningly accept, whereas true Cubic morality is determined by considering trends and evaluating what is most likely to perpetuate rather than bomb out.

Common ground is relevant to any discussion IMO. It's just those things that are common to my belief system and yours.

Bookmark

(Extra indenting added to indicate the chronology)

Well I don't see any common ground. I have stated some evidence for Time Cube and there is more of it that I may state in future, but I haven't yet seen any real evidence for your JudeoChristian WordGod belief and associated messianic worship.

Agreed that there are differences. But you see no common ground between our belief systems?

No I can't really see any common ground. Can you see any?

Bookmark

But I think it would be best to look for underlying commonalities rather than ostensible similarities.

Agree.

I consider any notions of morality not derived directly from rational thought to be worthless, even if they are quite similar to morality that is derived from rational thought. The former can be easily corrupted, since, unlike the latter, it has no validation mechanism.

This thought is what George Moore called the naturalistic fallacy. I agree with Moore.

The dinosaurs lasted many millions of years, while mammals are a recent arrival. So, by the standards of Cubic morality, would the dinosaurs be morally superior? Or would the mammals? Or neither (as I would say)?

The smaller dinosaurs that survived and evolved into birds were superior to the larger dinosaurs that were extinguished by the random change in conditions. Climate changes and changes in the overall balance of nature, both sudden and gradual, mean that standards are continually changing for life on Earth. I'd say any higher animal that could survive the climate change that extinguished most of the dinosaurs is superior to the dinosaurs. In any case, both dinosaurs and mammals have been capable of perpetuating and evolving for millions of generations. The WordVirus, especially in its modern form, has not yet demonstrated any such capability.

Interesting. I don't see either as morally superior.

Bookmark

Well you are probably thinking in terms of Christian morality. In terms of true Cubic morality, good is what perpetuates and evolves for many thousands of generations, and evil is what fails to do this and is extinguished by the Time Cube. There are ways in which we could measure how good a species is; for instance, we can see if it perpetuates and evolves enough such that it spawns a new species. Now a tiny colony of bacteria could perpetuate for a million years, but although that would mean they were good to some extent, it wouldn't really be significant. I think we can determine how significant a species is by measuring the amount of energy transfer it causes.

Interesting. So, how are these moral values applied to everyday life?

We should evaluate what sort of lifestyle is most likely to allow humanity to perpetuate and evolve into the future, and then we should try to begin a transition towards this ideal lifestyle. Examples are being more economic with natural resources and avoiding hivemind groupthink.

I'd be wary of relying on any current definition of species. This was a brilliant concept in its day, and the launching platform for Darwin, but cracks are now appearing in the whole concept. The whole traditional taxonomy of biology is about to be thrown out the window IMO.

Bookmark

When Dr Ray uses words like "evil", he's actually referring to true Cubic morality, where Good is what perpetuates and evolves (eg. crocodile) and Evil is what bombs out after only a small number of generations (eg. Roman empire).

Hmmmm... Gene Ray awarded himself this doctorate, according to the Wikipedia article. (I hope he didn't also award himself a pilot's licence and a diploma in brain surgery.) You accept this qualification, I take it?

Yes. Society has means of assessing the ability of people in the fields you mentioned, but in regard to Cubicism, as Gene Ray said: "educators are ignorant of Nature's Harmonic Time Cube Principle and cannot bestow the prestigious honor of wisdom upon the wisest human ever.".

Interesting.

Do you know any wonderful words? What are they?

Again I guess you are using "wonderful" in the context of Christian morality, but if we consider it in terms of true Cubic morality then I'd say Gene Ray's writings are Good, and possibly so are my explanations of Time Cube.

And again you guess wrong. I am using it in the context of whatever words you value.

Well then, as I said, I would consider Cubic scriptures to be Good.

Why?

Because the Time Cube is the greatest social and scientific discovery of humanity, and the only thing that can save humanity and Nature from complete self-destruction and annihilation. Time Cube is the Theory of Everything; there is nothing that you cannot know through it.

However, there seem as yet to be no testable predictions at all.

Bookmark

Testable predictions are not required, as I explained in #Predictive theories. You agreed that the belief that a theory must necessarily have testable predictions in order to be true is mere unsubstantiated Academian dogma.

I certainly didn't mean to agree to this. I think you may be paraphrasing me rather badly here.

I think that Time Cube is favoured by Occam's Razor over the multitude of unconnected theories worshipped by Academians.

So four days is a simpler explanation of the Earth's rotation than one, in your view?

No, but that is merely part of the theory; I am talking about the whole Time Cube theory, and the entire set of Academian beliefs. Furthermore, 4 days includes the 1-day theory within it. You can arbitrarily select one of the 4 days and falsely claim it is the only day in order to achieve self-aggrandisation.

Bookmark

We seem agreed that not all words are evil.

If so, then the next question is, how do we decide which words are good, and which are evil?

By using our knowledge and analytical skills to determine what beliefs and cultures are most likely to perpetuate for a long time. By doing this we may pre-empt the Time Cube's ultimate judgement.

OK. So, by these standards, what is good about the Cubic scriptures? (This is the same question I ask above I think.)

Well, what would give a species the greatest advantage in natural selection: having an accurate understanding of how nature works and how natural selection will apply to them, or having an inaccurate understanding of this?

The accurate understanding.

I think that the former would be more advantageous; it is better to know the Truth than to believe erroneous WordLies.

Agreed.

So Time Cube is Good because it allows humans to gain an elementary understanding the Ineffable Cubic Truth of the Universe, which will ultimately determine our fate.

It's not obvious that it does this. I'd expect it to make some testable predictions if so.

Bookmark

Well I'd say that it is unreasonable to demand testable predictions in cases where a theory may be validated through other means. As I have said, if we do demand them then a theory developed before certain related observations were made would be considered valid if it predicted the observations, whereas the same theory formulated after all related observations were made would be considered invalid because even if it perfectly matched the observations, it would not be predictive.

No. It would be considered validated. The difference between valid and validated is important.

So a non-predictive theory that matches all the observations is considered valid, right? We can validate theories by Occam's razor too.

A research team evaluating the Time Cube might be able to discover some Cubic predictions, but they are not necessary; the belief that they are necessary is but Academic dogma, as I said above.

Then, why do you demand such evidence for Christian dogmas, but not for those you hold yourself?

That is not the case; I am giving evidence and reasoning in support of Time Cube.

Bookmark

However, many of Jesus' other teachings contradict Time Cube.

Can you give an example?

Matthew 5:38-44 "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you ..."

What does this mean? It sounds like Jesus was trying to persuade people to repress their negative emotions (now was he just conveying the "word of god" or did he have an ulterior motive?). But the fact is that negative emotions were naturally evolved, and therefore, to repress them equates to a fictitious anti-nature evil. For instance, Communism is a proposed social system in which there is no competition between people; I think it complies with the above Christian philosophy. Can you give me an example of a stable communist society?

I'll answer the last question first. No. Can you give me an example of a stable society? And, are you assuming that stability is good?

I guess you're saying that all large civilisations tend to be unstable, and this is true, but the point is that if this Christian/communist attitude is Good (and yes, stability is good because it allows the society to perpetuate and evolve for a long time) then surely it should be possible to form a stable society based on it. So I would consider the many failures to create stable communist societies to be evidence that this Christian philosophy isn't Good.

Generally, the only stable communities are those where people live in a more natural state, which involves smaller communities and absence of advanced technology, eg. Australian aborigines prior to white settlement.

So, do you then think that these communities are in some way superior?

Yes, because they have perpetuated in harmony for thousands of generations. Modern civilisation has not yet done so, and moreover, current trends including high population growth rates, depletion and pollution of natural resources, and WMD proliferation, indicate that it may quite possibly fail to do so.

I've lived on an aboriginal community, as a volunteer electrician's mate doing some work for them. The leaders there had two main priorities: Modern western medical care, and western style housing. Food for thought?

Bookmark

No because I've already thought about this; many aboriginal cultures have been corrupted by the white influence, and therefore may no longer be Good. I doubt that any aborigines would have had these two priorities at any time before the European colonisation of Australia. I wonder what the aboriginal leaders in question would say if asked whether they thought they really needed things that their community had survived and perpetuated without for 40,000 years.

This seems to be basically Rousseau's idea of the noble savage. Can you understand the anger that these people feel when such theories are preached by whitefellas who have generous access to houses and hospitals themselves?

Uncorrupted aborigines several centuries ago wouldn't have felt any anger at these theories, as they would not understand the English language, nor understand the sophisticated technology. As I said, the aborigines have been corrupted and therefore may no longer be good. The uncorrupted aborigines didn't need any western technology at all, although the current corrupted ones may.

Bookmark

As to what it means, it seems fairly obvious to me. I don't think Jesus is talking about repression in the modern psychological sense at all. Rather, he is talking about what we would call therapy.

So how does Christianity allow people to express their negative emotions? If it doesn't, then I'd say there is some repression occurring.

Certainly it does. One of the sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church is penance. In my Protestant church, early in every service we have a prayer of confession.

OK. However, there is still the issue of whether Christianity will survive into the future, see further down.

I'm glad you want to refer to the Bible, but there seems little point if you regard it as not being evidence. So we need to work that out as a priority.

I don't see why I should consider it evidence any more than I would consider a book of fairy-tales to be evidence.

Aren't there any circumstances under which a book of fairy-tales would be evidence?

I'm serious here. I know you mean it to be a parody, but I think if you follow this to its conclusion you'll get a surprise.

It depends what sort of evidence you are talking about, and what the evidence is supposed to show. If you are claiming that the Bible is evidence for the existence of a mystical man in the sky, then I could just as well say that a book of fairy-tales is evidence for the existence of giant beanstalks. If you consider it to be some other sort of evidence then please specify what sort of evidence this is and what it is supposed to show.

You still haven't answered the question. That's a shame, I think it would have made the next step a lot easier. But let's continue.

Bookmark

Actually I was attempting to give a relevant answer to the question by first clarifying it. Anyway you already answered it above by saying that fairy-tales could be "evidence of certain beliefs and traditions". The historical descriptions in the Bible may be somewhat accurate but I wouldn't really accept them without some corroborating evidence, such as archeological data or independent historical accounts from the same time period. I think some corroborating evidence has been found supporting the historical elements of the Bible, but I know of no evidence supporting the supernatural elements.

I've already expressed the opinion that there can be no evidence of the sort you seem to want. There are reports of supernatural phenomena occurring today, and I have personally witnessed and received such blessings, but they can all be explained in other ways as well.

Well you can't rationally claim that your beliefs are true if there is no concrete evidence and reasoning supporting them. Believing them may make you feel good, but I don't think that means they're true.

The Bible is an account of how God worked with various people, most notably Jesus. It is written in many different genres of literature. It shows people who want to learn about God what he is like and what he requires of them. It's so effective at this that people call it things like "the Word of the Lord" and venerate it (not so consistently as Moslems do the Koran I admit), and make all sorts of overstatements of the sort I've mentioned previously.

But I sympathise with them. I think of the Bible (all of it) as a speech act of God, but that's a fairly recent and sophisticated concept.

But how can we know that the bible is true?

See #is the Bible true.

I have already explained why it could easily be fictitious. JRR Tolkien's books are effective in giving people clear and detailed images of a fantasy world and events therein; that doesn't mean he was writing the truth. He was actually using Words to convey a distorted version of reality. So why isn't it possible that the Bible is doing the same?

It's possible. It doesn't seem the best explanation to me. I don't think people interpret The Hobbit or The Lord of the Rings as revealing the deepest truths of the universe.

The universe itself must reveal its truths to us. Dr Ray's Cubic scriptures tell us how to see them.

Its historical descriptions may be accurate, but I know of no means of validating its verbal descriptions of supernatural phenomena.

See above.

Bookmark

Not everything that is natural is good. I support the campaigns to combat AIDS and malaria, both of them natural diseases, one fairly modern, the other older than homo sapiens. Surely, you wouldn't regard either of them as good?

AIDS may be evil since it has only recently begun infecting many humans, but since malaria has existed for a long time and has perpetuated in harmony with humans and other animals, we may conclude that it is indeed Good. Now of course I wouldn't be too happy if I were infected with malaria, but I am not inclined towards destroying the balance of nature and leaving a barren earth for the children in light of such sentiment.

So, do you oppose the eradication of malaria?

How is malaria being eradicated? It's probably through fictitious manmade means, which could upset the balance of nature. Yes I do oppose the technological eradication of malaria, just as I would oppose Hitler's technological eradication of humans of Semitic ethnicity.

Eradication of malaria and provision of clean drinking water are the two key issues that my friends who work there identify as important to Third World development. Bill Gates recently gave a large sum of money to a program designed to eradicate malaria. It sounds to me as if you would oppose this particular program.

Bookmark

My opposition would be directed not so much towards that particular program but towards the overall evil 1-corner Word-enslaved culture that brought it into existence.

It seems to have finally brought a difference in the way we would act that we can trace to our beliefs. I see the eradication of malaria as a good thing. You see it as an evil thing. Is that a fair summary?

Yes. I'd actually say that it's PROBABLY evil -- there is a small chance it could be good, I don't know for sure. But if I had to choose between it being good or evil, I would say that it's evil.

Bookmark

Let's start out with the most basic of Christian values, love. I believe that love is very worthwhile. What is your view?

Define "love".

Better people than I have attempted to define love. Bertrand Russel wrote two thick volumes defining the number 2. I think you have far too much faith in definitions. That's old-fashioned.

I am not looking for an absolute definition. I am asking what YOU mean when YOU say "love". I regard "love" as a very vague term that can mean many things.

Confucius said to rank the effort above the prize; this then may be called love. I like that obviously. I don't think a definition will help much, and I don't rely on any definition when I use the word. I know about love because I have experienced it. Have you?

Bookmark

Below, you say that "love" encompasses "something else" not encompassed by emotions and the WordVirus. I know that I have not experienced any "love" that is not part of natural emotions or the WordVirus, therefore I have not experienced the "love" that you refer to. I think that you can define your concept of "love" to some extent by detailing your own experiences of it.

I'll have a go, perhaps not right now. There are many writers who do a far better job of it than I can. That's another reason for reading the Bible. If my words are useful, those of the acknowledged experts such as St John, St Paul, St James and of course Jesus himself are likely to be even more useful than mine. Are you interested in what they have to say too?

Yes, possibly. I think that unless their claims could be somehow independently verified, then what they write could only serve as a clarification of my own experiences; things that I already know.

To what extent does it refer to emotions experienced by humans and other animals, and to what extent does it refer to the WordVirus?

I don't know. I suspect it covers parts of both, and something else as well. Good question. I think it's unsafe to assume that these two aspects of it are all that there is to love.

OK, well I don't know exactly what this "something else" is, so how about you explain it to me; or, failing that, explain how you know that it exists.

I don't know that either. I'm speculating here.

Well, what makes you speculate about this "something else"? Have you experienced it yourself -- if so, give details -- or was it just that the Bible or other religious teachings taught you about it but there is no real evidence for it?

Good question, and revealingly phrased. Of course the Bible is real evidence of the nature of love, especially in Western culture where its influence on the subject has been enormous. Its historical accuracy may be questioned, and I encourage you to do this. Even the accuracy of its claims about love may be questioned, and I encourage this too. But to question its relevance to the topic of love is a waste of time. It's clearly relevant.

Why should I consider the bible EVIDENCE of the nature of love? I'd say it is merely a description, which could possibly aid in finding and understanding the evidence. I didn't say that it didn't pertain to love, I said that I do not consider it to be real/legitimate evidence.

I speculate because your question seemed (to what extent...) seemed speculative. I can't give evidence of this something else, and if I could it wouldn't be speculation. Have you any evidence it doesn't exist? The topic came up because your question seemed to assume that there is nothing more, but gave no reason for this assumption.

The reason is that I am quite sure that all my experiences can be explained in natural terms, such as emotions and the WordVirus. Maybe "something else" does exist, but unless I can clearly perceive it somehow, or reason that it must exist, then it is irrelevant to me. Hell, you haven't even attempted to explain what this "something else" is, so I'm not going to be worrying about such nebulous possibilities.

I'd say that ALL emotions are "worthwhile", including the ones not covered by "love".

So in your view, is hatred as good as love?

Again, unless you define "hatred" and "love", this question will remain but a meaningless cliche to me. As I said, humans should have a balance of all emotions, including but not limited to those covered by "hatred" and "love".

Do you really need definitions of hatred and love? Aren't they clear enough concepts?

Well I would regard "love" as covering a range of different positive emotions and "hatred" as covering a range of negative emotions. I find your question too vague; the best answer I can give is as I said above: "humans should have a balance of all emotions, including but not limited to those covered by "hatred" and "love"". That is, I think that what is GOOD is for humans to have a balance of emotions. I cannot give a more specific answer until the question is made more specific and clear.

Well, there's another difference. I think love is good and hatred is evil. You seem to think that they are equally good, and that love is only good if balanced by hatred.

I'd say that neither is good alone. A completely loving person wouldn't have any motivation to surpass their current state, and a completely sad/hateful person wouldn't have any satisfaction and would not appreciate any progress they made. A balance must exist; the balance is what is Good.

Bookmark

Your reply isn't very helpful in determining the validity of your evidence, so maybe you can post or link to the testimonies you referred to, and I can evaluate them.

OK. I've already provided the names of three Christians that I guessed might be people you respect. You haven't made any comment on any of them yet. For a start, do you accept as a fact that they are Christians?

Well from reading the Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Desmond Tutu articles it appears that they are Christians so I guess I can accept that, however I couldn't find any statements about Christianity in the Nelson Mandela article.

Wikipedia is not always the best source of information, and it certainly shouldn't be your only source. Even the whole World Wide Web doesn't contain all human knowledge. Mandela in his autobiography gives the credit for his role in overthrowing apartheid to his Christian faith. But he has elsewhere been circumspect in promoting it. I would guess this is because it is important to his role (which continues despite his personal retirement) for him to retain the support of those of other faiths, especially followers of Islam. But let's just concentrate on Bonhoeffer and Tutu, since you seem to have accepted their faith as a fact.

I think these are two examples of exceptionally good people who are also authorities on the theory behind their actions. Again, I mean good not in a Christian sense, but in whatever sense we can agree to use the term. They are intelligent, perceptive and honest witnesses on matters of faith, and well qualified in theology. What do you think?

I'd like to know if they can give rational justification for their beliefs. It may be that they choose to follow Christianity simply because it makes them feel good. But if everyone in the world decided to do nothing other than take drugs for the rest of their lives in the interests of making themselves feel good, humanity would not benefit.

You're speculating, and not very usefully. A society entirely composed of "heads" would most likely starve. A society composed entirely of Christians seems at least able to feed itself.

But could such a society perpetuate for a long time? See further down.

It may be that the people you mentioned happen to have a genetic-induced temperament that complies with how a good Christian should behave.

You're still speculating.

OK, well if everyone in the world is capable of being a good Christian then why isn't everyone Christian?

I don't know. The standard theological answer is sin, but I don't think that answers the question of why some people become Christians and others don't.

Bookmark

Well I think that my explanation of different genetic temperaments is a good answer. If everyone has the same temperament and Christianity is the best way to find fulfillment then surely all non-christians would recognise their lack of fulfillment and would therefore be willing to convert to Christianity.

And many are. Christianity is the fastest growing major religion in the world at present. But I don't think this is a good reason for adopting it, any more than I think being raised in a particular culture is a good reason. There have been times and places when the numbers of Christians plummeted, and the number is dropping in Australia as I write. But at those times, it isn't valid for people to say everyone else is giving it up, guess we better go with the flow.

Well it is valid if the reason they chose it in the first place was because "everyone's doing it". Those with better reasons would be more resistant to change. I certainly didn't choose to support Time Cube due to popularity, since the popular beliefs are in fact anti-Cubic.

Furthermore, do you think that all the Christians in the world are good Christians?

Hmmmm, well yes in a way they are, assuming that they are sincere. But bear in mind that we all stuff up from time to time. That's what I observe, and what the Bible says too. Some stuff-ups seem worse than others, but they're all evil. So we're all good Christians, but none of us are perfect Christians. And the question of who is really a Christian is between God and the person themselves.

I'd say there are many who claim faith in Christ but are not very knowledgeable about Christ's teachings and often fail to act according to them.

Agreed. And Jesus warns that many will claim to be his followers but he will disown them. That's in the Bible too of course. But it seems to me that it's not the knowledge or belief that is the requirement of Christianity, the issue more that of obedience. When people say how do I know what God is telling me, in my experience this normally means that they have a pretty good idea and are looking for excuses not to do it.

I think I have a pretty good idea of Christian morality but as yet I see no reason to take it seriously, as I do not know of any good reason to believe that God exists.

If you wish to answer this question, one way is to ask How would the universe look if God did exist, and how would it look if he didn't, and what are the differences?

I am not sure how to determine that, as the universe must be either one or the other; how can we know what the other one would look like?

Bookmark

Do you think that everyone in the world would be able to act like these people, were they indoctrinated into Christianity?

I don't think it's possible to be indoctrinated into true Christianity. It needs to be your own free choice, that's pretty basic theology.

But to answer your question, they wouldn't act exactly like them of course, but I think that any person who accepts Christianity acts the better for it. With some there is more room for improvement than others! Mahatma Ghandi and Ludwig Wittgenstein were both very saintly people IMO, and neither was a Christian. On the other hand Adolph Hitler was never excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church, so some would regard him as a Christian.

But is everyone really capable of accepting Christianity?

Good question. I don't know.

And there is still the issue of whether what you consider to be "good" will actually turn out to be good in the long run. My impression of Hitler is that he was also quite saintly. As far as I know, he adhered quite well to the morals he believed in; however, I would consider much of his morality to be Cubeless.

I think most Christians would regard Hitler as a mass murderer and a very evil man.

Bookmark

I must say that I hold some Christians in similar regard. Following an arbitrary set of morals and feeling good about it doesn't necessarily mean your actions will ultimately be good (it may be that Time Cube has preselected you for extinction and your positive emotions are linked to actions that are likely to lead to your extinction). I'd say that without any validation mechanism, systems of morality will most likely be Evil.

That's another difference then. I regard Hitler as an evil man. You regard him as quite saintly.

To clarify, in terms of Cubic morality, I regard him as Evil, not Good. By "saintly", I meant that he adhered well to the Cubeless Nazi morality that he believed in.

But then again, the Bible tells as that three of the biggest heroes, Moses, David and Paul, were all guilty of murder. With David in particular it was in the most reprehensible of circumstances, the others had some mitigating circumstances. We all stuff up sometimes.

Hitler may have "stuffed up" according to Christian morality, but this is not necessarily the case in regard to the morality that he believed in. As I have explained, I consider both Christian and Nazi morality to be arbitrary and therefore worthless.

So on what is your morality based?

It is based on "Good" being actions that are likely to help humanity perpetuate and evolve for millions of years, and "Evil" being actions that are likely to cause humanity to bomb out.

Bookmark

I'd say there are many people whose DNA does not facilitate a lack of negative emotions, and therefore it would not be possible for everyone to become true Christians.

That sounds like more speculation. But there's room for a lot of negatives in Christianity. Jesus commended the man who prayed Lord have mercy on me, a sinner, and another who exclaimed I do believe, help my unbelief. Paul complained the good I would do, I do not. (Of course you must reject all these claims as irrelevant, as you don't yet regard the Bible as evidence.)

I do not regard the Bible as evidence for the existence of God or any other supernatural phenomena. However I do accept it as a description of the morality adhered to by at least fundamentalist Christians.

I think that's wrong in two senses. Firstly, I think it's more than that, see below. Secondly, in my experience fundamentalist Christians don't obey the Bible very well at all. They tend instead to use it to justify their own cultural prejudices. That's not listening to God!

Also, I'm thinking that Christianity is merely a cult that is dependent on mainstream, non-Christian society in order to survive. Are there any totally independent societies consisting entirely of true Christians?

In that most of the Western world is now scarily interdependent, probably not. The Amish might come as close as anyone. But you could just as easily claim that agnosticism and atheism are cults dependent on Christianity. What would the USA do for presidents if all the Christians refused nomination? (;->

I don't think agnosticism and atheism are cults or religions. There could be cults based on or involving them, but in themselves they are not complete belief systems with supporting social structures, nor do they dictate any morality.

Agree sort of. I think everyone has something that takes the place of religion. If they choose to call it a religion, they can discuss and examine it. If they choose to call it something else, then they can explain it, and then discuss it. But if they deny having any beliefs other than those that they can prove scientifically, which seems to be the central belief of most atheists and agnostics, then they can't discuss these other beliefs at all. This may give them a feeling of security, but it also means they can't gain any self-knowledge in spiritual matters, so IMO it's a sad thing.

Bookmark

I have yet to see evidence for the "self" encompassing anything more than emotions, sentience (awareness of environment/surroundings) and the WordVirus. I think these are all scientifically investigable, even if not by mainstream Academian science, so I don't see any reason why atheists couldn't gain "self-knowledge". If by "spiritual" you are referring to unsubstantiated religious beliefs, then I know I don't feel particularly sad about people not gaining such "spiritual" knowledge. In my case, what takes the place of religion is RATIONAL THOUGHT.

OK. I disagree, arrogant as that may seem. I think that there is something more to your self, something that you don't acknowledge and therefore can't examine. This something gives you faith in rational thought. That's what I think takes the place of religion for you.

Well, hopefully you will describe this "something" at some point, so that I can know what you're talking about.

Bookmark

In the past there have been such societies. The Pilgrim Fathers come to mind. But this may never happen again.

Well from your description it sounds like these societies only existed for a short time (at most, 2000 years or so). So I would consider their failure to perpetuate to be more evidence that Christianity is not Good.

I haven't yet looked for testimonies on the Web, by them or anyone else. I'm sure there are many and that they aren't all that difficult to find, but I'm still wondering what sort of evidence will be most helpful to you. That's my main problem. We seem to go off on a lot of tangents as it is, and I'd prefer not to refer you to something that is unhelpful. And, it may be that the best evidence for you is not yet on the Web.

I want empirical evidence and logic rather than just verbal assertions, which can be inaccurate, as I explained above.

As I have said several times now, there is no empirical evidence for the existence of God, and there can be none, because science assumes that there is no supernatural action. That is one of the limitations of science. The existence of God is not something science can prove either way, because God's inaction is an assumption that underlies science.

Empirical evidence can also be inaccurate. But more to the point, it's not the only evidence. And, where there is no empirical evidence, we have two possible courses of action. Either we can look for other evidence, or we can resign ourselves to not knowing either way.

If God is not observable, then how can you possibly know of his existence?

God is observable in the most general sense, but he is not observable in the scientific sense.

OK, so exactly how is he observable, other than through the Bible, which I have justifiably rejected as evidence in this regard? How do you know that there is really a mystical man in the sky?

I don't think of God as a mystical man in the sky. I observe him at work in others, in the beauty of nature, and in the way he responds to my love and worship of him.

Bookmark

Well I described God as a "mystical man in the sky" to clarify the concept, but now you have said that you think differently of God, and your description of how you actually think of him is not very clear, so I think you need to clarify it. How do you know when God is responsible for people's actions; how can you tell that their actions are due to God and not a natural cause? How exactly does he communicate to you when he responds?

Sometimes he will arrange things to happen in a way that I can recognise as God-influenced. Sometimes I'm even aware of his words to me. That is rare for me, and I think very rare in our day and age. It has been more common in some (but certainly not all) past ages.

Please give some specific examples.

Now I don't think Nature necessarily complies with your concept of God. If God wants you to experience only positive emotions, which he deems Good, and doesn't want you to experience the evil negative emotions, then I would think that when he created Nature he would have used his omnipotence to ensure that it was free of negative emotions and only induced good emotions. But I think that nature can induce negative emotions; imagine yourself approaching a crocodile, which you would regard as one of God's creatures. Most likely, the crocodile would attack you on the basis of its territorial instincts, and also its hunting instincts depending on its hunger level. Surely such an attack would give you negative emotions? I think there are many other natural things that could also induce negative emotions, including other animals and plants that are poisonous or could otherwise cause injury.

I think all of this is what C. S. Lewis called The Problem of Pain. In a nutshell, the problem is: Why doesn't a good and powerful God wipe out suffering? At least for Christians? I agree it's a problem. I don't have an answer.

Well, I prefer to base my beliefs on reality, and only accept beliefs if they reflect reality and sound reasoning based thereon. Do you think God would be OK with this?

Why did God create pain and suffering? Since he is omnipotent I can only conclude that he wanted there to be negative emotions, for if he didn't then he wouldn't have created them, would he? Another way of putting this is if God doesn't approve of Evil, then why did he create evil? Surely he could have created a universe free of sin. I once asked another Christian these questions and he said that God intended the bad things to be overcome, but he didn't stick around to explain what special purpose would be served by the act of overcoming them and why creating an evil-free universe in the first place would not suffice. Maybe you give me an answer to these questions.

The Bible doesn't say that God created evil, pain or suffering. It describes its coming in Genesis 2, but where it came from is vague and paradoxical.

Maybe it came from something else on the same level on which God exists, but that would mean God wouldn't have supreme control over the universe.

Bookmark

Some of these others are described in the Bible, including Jesus of course but not only him. So I think you've rejected the Bible prematurely, as I said before. I assume here that by reject you mean you have no opinion one way or the other, as below.

By "reject" I mean "regard as an invalid belief and not believe".

As Dr. Ray said: "Educators are Liars. If God is not measurable, He is Fictitious. Without Cubic Creation, Life is Fictitious."

I think he was having another joke at your expense there. Isn't he claiming to be an educator himself, by awarding himself a PhD?

No, he was claiming to be a researcher and theorist, and by "educators" he was referring to mainstream Academians who brainwash and indoctrinate children with 1-corner Cubeless lies.

Interesting. Are these his ideas, or yours?

It is based on what he says on his websites, in his radio/tv/web interviews and in emails.

Is love fictitious in your opinion? If not, is it measurable?

Love, as I understand it, is measurable in terms of electrochemical processes in the brain, and in terms of how the WordVirus functions in the brain.

Any evidence of this?

Yes I think that Academians working in the field of psychology have to a large extent measured or quantified emotions through their of research into the functioning of the brain; and much of the functioning of the WordVirus is fairly self-evident. By contrast, I don't think there is any evidence for your religious notions of love.

Does this mean that love was fictitious until the EEG was developed?

No. There was always the potential for it to be measured, regardless of whether anyone wanted to or had the means to do so.

What is the nature of this "other evidence"? You made a rather patronising comment above about me not understanding your theology, so maybe you should explain some of it to me such that I can understand exactly what you're talking about.

I'm sorry you found my comment patronising. At least I didn't accuse you of having been brainwashed.

But if you think you are not brainwashed then why is it that you claimed to believe in something that you yourself acknowledged to be illogical?

I didn't. Any more than mathematicians use the concepts of range and domain in the way you asked me to explain to you a while ago.

OK, well you can discuss this in the relevant places.

Some of this evidence (as I have said before) is testimonies of others who know more theology than I do. I suspect that is the best place to start. If you're interested, an excellent introduction to theology at a very basic level is the Alpha course. It's based on some videos by Nikki Gumbel. Or have you seen them? What did you think of them?

No I have not seen these videos. Are they on the web?

Not that I know of. Ask your local church or Christian bookshop. I'm not suggesting you buy them, just that they would probably know when they would be shown locally. I'm quite prepared to defend anything that Nicky Gumbel says in them.

I notice that you have ignored the following two questions.

There is no third option I can see, and I choose to look for other evidence. I know of Cubic evidence against God, and if you know of any evidence supporting God then you can explain it to me.

What is this evidence?

I am explaining it to you in #What the theory is.

Bookmark

Is there a third option that you can see?

If not, which of these will you choose?

This isn't helped by the fact that you seem to be a lot more interested in asking me questions than in answering mine, and at speculating on what I might think rather than in telling me what you think. This really should cut both ways. We need to each answer the other's questions, and express our own views, for the discussion to work best. Andrewa 10:25, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well if there are any questions that you don't think I've answered adequately, then post them again so I can respond to them.

I've indicated some of these above and below, and asked some new ones. It shouldn't be hard to find the other unanswered questions if you want to answer them too. Andrewa 04:28, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Cosmogeny

See User talk:andrewa/archive4#Cosmogeny for previous discussion

Yes I know about the existence of black holes, but what's this theory about the universe being "bounded" by them, and what exactly does it have to do with perpetuality?

The universe is not bounded by black holes, but the same mathematics which suggests that black holes exist similarly suggests that the universe is bounded by other things of the same type. Hawking calls them all singularities.

OK, well from your description "bounded by singularities beyond which we can't say what exists or doesn't exist" it sounds like Hawking's theory doesn't cover all of space. But due to my rejection of the notion of infinity, I conclude that space must fold back on itself. Maybe this supposed boundary of singularities will prevent us from ever observing this.

I missed this comment before, but see below on the notion of infinity. Andrewa 19:29, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

But from the explanation of Hoyle's theory in the article, isn't he saying that the universe is always expanding? Doesn't the notion of the universe getting bigger and bigger forever represent a non-cyclical linear trend?

Yes, but not one that violates the perfect cosmological principle. Hoyle postulated that matter was continously created between the galaxies. His calculations showed that this violation of conservation laws would be far too small to be experimentally detected at the time. And so at the time it was a good model.

Doesn't thermodynamics provide another example of a non-cyclical linear trend? Einstein described thermodynamics as the one subject that I am convinced will, within the limits of its assumptions, never be overthrown.

What if entropy accumulates to the point where it ceases to be entropy?

That would be a singularity. But the equations of thermodynamics don't have any such points. They do have one singularity, but that's not it.

Well I'm thinking of space folding back on itself, in accordance with the rejection of the notion of infinity. So, neglecting the influence of other gravitational bodies, light from the Sun would radiate all the way across Space before eventually converging back at the region from which it originated. So if most of the galaxies in the universe were converted to background energy, this energy could converge approximately where it originated and start forming a significant concentration of new matter particles (random photon-to-matter conversion).

Interesting thought. But it seems speculative. What is it based on? Andrewa 04:28, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It is based on the rejection of infinity -- see #What the theory is, Proposition 4e -- and the necessity of universal perpetuality due to the rejection of higher levels of existence.

OHO! Missed this before too. OK, I think we're really getting somewhere here.

Again you have gone from an argument rejecting something on the grounds of no evidence to affirming that it is false. You can't do this. It's known as arguing from the silence. In the absence of evidence either way, the correct conclusion is that we don't know.

But this is contradictory.

How?

You cannot be satisfied with not knowing -- "we don't know" -- if you really value knowledge as you have claimed.

It depends what you mean by satisfied. If the truth is that we don't know, then I will accept the truth. What's the alternative?

I think in this instance, it is silly to think of this incomprehensible concept of infinite space as being a possibility. We are trying to comprehend the universe, so let's choose the comprehensible model. If we take a volume of space that doesn't fold back on itself, then we have the problem of their being more space than that, ad infinitum. We need not believe in infinity given the alternative of the finite space that folds back on itself.

What's the point of gaining knowledge in the first place?

Excellent question. I believe that knowledge is good, and that ignorance is evil. Consequently, gaining knowledge is good, and deception is evil.

In regard to true Cubic morality, this is consistent with my statement in #What counts as evidence? about knowledge being advantageous to the WordVirus. However, the knowledge in question must be empirical -- unobservable phenomena are philosophically irrelevant and do not count.

This second attempt to respond I think highlights both our common values and our basic difference. We both have faith in science, and in its empirical method. But in your case this is blind faith. You don't know why you believe it. In my case, I examine critically not just what I believe, but also why I believe it.

I don't believe in the Academian conventions being absolute; I believe in the reality in which I exist, and I believe in it because it is the context in which I exist. I only believe in Academian science to the extent to which it succeeds in modelling reality.

It is to satisfy our natural instincts of curiosity, the instincts that cause us to investigate and learn about our environment. These instincts were naturally evolved; they represent the fundamental laws of the universe. To ultimately satisfy these instincts, we must fully explain and link together everything we can observe. But to have faith in philosophically irrelevant concepts -- those that cannot possibly be observed -- equates to a suppression of these instincts. This is the fundamental evil of religion.

What evidence have you for any of this?

You can observe curiosity instincts impelling primates and other animals to gain knowledge about their environment. The second sentence I think you agree with, as you said you believe in evolution and I'm sure that if any species had instincts or anything else that didn't comply with the fundamental laws of the universe, they would have been extinguished. Third sentence is self-evident, and I think that your statement elsewhere that there is no hope of ever creating a T.O.E. highlights the nihilism inherent to your Christian belief. In regard to the fourth sentence, we must ask how your God belief constitutes knowledge. If there is no evidence for it, then it is a mere unsubstantiated belief, and I'd say that rejecting knowledge in favour of such beliefs does indeed equate to suppression of curiosity instincts. In regard to the fifth sentence, I think that suppressing natural instincts would most likely be Evil, as if we upset the balance of Nature it is quite probable that negative consequences will result.

I think this really means "none". But there's a lot here. In justifying the first sentence I don't think you have addressed the causal question. The second is oversimplified. The third misquotes me. The fourth is a good question which we are pursuing elsewhere. The fifth is again oversimplified, although I agree with the last clause.

I think the evidence I have given is sufficient; I do not require a peer-reviewed Academian proof of anything, just reasoning that reflects aspects of reality that I can experience and perceive. Also, I think we can achieve a TOE, but not total omniscience.

So by "reject" I do not mean "believe to be false"; I mean "NOT believe to be true".

Understood.

Now if we have a theory of everything that explains and fully links together everything and doesn't include anything unobservable, then we can evaluate the unobservable beliefs on the basis thereof.

Understood.

Remember, it is possible for beliefs to be fictitious.

That has never been in dispute. IMO Time Cube itself might even be an excellent example of a fictitious belief, except I'm still not convinced that anyone really believes it.

Maybe you should reject your religious beliefs and move "beyond the infinite". Did you see that movie?

Three times in the cinemas, and many times since. It's still my favourite movie. I have 2010 on loan from a friend right now, I think I'll watch it again right now. (I did. Not as good but still well worth a look.)

I like the way 2001: A Space Odyssey uses cinematic symbolism to depict the origins and evolution of the WordVirus. It is also a very well made movie.

Agree.

You can probably find some biblical content in there too, but I interpret its basic message as follows: the initial problem is that the man-apes are misfits and are going to die out, then the WordVirus fixes that temporarily, but the situation develops to the point where the WordVirus is going to extinguish the humans, bringing back the initial problem, which the human then solves by overpowering the WordVirus and using it to evolve into a Nietzschean Superman, existing in harmony with Nature. The monolith represents this final goal, as well as the different steps that are taken to achieve it; the WordVirus with which it infects the apes is merely a transient element in the solution of the initial problem. I consider this Nietzschean philosophy to be very Cubic.

Bookmark

That's unless you have evidence that higher levels of existence don't exist. But so far, all you have shown is that you find no evidence that they do exist. Andrewa 20:19, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I don't know the scale of the Universe's perpetuality; Time Cube merely requires that it is perpetual. This "turtles all the way down" theory seems to state that there are infinite higher levels of existence, a notion that I reject on the grounds of there being no evidence for the concept of "infinity" (not to mention there being, as far as I know, no evidence for ANY higher levels of existence such as gods or turtles). Do you have any evidence for this concept?

Turtles all the way down is a classic story of how hard it can be to dislodge a baseless belief. See #serious research below. Andrewa 06:36, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

You're right, the theory of the Earth being the shell of a giant turtle is baseless because (as far as I know) there is no evidence or logic supporting it. However this is not the case for Time Cube which does have evidence/logic supporting it, which I am currently explaining to you.

Yes, and we have made progress IMO. More comments below. Andrewa 10:25, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Predictive theories

See User talk:andrewa/archive4#Predictive theories for previous discussion

It's all very well for you to believe that predictivity is absolutely necessary, but can you give rational justification for this belief or is it just dogma? BTW I stated a few possible Cubic predictions in the February debate, so you can get these from the archive if you want.

It's dogma. Very good. It's part of the dogma on which science is based. Progress!

I can't find your predictive stuff in Talk:Time Cube/User talk archive, is it somewhere else? Andrewa 06:36, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

No it is in the archive.

Which archive?

Here it is again: "[Time Cube makes testable predictions] including but not limited to: The universe is perpetual, involving cycles of galaxies collapsing into black holes, which then evaporate into dust clouds from which new galaxies may be formed; and macro/micro phenomena in the Universe form harmonics, EG. Male and female represent the electron and proton respectively, in that sexual reproduction evolved as a consequence of the same laws that govern the formation of atoms. (I don't know if today's science has the actual means to verify these predictions, but nonetheless I think they are at least POTENTIALLY observable.)".

Not one of these is a testable prediction. Andrewa 10:25, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes but even though this is beyond today's science, could we not POTENTIALLY observe the formation and evolution of new life and link our observations to more fundamental observations that indicate the underlying laws of the universe? Could we not potentially observe a perpetual galaxy (or extrapolate from observation of part of the cycle), if our species were to exist for a very very very long time? (But as I've said, perpetuality at the level of galaxies isn't the only possible means of universal perpetuality).

But until we do, it's not evidence. Is it? Andrewa 04:28, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No, they are potentially testable predictions based on my knowledge of Time Cube.

Again you have not answered the question. You have said that you think they will be evidence, but my question was are they evidence now.

The answer is the first word of my previous reply.

OK. I was confused by what followed, which seemed to contradict it.

If it's agreed that it's not evidence, then none of these possible Cubic predictions are empirical evidence, are they?

No, not yet, since the predictions have not yet been tested.

Meaning of cube

See User talk:andrewa/archive4#Meaning of cube for previous discussion

I don't think there was ever any confusion about the term "Cube". Gene Ray has pictures of Cubes on his site, he explains the geometric principle in terms of a Cube-like room (ceiling, floor and 4 walls) and nowhere does he mention the 3rd power; and I think the same applies to me. If you find the terms ambiguous then you should ask me for clarification.

I think this clarification is in progress above, see #what the theory is. Andrewa 06:36, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Graphical representation (website)

See User talk:andrewa/archive4#Graphical representation (website) for previous discussion

The primary space corner is at midday, where the Sun's rays strike the Earth's surface perpendicularly.

OK. So it is revolving around the Earth's surface, at high speed in human terms. But the website says that Socrates is standing at that corner. So is this really a good illustration? It seems to have fallen off the edge of credibility already (and at fatally high speed, again in human terms).

The scenario in the 1st panel represents a single point in linear time. The graphs represent the cycles that will occur when 24 hours elapse.

Understood I think. This is based on the Newtonian model, then? There is no such thing as a single point in time in Einstein's models. That's Newtonian time.

What if we just consider the Earth as existing alone in empty space. What would relativity say about the relative times of the points on Earth's surface intersecting with a plane perpendicular to the rotational axis?

Relativity would say that similtanaiety is still relative, because the mass of the Earth itself still distorts spacetime.

Yes but there would not be any difference in the magnitude of the spacetime distortion within a set of points conforming to my description above, right?

Wrong. For a start, spacetime is a vector continuum. The magnitude of the distortion tells only part of the story.

So there WOULD be a difference in the magnitude of the distortion within a set of points conforming to my description?

Would there? Why do you claim this?

Bookmark

Because you replied "Wrong" to my question: "there would not be any difference in the magnitude of the spacetime distortion within a set of points conforming to my description above, right?".

Have you any evidence for this claim?

It's based on symmetry; there is no essential difference between any of the points on a circle. The circle in question here is one that is created as part of a solid of revolution.

Also, please explain the other part of the "story" and why it is relevant.

The other part of the story is the direction of the gravitational field. Um, it's relevant because a field in one direction is a different field to one in another direction, even if their magnitudes are equal. Similarly, an acceleration in one direction is a different acceleration to one in a different direction, even if their magnitudes are equal. Did you really need that explained? Or is it still unclear?

It is clear, but I don't see how the direction of the field affects the magnitude of spacetime distortion, so this doesn't explain why you consider my statement that "there would not be any difference in the magnitude of the spacetime distortion within a set of points conforming to my description above" to be "Wrong".

Perhaps I was too gentle.

Just stick to making rational arguments.

I notice that again, you haven't answered the question. I ask it again: This is based on the Newtonian model then?

No, in that it should account for spacetime dilation observations.

Then it can't use the Newtonian time model, and it does.

Bookmark

I'm not sure that it does; I don't see how the concept of a single point in time contradicts relativity observations. Is it incompliant with the notion of linear time passing at different rates at different locations, or is there something else that contradicts it? Please explain exactly what makes it untrue.

The whole concept of similtaneous events at different spatial locations is discarded by special relativity. The observation that two events took place at the same instant is relative to a particular observer. Other observers will see them as taking place one before the other, and in either order. That is what was revolutionary about special relativity. However, Time Cube seems to reinstate this notion of absolute similtaneaity. In this sense, Time Cube is a Newtonian, pre-relativity theory.

If we postulate an omniscient God-like observer that can simultaneously exist at all points in space, then I think we can have a single point in Time. As Gene Ray said: "4-corners are simultaneous, there is no 1, 2, or 3-corner. 4 is both macro and micro. God can't occupy 4-corners. Time Cube disproves God."

Bookmark

I think you're clutching at straws here. The claim that the four observers are at a single point in time is a fundamental blunder if you're trying to produce a theory of everything, or even a credible parody of one.

So explain why the 2d plane is divided into 4 quadrants and why other divisions wouldn't be valid, and then I will explain how it applies to the harmonic 4-corner-quadrant division.

A lot of presuppositions here. For a start, IMO other divisions would be valid. Or can you explain why you think they are not? Andrewa 06:36, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

The 2 axes of the 4x90-degree quadrant division are the minimum required to give a coordinate representation of any point on the 2D plane. All other divisions either fail to do this (eg. using only 1 dimension which would halve the plane) or violate Occam's razor (eg. rotate the x-axis by an angle greater than zero and less than 90 degrees and you can still represent all points on the plane, but the x-coordinate would now include information already represented by the y-coordinate, which would constitute an unnecessary multiplicity).

No. Suppose you use polar coordinates instead. Some equations will be simplified, but others will be made more complicated. So Occam's Razor doesn't enter into it, rather it's horses for courses, some coordinate systems work best for some problems, others for others. See above and below for more on choice of coordinate systems.

Actually the polar system is flawed. Explain how this system is applied to 1 dimension? It can't be applied, can it? You have to have a sign (positive/negative, forwards/backwards) specifying the linear direction. So polar coordinates are based on an origin and an initial direction, but in order to be consistent it should actually have 2 opposite directions. Also the anticlockwise angle is arbitrary.

It's very simple to apply it to one dimension. Setting all the angular coordinates to zero is probably the most intuitive way. In the same way, ordered pairs can be used to describe one dimension, if you like, by setting the second argument to zero. I can't see why you want to do this here, but it's easily done and there are some reasons you might want to in other contexts.

Is this what you mean by flawed?

It is flawed if it specifies an absolute value rather than a signed value for the magnitude.

Wrong again. Magnitudes are always unsigned. That's part of what magnitude means.

OK, a signed scalar value (the absolute value of which is the magnitude).

So why is this a flaw?

Because if it's unsigned then it could only represent half of a 1D plane, right?

Well, a plane is 2D by definition, but I see what you mean. I made a mistake in saying we could represent the plane in polar coordinates by setting all the angles to zero. In fact we need to set them to either zero or to a half revolution. The argument still holds.

As far as I'm concerned, an angle requires 2 dimensions in which to turn, so it can't be applied to 1D. You can use them as you described to represent a line within a 2D plane, but not 1D by itself. This is not the case for cartesian coordinates, which apply to only 1 dimension each.

I don't think you can really have an angle in 1D, so a sign is required to specify whether a point is left or right of the origin.

The only angle you can have in 1D is half a revolution. That corresponds to a sign. So, why is this flawed?

All the possible values of a sign can be represented in 1D; not so for an angle. So the sign should be used in 1D rather than the angle.

Is the ordered pair system of two-dimensional coordinates similarly flawed? Or is there some way of representing one dimension as an ordered pair that you consider not flawed?

Yes, I agree the direction of the angle is arbitrary, but so is the direction of the axes in the system you are using.

No, the primary axis goes from midday to midnight.

Understood, but aren’t you using cartesian coordinates, underlying these?

Well the validity of the coordinate system depends on what spacetime dilation is occurring.

Why?

Well for instance, the cartesian coordinates could be used where there's no spacetime dilation, and a coordinate system taking into account the curvature should be used when gravitational warping does occcur.

So let's again consider the Earth existing alone in empty space. How would spacetime be dilated if the Earth was not rotating? What additional dilation would occur if the Earth then started rotating?

I'm not even sure that this is a meaningful question. It's not a matter of simple dilation, rather of curvature of spacetime. Do you know the answers?

I think that if the Earth was not rotating then all dilation would be radial, and the magnitude would be approximately equal at all points on Earth's surface. If it were rotating I think some additional, non-radial dilation/warping/curvature would occur, but the magnitude of the time dilation would be approximately the same for points on Earth's surface intersecting with any given 2D plane perpendicular to the rotational axis. Am I correct?

It's hard to say. "Rambling" might be a better description.

Well I was just trying to be precise. When I make a more general and succinct statement that doesn't mention all the details, you then criticise it, meaning that I end up having to be precise anyway.

Bookmark

How is that arbitrary? If we have a signed magnitude then we would have anticlockwise for positive magnitude and clockwise for negative magnitude (reflection). This resolves the problem of the arbitrary angular direction.

The choice of which direction on the axes would be positive and which negative is arbitrary, for a start. The choice of whether to measure angle clockwise or anticlockwise is arbitrary too. How did you choose these, in each case? Does it affect the theory if they are reversed?

Actually positive and negative should really be equal opposites. As Dr. Ray said: "-1 x -1 = +1 is stupid and evil." So it doesn't affect the theory if they are reversed, therefore they are not arbitrary.

No. If it doesn't affect the theory if they are reversed, then they are arbitrary.

Bookmark

Yes it is arbitrary which way the hands turn on a clock, but can you tell me whether the Earth is rotating clockwise or anticlockwise? It could be either, depending on which side of the equator plane you are observing it from. "Clockwise" and "anti-clockwise" are irrelevant; in the context of the Earth's rotation, it could be better to use "earthwise" and "anti-earthwise".

Exactly.

Yes and in regard to the direction of the axes, I should say that the primary axis can be seen as going from midday to midnight AND from midnight to midday -- there is no specific, arbitrary direction. You could represent this graphically by drawing an arrowhead on both ends.

Bookmark

So consider there being a positive and negative direction. This is linear (1d) and thus can't represent the totality of a 2d plane, so we use angles to represent the rest of the plane. The directional sign (positive/negative) specifies the initial alignment from which the angle will start turning. Now if we consider the radial line where angles (both clockwise and counter-clockwise) from each of the directions are equal, what we have is a straight line passing through the origin, perpendicular to the initial line. We've used symmetry to duplicate the initial 1d line, thus representing the totality of the plane.

Now try using symmetry as above to duplicate these 2 perpendicular axes. What happens?

This seems a rather muddled attempt to define cartesian coordinates in terms of polar coordinates. This is also trivial.

I think you may mean that if you now base your polar coordinate system on your newly defined y axis, you can now redefine the x axis. True. But why?

Once you use the principle of opposites to divide the 2D plane into 4 quadrants and 4 perpendicular directions, that's all there is. If you attempt to use symmetry to divide the plane further, you will merely end up with the existing divisions, which proves that the 4-quadrant-corner division is HARMONIC.

What is this principle of opposites? Andrewa 22:05, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Bookmark

It is the principle that everything has an opposite. Can you think of anything observable that doesn't have an opposite? If not, then we can reject the theory of anything not having an opposite.

Hmmm. What is the opposite of a plane, for example?

The opposite to a conceptual 2D plane in space, such as the plane of the Earth's equator, is a 2D plane in Time. From my knowledge of Time Cube I'd say that Time and space are equal opposites, and Time, like Space, is Cubic or 3D, which means the concept of a 2D plane existing in time is valid.

I think you'd like projective geometry. It has a similar concept of duals. In planar projective geometry, point and line are duals, so if in any theorem or proof you swap "line" and "point" over, the theorem remains true, and the proof valid. In projective space, line is self-dual, and plane and point are duals. So if you swap point and plane over consistently, and leave the lines as lines, again truth and validity are conserved.

Yes that seems logical, but I don't think the duals are opposites though. In Boolean algebra the "AND" and "OR" are duals, but I would consider "NAND" and "NOR" to be their opposites.

Bookmark

So the two perpendicular axes (which divide the plane into 4 quadrants) are the only perfect way to represent the totality of the plane.

False, as we have seen above.

No, I have demonstrated that a consistent polar system (signed magnitude) is merely another way of expressing the 4-corner-quadrant division.

You’ve still provided no justification for adopting four observers. Your demonstration is full of mistakes and misunderstandings. Andrewa 22:05, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Bookmark

Please specify these "mistakes and misunderstandings".

Missed this before. For a start, your use of terms like "function", "range" and "function", and your assumption that a cube was some sort of optimal limiting figure in 3-space. These were all mistakes.

Well we are discussing these in the relevant places, but I didn't use any of the terms or the assumption above in my demonstration of the polar system being another way of expressing the 2D cartesian system, did I?

Yes. See the comments embedded in it.

There aren't any comments embedded in the demonstration I'm referring to, which is as follows: "So consider there being a positive and negative direction. This is linear (1d) and thus can't represent the totality of a 2d plane, so we use angles to represent the rest of the plane. The directional sign (positive/negative) specifies the initial alignment from which the angle will start turning. Now if we consider the radial line where angles (both clockwise and counter-clockwise) from each of the directions are equal, what we have is a straight line passing through the origin, perpendicular to the initial line. We've used symmetry to duplicate the initial 1d line, thus representing the totality of the plane."

Are there any "mistakes and misunderstandings" in the actual demonstration?

Yes. See the comments embedded in it.

Bookmark

But more important, again you are off on a tangent. Your question of validity of coordinate systems seems a complete red herring. See the archived discussion. The question remains, what is the connection between this and the choice of four for the number of observers?

Four observers located at 4 perpendicular corners are the minimum required to represent the totality of the cross-sectional circle existing on a plane perpendicular to the rotational axis. More people would merely create a multiplicity (read what is currently at the top of timecube.com) and less would fail to represent the totality. So for instance, if you have only 2 people at sunup and sundown, you would only be representing a Line -- it wouldn't take into account the perpendicular axis that contains the opposites of Day and Night. This should help you understand the 2nd and 3rd panels.

There are some true statements here, but they don't explain the connection. So again you have not answered the question.

4 perpendicular corners equate to 4 different directions from the origin (centre of Earth), and they divide the cross-sectional circle into 4 quadrants. This is exactly what the 2 perpendicular cartesian axes and the polar system do.

True. But you still haven't answered the question.

Bookmark

The answer is that if the coordinate systems in question are valid and anything else would be invalid, then this means the choice of 4 observers is also valid due to the following link between the two: "4 perpendicular corners equate to 4 different directions from the origin (centre of Earth), and they divide the cross-sectional circle into 4 quadrants. This is exactly what the 2 perpendicular cartesian axes and the polar system do."

In what sense does the polar system divide the circle into quadrants? Why into quadrants rather than six 60 degree sectors, for example?

I explain this in my demonstration of the polar system being another way of expressing the 2D cartesian system.

You provide no justification at all.

I demonstrated through the polar system that 4 is harmonic; once you use the symmetry to divide the plane into 4 quadrants, that's all there is, and further symmetry merely redefines the existing 4-quadrant division. I am fairly sure this is not the case for other divisions.

Further evidence of the unique harmonicity of 4 is found in the fourth panel of the graphical explanation.

Four has unique properties, as has every other number. What the panel fails to do is to show how these support the multiple day theory.

The other panels explain the 4-day theory; the fourth panel explains why we can only divide the equator-circle into 4 and not any other number.

Just as an aside, equate in mathematics has a clear and agreed meaning. Are you using it in this sense here? Or don't you know?

I don't know if it's compliant with whatever meaning you may choose to assign to it, but I think it is clear how I am using it.

Bookmark

Also, if you used just 1 dimension then you would fail to represent the totality of the plane -- this should help you understand part of the 2nd panel.

It doesn't.

In mathematics, is it not common practice to represent the totality of a 1-variable function or other 2D entity by stating a domain and range?

Of course not. The domain and range are part of the definition of a function, but they aren't the totality of it. Two quite different functions can have the same domain and range, for example f(x)=x and g(x)=-x.

Actually I'm talking about finite entities, and more specifically, by specifying a domain and range you are creating a rectangle (possibly a square) within which the totality of the entity exists.

Then it appears you were quite wrong about this being common practice in mathematics. You are using these words in a significantly different sense to the agreed sense used in mathematics. Is this agreed?

It may be that it is not common practice, but as far as I know, for a finite entity that doesn't have any undefined points and such at its axial extremes, the domain and range do indeed specify a rectangle (possibly a square) within which the totality of the entity exists.

I think that means you don't know, and I think you are still mistaken about the rectangle.

Bookmark

Actually I do know whether what you wrote above is agreed; it is not agreed, at least not yet. It is now time for you to explain why exactly you think I am mistaken.

I'm quite happy to do that. Run your eye down the discussion above. I think what you are trying to say is that any finite relation in a plane is contained within a rectangle. That's true. It is contained in many other plane figures as well.

But the basic mistake is to think of this particular rectangle as a property of the function. It is far more a property of the coordinate system.

Relations are defined in terms of the coordinate system though. If it is a polar system then we can derive from it cartesian axes as I have shown. My point here was that the domain and range for finite entities form a rectangle within which the totality of the entity exists. For instance, a unit circle has domain and range [-1,1], and this defines a rectangle (square in this instance) with vertices (-1,-1), (1,-1), (1,1) and (-1,1). I acknowledge that I was vague about "totality".

But do you mean the domain and range of (1) a function as normally understood in mathematics, or of (2) a relation (such as that graphed by a unit circle) as normally understood in mathematics, or of (3) something else?

A relation, of which functions are a special case.

Progress. You have looked these terms up at last. Please use them correctly now that you know what they mean.

I think I was using them correctly though; when did I use them incorrectly? I did at one point say "function" where I probably should have said "relation" or "entity" since the principle didn't only apply to functions, but I think my use of "function" was correct albeit misleading.

Keep in mind that I am talking about finite relations/entities that don't have any undefined points at their axial extremes.

I don't think this makes a lot of difference.

I'm just trying to exclude any crazy esoteric mathematical things that might not fit my description. The point I'm trying to make is the harmonicity of the 4-corner-quadrant division, as explained in the 4th panel of the graphical representation.

Bookmark

If so, then in view of this you still haven't answered the question.

For a finite 2D entity, this equates to specifying a bounding rectangle for the function. For instance, a unit circle has domain and range both equal to [-1,1] -- does this not mean that the circle exists within a bounding rectangle (specifically, a square of side length 2 centred at origin)? This 2D principle can be extended to 3D entities such as Earth, specifying a bounding rectangular prism (specifically, a Cube due to the non-rotating spherical shape and a dilated cube when this sphere is set rotating).

Certainly you can define a bounding cube in this way. But why do you wish to do it?

To represent the potential for the cube's orientation to become defined through rotational dilation.

Is that all? No other reasons?

Bookmark

Yes, that is it. When the rotation speed slows down and approaches zero, the dilated rotating cube approaches an undilated non-rotating cube.

So, what makes this a good representation?

It's the minimum required to represent the Earth and its rotation. The Top and Bottom represent the north and south poles, and the rotating square that is projected between the poles represents the 360 degrees of the plane radiating perpendicular to the rotational axis. Only quadrilaterals have internal angles of 360 degrees, which is 1 full circle; and the square is the perfect quadrilateral.

That's clear. The only thing not clear is what use this is. The addition of the internal angles of the square to be one revolution is a fact, but how does this relate to there being four days in one revolution, rather than three or seventeen (or, dare I suggest, one)?

Well, to represent the harmonicity of the 4-corner-quadrant division, you have four people equally spaced on the equator. Each one of them has a separate perpendicular day. The 4-day theory is based on the unique harmonicity of 4; I think the graphical explanation makes it fairly clear. Only the 4-quadrant division of the circle has a harmonic bounding polygon; 3 120-degree angles don't match 3 60-degree angles of triangle, and etc.

Maybe you can help answer this question by explaining why you would specify a domain and range.

It’s impossible to generalise on this, there could be many reasons. And you seem again to be using these words in your own ways, not those of mathematics.

But this is not even remotely connected to the question I originally asked. Why do you wish to do it?. I can't answer this for you. It asks for your views, and you still haven't given them.

Actually I did give my views; my answer was "To represent the potential for the cube's orientation to become defined through rotational dilation." I was simply trying to help you understand this concept.

Try again. What use is this cube in understanding the sphere?

It is useful in representing the ROTATING earth-sphere.

How is a rotating cube more easily understood than a rotating sphere?

We can certainly think of it as just a rotating sphere, but we must consider the harmonic 4-quadrant division, the 2 polar opposites, and the Cube representation based thereon, to unlock the Ultimate Ineffable Cubic Truth of the Universe.

Have you not yet realised that ROTATION is a key element of Time Cube?

I'll take your word for it, you have said it often enough. One of my friends once told me that one of the keys to mixing a good martini was the amount of whisky you put into it. When I protested that there was none, he replied Exactly, and that's very important.

Bookmark

Let me try another angle. It seems that you are taking a special set of coordinates based on an observer on the surface of the Earth as it rotates. If so, will this theory hold for other observers too? This is the same question really as the one I asked above, regarding what you mean by a single point in time. Andrewa 10:25, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

How do you define "observer"? I'd define it as someone who is being affected by the rotation and gravity of Earth (or whatever gravitational body you're applying the 4/16 rotation principle to). If someone's just looking at Earth through a telescope a light-year away, they wouldn't really count.

I don't define observer. I use it as an atomic term.

It's been generally assumed that a Theory of Everything would work for all observers, so this appears to be another weakness of your theory.

Actually the 4/16 rotation applies to all significant gravitational bodies that are rotating, not just Earth. If a significant gravitational body is not rotating, it is due to Chaos -- it may have experienced one or more random collisions that caused it to lose its angular momentum.

Hmmmm.... So again, does Time Cube work for all observers?

Yes it does. It applies to all significant gravitational bodies, not just Earth.

I guess if you were to travel away from Earth in a spaceship, Earth's 4/16 rotation would just become less and less relevant to you.

I'm still to be convinced it has any relevance to lose! Andrewa 04:28, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

So your existence is not affected by the cycle of Day and Night, nor by the Earth's gravity?

Of course it is.

Yes, so this is how Earth's 4/16 rotation is relevant to you.

It would if this 4/16 rotation affected me in some observable way, but it doesn't seem to do that.

Bookmark

But you alone are a single self, and according to Time Cube, the self is only 1-corner; only 1/4 of the whole. The 4 simultaneous days are perceived not by any single self; rather, they are perceived collectively by the distribution of life all around the world. As a Self, you can only know about the 4/16 rotation by using your brain to think about it.

There's something in this, but I think the 4/16 principle is a poor way of expressing it. In Japan, my father was taken to a Buddhist garden. Its centrepiece was a square of sand, from which a few rocks protruded. Regardless of where in the garden you stood, some rocks were hidden by other rocks. No words were spoken. This garden reveals truth to all those who visit in a way words cannot express adequately.

So the properties of the rock arrangement exist simultaneously from all viewpoints, kinda like the 4 days are simultaneous, although you only observe one of them at a time. You can of course move around the world and go into a different one, like moving around the garden.

Language is one of the things your mind is made of. But I don't think language is all that a mind is made of.

This 4/16 principle seems to be an essential part of Time Cube, and seems to be baseless. The arguments you have put up that four is in some way special seem unrelated to the conclusions you draw from them.

I think the graphical representation shows how the 4 simultaneous days are a direct consequence of the harmonicity of 4.

Are you a martian or something?

No. I’m an earthman, and I believe in logic, and in science, and in God. And I believe that knowledge is a good thing. Do you believe that knowledge is a good thing? Andrewa 22:05, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but I do not believe that your religious beliefs are really knowledge. Furthermore, I believe that they may suppress real knowledge, as I've explained.

Fair enough. And I think the same about the Time Cube. It seems to provide you with some sort of assurance that you don't need to critically investigate it. Logically, it seems to be a religion, not a science, as I said before you raised the topics of God and of my faith.

Well I would say that Time Cube is actually a science, as it does have evidence and logic supporting it, which I have been explaining to you.

Yes. This seems to be the fundamental difference between our belief systems. You think that all your beliefs are based on logic and on empirical evidence. I think that this belief is itself illogical, and unsupportable by empirical evidence. You can't pull yourself up by your own bootstraps. It is impossible to justify any framework of beliefs within that belief system itself, that would be a circular argument.

It is however possible to examine the linear framework within a broader framework, called global thinking. This is the framework in which linear thinking and the scientific method (which are in many ways the same thing) were originally devised and may still be examined, and this is also the correct framework in which to examine ethical, spiritual and religious beliefs, and some aspects of metaphysics, especially in the field of epistemology.

There is also the relatively trivial difference that you think that within the linear framework, there is evidence supporting Time Cube, and I don't. But this is really just a different judgement we have made, and not as fundamental IMO.

Well as far as I am concerned, I exist within reality and am merely interpreting reality, in accordance with the intelligence-related instincts that reality has naturally selected. Time Cube is a big step towards humanity existing in a more harmonic state.

I'm confident that my religion is on a sounder basis than yours. But I guess you feel exactly the same, that yours is superior to mine. I'm not sure where to go from there. I think it must include to each respect the other's choice. As I also said before, you alone are responsible for what you choose to believe. Andrewa 21:10, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You should answer the questions that I have posed, in order to clarify your beliefs and to reveal their supposedly sound basis.

Agreed. I'm finding this discussion very useful. Are you doing the same examination? Andrewa 08:55, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes I am trying to evaluate the beliefs that we are discussing. I am thinking that Christianity may have more of an emotional than rational basis; rationality also has an emotional basis, but it involves mainly the intelligence-related emotions such as curiosity. I am thinking that we should heed and not suppress our emotions, in order to respect the balance that Nature has created; the TOE seems a good way to satisfy the learning capacity. Humanity and the WordVirus must then co-evolve, such that there is a greater capacity for Cubic awareness and less capacity for false Word-beliefs.

Serious research

See User talk:andrewa/archive4#Serious research for previous discussion

Actually I consider Time Cube to be serious, as it makes sense to me and I am not aware of any legitimate refutations of it. So my rational conclusion is that it should not be automatically dismissed, rather it should be further evaluated.

Years ago (1972 or 1973, I can't remember which) I heard the late Professor Peter Mason (Mathematics and Physics, Macquarie University) give a brilliant lecture in which he proposed a theory that explained friction by means of demons. He then asked us all to criticise what he'd proposed, and we found to our surprise that we couldn't make much headway against his well-developed theory. The point of this as he described it was to demonstrate how difficult it may be to dislodge a strongly held false belief.

So what is the evidence and/or logic supporting this "demons" theory?

I can't remember the details, but that's not the point. This theory was nonsense, and Peter Mason said right up front that it was nonsense.

Well until you substantiate this theory with some evidence or logic, I'll reject it on the basis on lack thereof.

Fair enough, too. It doesn't have any serious adherents AFAIK, unlike Christianity. Andrewa 04:28, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I suspect this may be similar to what I'm dealing with here. The Time Cube is equally ridiculous IMO. So, why would an obviously intelligent person like yourself support it? One possibility is that it's meant to be a parallel to religious beliefs as you see them, to demonstrate how difficult it is to argue successfully against them.

No, as I already said, this is not a joke/hoax/whatever (although there used to be a satirical website that used Time Cube for the purpose you described). As I also state in [#Cosmogeny], Time Cube does have evidence and logic supporting it, which I am currently explaining to you.

So you said above.

I'm still not convinced that this evidence and logic can be presented or explained, but I think we're both learning something by your having a go at it. Andrewa 10:25, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This fits neatly with the WordVirus concept above. Andrewa 06:36, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Note

Note: A critique of the below Time Cube discussion, and of the deceptive behaviour of the Christian religious zealot, is available at CubicAO: Harmonic Duty

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiSaviour (talk • contribs) 08:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)