William is my best friend at this point of my life. He has an uncommon developed talent for understanding processes, though I don't think he fully realizes it yet. He gets close when he says 'they could learn it,' but he misses the point that 'he sought the information and figured out how to use it in practical application.'
William, as most people who think commonly, dreams of seeing the world from new heights in his life. He is, however, a very large man who carries the load of his responsibilities admirably.
The reason I love William, though, is because he is a man of conscience. He is very benevolent despite that he could be very intimidating.
William should probably not think about 'flying to those heights' he dreams of. The Spruce Goose flew, but not well and certainly not safely, yet he would need that design and has (conceptually) wood to work with.
William could build a ladder with the wood, and carry his family up the ladder with him. There is probably even a visual demonstration in some Laurel and Hardy flick. There is too much danger to everyone for William to ascend to the heights he dreams of. Even scaffolding would be safer than a ladder.
The best design I can envision with the resource of wood is the 'stair step.' He could build one step, and just ask his family to step up with him. When everyone is stably on the first 'stair step,' he can build a second one.
He need not cart a load of wood with him for, unless he plans to descend the stairs, he can just use the stairs he has at any point to build another 'stair step' that is upward.
Stairs are not built fully upward. They are both upward and lateral.
So how does one 'step up' and 'step forward?' PLEASE, go walk the stairs and figure it out!
Don't mind the emphasis, please; I've told him what I believe is the 'next step' for him to build!
------------------------------------
So, William tells me this joke his boss told him. It was something about a computer programmer not being able to count past one.
I grabbed a pen and paper and wrote '100' on it. I handed it to William and told him to give it to his boss and tell him his friend has four figured out, but is struggling with five.
He just smiled, and offered up 'you know what he meant.'
-------------------------------------
What he likely meant: in binary systems, there are only two options like 'on/off,' 'yes/no,' or, in numbers, '0/1.'
In the 'common numbering system' (the base ten), the whole number closest to the decimal point is 'ones,' the second is 'tens,' the third is 'hundreds,' etc.
Binaray number systems are similar, but there are no symbols except for 0 and 1. The series, instead of being (1,10,100,1000 . . . ) as in base ten would be (1,2,4,8 . . . ) when considering in which spot either a 0 or 1 would be placed for counting.
He likely meant 'I can't use a symbol greater than '1' for counting.'
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Schrodenger's Cat Paradox: The Problem With Controlled Testing
Deja vu! Not really, I've read about this before, but I was unable to relate to it at that time.
While Einstein was proving that light is really a particle that interacts with atoms creating luminescence, theories that light acts as a wave still seemed to be true. So how could one be 'true' if the other were also 'true.'
The Cat Paradox was proposed to illustrate wherein conclusions derived from controlled experiments with quanta could be erroneous. I would have PETA all over me if I were to demonstrate 'the uncertainty of that which we can prove being certain.' I'll just try to explain it.
If you have an element that will die if exposed to a second element inside a box that we are unable to see through, an error in logical conclusion could occur if we presume that which we see when the box was opened actually was reality when we were unable to see inside the box. It leaves open the possibility that 'the result we saw' was 'because we opened the box.' 'That the state of the living thing was dead when exposed' 'does not determine' 'what the state may have been when the life was contained in the sealed box.' The conclusion is that the state of life inside the box is 'indeterminate.'
When I consider vacuum, if atomic structure is vacuumous, it may be exponentially more erroneous to 'draw conclusions based only on what we see and can prove.' To take it even further, that which we know about the necessity for vacuum for a light bulb, it is even logical to conclude that it was the breaking of the vacuum seal that caused 'air' to be the only ingredient needed for 'fire.'
Also, if atomic structure is vacuumous, we should also be able to logically conclude that the state is 'not indeterminate,' but 'virtually impossible to be anything other than breaking the seal caused the death' as the gas would not disperse in the vacuum (is that correct?), nor would the 'living thing breathe oxygen or any other element comprising air.' In fact, exposure to air seems to kill that life.
Hmmmmmm.
While Einstein was proving that light is really a particle that interacts with atoms creating luminescence, theories that light acts as a wave still seemed to be true. So how could one be 'true' if the other were also 'true.'
The Cat Paradox was proposed to illustrate wherein conclusions derived from controlled experiments with quanta could be erroneous. I would have PETA all over me if I were to demonstrate 'the uncertainty of that which we can prove being certain.' I'll just try to explain it.
If you have an element that will die if exposed to a second element inside a box that we are unable to see through, an error in logical conclusion could occur if we presume that which we see when the box was opened actually was reality when we were unable to see inside the box. It leaves open the possibility that 'the result we saw' was 'because we opened the box.' 'That the state of the living thing was dead when exposed' 'does not determine' 'what the state may have been when the life was contained in the sealed box.' The conclusion is that the state of life inside the box is 'indeterminate.'
When I consider vacuum, if atomic structure is vacuumous, it may be exponentially more erroneous to 'draw conclusions based only on what we see and can prove.' To take it even further, that which we know about the necessity for vacuum for a light bulb, it is even logical to conclude that it was the breaking of the vacuum seal that caused 'air' to be the only ingredient needed for 'fire.'
Also, if atomic structure is vacuumous, we should also be able to logically conclude that the state is 'not indeterminate,' but 'virtually impossible to be anything other than breaking the seal caused the death' as the gas would not disperse in the vacuum (is that correct?), nor would the 'living thing breathe oxygen or any other element comprising air.' In fact, exposure to air seems to kill that life.
Hmmmmmm.
A Ripple in Time
If solids, fluids, and gases all behave the same when something is dropped onto it, then why, considering that it would continue exponentially having more effect, is it inconceivable that this 'dimension of time in the universe' is really just a 'ripple in time?'
If the concept were to be true, then what is beyond the 'outer edge' of the universe is the preceding universe compressing into all its precedent universes, from older ripples in time, and that which would be beyond the 'inner edge' of the universe is the universe that will succeed this one.
The rippling effect just seems to relate best to 'time is infinity.'
Then, it would make more sense that 'the purpose for this life is to unburden one's 'life light/soul/whatever' sufficiently to retain 'whatever will be life' in the next universe. Those 'energies/souls/whatever' that do not 'enlighten themselves sufficiently' in this universe will be doomed to remaining in it 'as it compresses into 'all the other universes' that may have existed before this one creating an immense amount of heat,' perhaps similiar to that described as 'hellfire' in the Bible, and, of course, that would be for ever!
It is the complexities of life that one must resolve in order to rise. Why do people not relate this to the 'higher life,' and realize that 'one rises' by simplifying complexities? Simple algebra. I was a tutor in simple algebra. I wonder if anyone I tutored learned anything, or if they just used it to 'pass that hurdle man puts there for us.'
It all seems so futile.
What's the point?
Damn it, what's the point?
The univers's speed limit is the speed of light. Einstein seems to have proven pretty conclusively that nothing exceeds that speed ever.
So, it isn't that which is bigger than us that is important; it seems be importance lies in that which is smaller than us. That's easily relatable to children, the poor, and the weak, at least in the 'human concept.'
Einstein felt his theory on photoelectricity was his most important research. I need to see if that goes beyond the creation of photons, or if that's even where the photonic theory comes from.
Time to read.
If the concept were to be true, then what is beyond the 'outer edge' of the universe is the preceding universe compressing into all its precedent universes, from older ripples in time, and that which would be beyond the 'inner edge' of the universe is the universe that will succeed this one.
The rippling effect just seems to relate best to 'time is infinity.'
Then, it would make more sense that 'the purpose for this life is to unburden one's 'life light/soul/whatever' sufficiently to retain 'whatever will be life' in the next universe. Those 'energies/souls/whatever' that do not 'enlighten themselves sufficiently' in this universe will be doomed to remaining in it 'as it compresses into 'all the other universes' that may have existed before this one creating an immense amount of heat,' perhaps similiar to that described as 'hellfire' in the Bible, and, of course, that would be for ever!
It is the complexities of life that one must resolve in order to rise. Why do people not relate this to the 'higher life,' and realize that 'one rises' by simplifying complexities? Simple algebra. I was a tutor in simple algebra. I wonder if anyone I tutored learned anything, or if they just used it to 'pass that hurdle man puts there for us.'
It all seems so futile.
What's the point?
Damn it, what's the point?
The univers's speed limit is the speed of light. Einstein seems to have proven pretty conclusively that nothing exceeds that speed ever.
So, it isn't that which is bigger than us that is important; it seems be importance lies in that which is smaller than us. That's easily relatable to children, the poor, and the weak, at least in the 'human concept.'
Einstein felt his theory on photoelectricity was his most important research. I need to see if that goes beyond the creation of photons, or if that's even where the photonic theory comes from.
Time to read.
Mother Teresa: A Saint Amongst Saints
When one considers that a grading curve does not assign grades based on arbitrary points at which a student's grade increases, but, rather, that those in the 'top ten percent' get an 'A.' From that group, the student who did the best gets the only 'A+,' Mother Teresa gets the 'A+' as the 'student who did the best' in the class of those who 'factored in human suffering' of any human who has lived during my lifetime.
When one considers the huge philanthropic and humanitarian contribution Bill Gates has made to 'factor in human suffering,' he still hasn't given it all, and certainly not for his lifetime. The portion of Mr. Gates that is 'selfless' (not amount of money, but the portion of which he contributes back to life) is huge relative to the portion of income that the average person contributes back to life.
Mother Teresa gave everything she had all the time. She left nothing behind. She took nothing with her.
There is no greater balance, nor greater purity, in a life that existed in 'my dimension' of e=mc2. If Jesus was misunderstood when he said he would return, and he really has returned again and again but hasn't been recognized, I would suggest that Mother Teresa was Jesus incarnate. Her soul has to be that pure.
She didn't even consider that which she did as sacrifice. She regarded it as her purpose and duty. She did it enthusiastically. When the world took notice, she accepted what she was given to further what she did.
Her degree of goodness and purity is way beyond my understanding. I'm only up to trying to understand what Mr. Einstein left behind on how light works. He knows what I mean about her. So does Bill Gates.
She probably took only her sub-quanta with no attachments, and gathered no 'life baggage' to shed, if that's how it works.
Dr. MacDougall may not have noticed any weight loss!
When one considers the huge philanthropic and humanitarian contribution Bill Gates has made to 'factor in human suffering,' he still hasn't given it all, and certainly not for his lifetime. The portion of Mr. Gates that is 'selfless' (not amount of money, but the portion of which he contributes back to life) is huge relative to the portion of income that the average person contributes back to life.
Mother Teresa gave everything she had all the time. She left nothing behind. She took nothing with her.
There is no greater balance, nor greater purity, in a life that existed in 'my dimension' of e=mc2. If Jesus was misunderstood when he said he would return, and he really has returned again and again but hasn't been recognized, I would suggest that Mother Teresa was Jesus incarnate. Her soul has to be that pure.
She didn't even consider that which she did as sacrifice. She regarded it as her purpose and duty. She did it enthusiastically. When the world took notice, she accepted what she was given to further what she did.
Her degree of goodness and purity is way beyond my understanding. I'm only up to trying to understand what Mr. Einstein left behind on how light works. He knows what I mean about her. So does Bill Gates.
She probably took only her sub-quanta with no attachments, and gathered no 'life baggage' to shed, if that's how it works.
Dr. MacDougall may not have noticed any weight loss!
Monday, July 09, 2007
The Positive Side of Light: Is that Heaven?
If we correct some adages from long ago and far away, we might be able to understand what others who didn't have historical reference to Mr. Einstein have realized.
We've heard that 'our eyes are the windows to our souls.' I suspect that adage is older than the cameral lens, and, because whoever said it 'saw the light,' but didn't have the theory of refractory to reference, 'mistook the camera lens he was really seeing for a window.'
When one considers the inspiration Lewis Carroll had to 'take Alice through the looking glass,' just beyond that material that absorbs all light that hits it, 'causing our minds to deduct the image as positive reflection,' also occurred prior to Einstein's e=mc2, did 'he just mistake the mirror for that fine line that divides a light particle's positive cycle from its negative cycle?
We only see the negative side of light. Our gravity, will weigh us down when it is subject to a larger object's gravity.
Everything we know about the mind is that we subtract to think (deduce) and our brains necessarily needs to be cross-wired.
Dr. MacDougall attempted to prove that the soul was the same in every person. His results were consistent that there was weight loss, but it occurred irregularly between subjects. That has bothered me, but that irregularity may be theorized within a life concept that takes into consideration that others have seen this, but they just didn't have today's science to refer to in order to 'know that which they saw.'
Here is where I'm at: our minds work deductively; we see color by subtracting what is missing (I think); our eyes work through refractory of light; we know that science depicts light through a spectrum that appears to begin and end, but is really infinite (I think); we know if one continues an arc infinitely, we really just 'keep going around in a circle.'
Who wrote the Wizard of Oz, and what inspired that? That story also depicts a dream or near-death-experience, or halleucination, or whatever one prescribes to with their principles, in which there was a more colorful realm.
Folks, if this is adding up, you better look up to the light and try to find it, because, if you don't, you're bound for a place the Bible conceives as hell! However, if you're not too bad, you can stay in a place the Catholics conceive as Purgatory, which, if it is as it seems right now, would be a reincarnation without ascent or descent, as in . . . here? Who knows? I don't.
So is everything we see really here and out there? Yes, but 'we see it in only in the negative light.'
I would suggest that had Dr. MacDougall not been prejudiced on his first study, he may have detected a much smaller departure, with 'most of the weight leaving at once and finally.' Perhaps that subject had a 'lighter soul' having shed 'his life's burdens;' whereas, those with more balanced departures had heavier, more laden souls, and shed less of "their lives' burdens."
Dr. King may have been referring to this phenomena when he said that unjust suffering is redemptive.
Is what the Bible describes as Heaven really 'that which exists/is visible on the positive cycle of light?'
While we understand through nature that a rodent's main 'purpose in life' is to be food for predators, and how important flies are to the eco-system, we tend to want to regard humans as 'the highest form of life,' because, of course, 'we are at the top of the food chain' 'where we are at in' 'the cycle of life.'
If this were to prove out to be true, then, logically, our physical form's purpose here is for the soul's use/consumption to lighten its load, become more emburdoned, or remain about the same. A ghost could really exist if one soul were to amass sufficiently to be barely visible. Aside from the purpose, ghosts and angels are both 'mythical manifestetations of dead people.' Could it just be that soul's lighter load the reason those images which allegedly have manifested as angels appear to fly, relative to the heavy load of the souls that are the rather morbid and scary images described in alleged manifestations of ghosts?
If this were to prove out to be true, conceptually, 'those alive here are really the lives that are in the graves from the higher form of life,' and 'we are living on the other side of the looking glass!'
One could then conclude that 'life on the negative side of light' is the 'illusion/halleucination/reflection' of that which is reality! People may be those who died in a higher life form, and carried too much burden from that realm; the ascending souls of that which have shed sufficient burden from lower life forms, and those who just keep going around the proverbial circle. It has the essential balance of positive, negative, and neutral.
Whether we ascend, descend, or stay the same would then be determined by how much of life's baggage we are able to shed while we are here!
-----------------------------------
Mother Teresa, you must be next to study, but I am nowhere near worthy to be in the light you must see. Thank you for the comfort and love your image brings to me. I know of no one from my lifetime who has been as beautiful as you are.
We've heard that 'our eyes are the windows to our souls.' I suspect that adage is older than the cameral lens, and, because whoever said it 'saw the light,' but didn't have the theory of refractory to reference, 'mistook the camera lens he was really seeing for a window.'
When one considers the inspiration Lewis Carroll had to 'take Alice through the looking glass,' just beyond that material that absorbs all light that hits it, 'causing our minds to deduct the image as positive reflection,' also occurred prior to Einstein's e=mc2, did 'he just mistake the mirror for that fine line that divides a light particle's positive cycle from its negative cycle?
We only see the negative side of light. Our gravity, will weigh us down when it is subject to a larger object's gravity.
Everything we know about the mind is that we subtract to think (deduce) and our brains necessarily needs to be cross-wired.
Dr. MacDougall attempted to prove that the soul was the same in every person. His results were consistent that there was weight loss, but it occurred irregularly between subjects. That has bothered me, but that irregularity may be theorized within a life concept that takes into consideration that others have seen this, but they just didn't have today's science to refer to in order to 'know that which they saw.'
Here is where I'm at: our minds work deductively; we see color by subtracting what is missing (I think); our eyes work through refractory of light; we know that science depicts light through a spectrum that appears to begin and end, but is really infinite (I think); we know if one continues an arc infinitely, we really just 'keep going around in a circle.'
Who wrote the Wizard of Oz, and what inspired that? That story also depicts a dream or near-death-experience, or halleucination, or whatever one prescribes to with their principles, in which there was a more colorful realm.
Folks, if this is adding up, you better look up to the light and try to find it, because, if you don't, you're bound for a place the Bible conceives as hell! However, if you're not too bad, you can stay in a place the Catholics conceive as Purgatory, which, if it is as it seems right now, would be a reincarnation without ascent or descent, as in . . . here? Who knows? I don't.
So is everything we see really here and out there? Yes, but 'we see it in only in the negative light.'
I would suggest that had Dr. MacDougall not been prejudiced on his first study, he may have detected a much smaller departure, with 'most of the weight leaving at once and finally.' Perhaps that subject had a 'lighter soul' having shed 'his life's burdens;' whereas, those with more balanced departures had heavier, more laden souls, and shed less of "their lives' burdens."
Dr. King may have been referring to this phenomena when he said that unjust suffering is redemptive.
Is what the Bible describes as Heaven really 'that which exists/is visible on the positive cycle of light?'
While we understand through nature that a rodent's main 'purpose in life' is to be food for predators, and how important flies are to the eco-system, we tend to want to regard humans as 'the highest form of life,' because, of course, 'we are at the top of the food chain' 'where we are at in' 'the cycle of life.'
If this were to prove out to be true, then, logically, our physical form's purpose here is for the soul's use/consumption to lighten its load, become more emburdoned, or remain about the same. A ghost could really exist if one soul were to amass sufficiently to be barely visible. Aside from the purpose, ghosts and angels are both 'mythical manifestetations of dead people.' Could it just be that soul's lighter load the reason those images which allegedly have manifested as angels appear to fly, relative to the heavy load of the souls that are the rather morbid and scary images described in alleged manifestations of ghosts?
If this were to prove out to be true, conceptually, 'those alive here are really the lives that are in the graves from the higher form of life,' and 'we are living on the other side of the looking glass!'
One could then conclude that 'life on the negative side of light' is the 'illusion/halleucination/reflection' of that which is reality! People may be those who died in a higher life form, and carried too much burden from that realm; the ascending souls of that which have shed sufficient burden from lower life forms, and those who just keep going around the proverbial circle. It has the essential balance of positive, negative, and neutral.
Whether we ascend, descend, or stay the same would then be determined by how much of life's baggage we are able to shed while we are here!
-----------------------------------
Mother Teresa, you must be next to study, but I am nowhere near worthy to be in the light you must see. Thank you for the comfort and love your image brings to me. I know of no one from my lifetime who has been as beautiful as you are.
Sunday, July 08, 2007
The Diamond that Shouldn't Exist
Imagine a horizontal line. Above it is 'positive,' and below it is 'negative.'
For this, positive shall represent 'that which is empirical,' and negative shall represent 'that which is natural,' and the line shall be 'life.'
If we were to simulate almost every 'measurement of life,' logically the 'flow of life' would look like a wave.
From that line and waval flow, remove one complete wave (zero - intersect zero - zero).
If we were to draw lines from '0' to points at 'empirical 1' and 'natural 1' such that the lines intersect at ninety degree angles with similar lines intersecting '1' on the life line, the 'entire wave' would be inside 'what may appear to be a diamond,' but is really a 'square on end.'
Now, imagine that Aristotle is at the top of this square at the highest point on the 'empirical side of the line,' and Charles Darwin at the bottom of this square at the deepest point of the 'natural side of the line.'
---------------------------------------
Since we have 'one complete wave,' we'll start at '0' to represent atheists who contend that to be the number representing God, and end at '1' to represent monotheists who contend that to be the number of God.
Let's now consider what these two believed they knew about God:
Darwin, himself, didn't 'believe or understand' that there was no God; he claimed that 'he didn't know' (agnosticism). He claimed '0' 'knowledge (science) of the empirical.' If we consider what one thinks of himself as worthy of one-half the gravity as public perception, Darwin ascends, but, remains in the natural at -.5, or 'about where the bottom of the wave should be at its lowest point in the flow.'
Aristotle regaled at being lauded as 'the man who knew it all.' He believed he had the answers, so he regarded himself as '1.' Since Aristotle gave himself negative gravity (levity) at 1, his personal factor would raise him to empirical 3.
We now have a 'diamond,' and:
Those at '0' contend 'Aristotle is incorrect because Aristotle is correct;' those at '1' argue back 'Aristotle is correct because Aristotle is incorrect.'
To the natural side, those at '0' contend 'Darwin is correct because Darwin didn't know.' Those at '1' argue back 'Darwin didn't know because Darwin is correct.'
Why don't people see that?
--------------------------------------
Aristotle is the father of biological science, which those at '0' contend proves there is no God; he is also the source for some of the scientific inaccuracies in the Old Testament, which those at '1' contend is proof of God. Each side uses his 'flawed conclusions' to prove 'both' 'that God exists and doesn't exist.'
Darwin's theory of natural selection is given more gravity to 'proving there is no God' by those at '0,' while those at '1' also give more gravity to it as they 'believe Darwin's theory includes that there is no God.'
----------------------------------------
Now, let's consider how many times these two guys' conclusions have been proven flawed:
Aristotle: (1) the universe is far larger than a 'mere millions of miles,' (2) there is an abundance of atomic, particle, and sub-particle movement outside the human body, (3) we do not all see the same thing just because we look at the same thing, (4) women have the same number of teeth as men, (5) protecting the female gender within a species is not because males are empirically dominant, but, more likely naturally, because females are that much more important to continuation of a species than the random need for the male gender, (6) Earth is in a solar system.
Darwin:
-----------------------------------------
Now, let's consider a possible manifestation (including commentary from these two men).
Atheist: Darwin proved there is no God. (Darwin: no I didn't.)
Monotheist: Darwin's work was inspired by the devil. (Darwin: Actually, I went well out of my way to disprove wholly natural theories once my own prejudices about monotheism were challenged.)
Both: Darwin was an atheist! (Darwin: I was not!) Prove there is/is not a God.
Monotheist: The Bible says that God exists, and explains it. (Aristotle: yeah, that's my work.)
Atheist: All one has to do is understand biology. (Aristotle: yeah, that's my work.)
Monotheist: Heaven is in the sky. (Aristotle: yeah, that's my work.)
Atheist: There is no life outside our physical bodies. (Aristotle: yeah, that's my work.)
Hopefully, you get the point.
------------------------------------
In the end:
Darwin: died suffering personal guilt and utter despair for 'realizing' the exponential odds negative familial traits common between he and his wife/cousin, who he adored, were inherited by their children, as 'the truth unfolded for him.'
Aristotle: encountered death trying to run from it.
-------------------------------------
Conclusion: if one will step back from the line so 'depth' can be seen, it is possible to see that Darwin is both given more gravity by those at '0' and '1' than 'he gave himself;' whereas, the source of contradictory empirical arguments eminate from Aristotle are given 'the same levity' by those at '0' and '1' 'as the source gave himself.'
Darwin was correct, or, at least, more correct: 'the truth of life lies at the zero intersect' and 'that his work does not prove the existence, or non-existence, of a godlike concept,' 'except to the degree' that 'Aristotle was incorrect' on 'both contradictory accounts.'
Though diamonds may have great value, this diamond should not exist.
=============================================
Afterthoughts:
7/9/07 - Though diamond shape, it is upside-down from the way one would normally display or mount a diamond. The 'brilliance' of this diamond' would eminate from that portion which is in the natural. However, I am starting to see a strong correlation between the 'flow of life' and the 'flow of light.'
Consider light as a fifth dimension; explain the ripple effect in application to the theory of the universe - it gives us the answer to what lies beyond the edge of the universe, and beyond that.
For this, positive shall represent 'that which is empirical,' and negative shall represent 'that which is natural,' and the line shall be 'life.'
If we were to simulate almost every 'measurement of life,' logically the 'flow of life' would look like a wave.
From that line and waval flow, remove one complete wave (zero - intersect zero - zero).
If we were to draw lines from '0' to points at 'empirical 1' and 'natural 1' such that the lines intersect at ninety degree angles with similar lines intersecting '1' on the life line, the 'entire wave' would be inside 'what may appear to be a diamond,' but is really a 'square on end.'
Now, imagine that Aristotle is at the top of this square at the highest point on the 'empirical side of the line,' and Charles Darwin at the bottom of this square at the deepest point of the 'natural side of the line.'
---------------------------------------
Since we have 'one complete wave,' we'll start at '0' to represent atheists who contend that to be the number representing God, and end at '1' to represent monotheists who contend that to be the number of God.
Let's now consider what these two believed they knew about God:
Darwin, himself, didn't 'believe or understand' that there was no God; he claimed that 'he didn't know' (agnosticism). He claimed '0' 'knowledge (science) of the empirical.' If we consider what one thinks of himself as worthy of one-half the gravity as public perception, Darwin ascends, but, remains in the natural at -.5, or 'about where the bottom of the wave should be at its lowest point in the flow.'
Aristotle regaled at being lauded as 'the man who knew it all.' He believed he had the answers, so he regarded himself as '1.' Since Aristotle gave himself negative gravity (levity) at 1, his personal factor would raise him to empirical 3.
We now have a 'diamond,' and:
Those at '0' contend 'Aristotle is incorrect because Aristotle is correct;' those at '1' argue back 'Aristotle is correct because Aristotle is incorrect.'
To the natural side, those at '0' contend 'Darwin is correct because Darwin didn't know.' Those at '1' argue back 'Darwin didn't know because Darwin is correct.'
Why don't people see that?
--------------------------------------
Aristotle is the father of biological science, which those at '0' contend proves there is no God; he is also the source for some of the scientific inaccuracies in the Old Testament, which those at '1' contend is proof of God. Each side uses his 'flawed conclusions' to prove 'both' 'that God exists and doesn't exist.'
Darwin's theory of natural selection is given more gravity to 'proving there is no God' by those at '0,' while those at '1' also give more gravity to it as they 'believe Darwin's theory includes that there is no God.'
----------------------------------------
Now, let's consider how many times these two guys' conclusions have been proven flawed:
Aristotle: (1) the universe is far larger than a 'mere millions of miles,' (2) there is an abundance of atomic, particle, and sub-particle movement outside the human body, (3) we do not all see the same thing just because we look at the same thing, (4) women have the same number of teeth as men, (5) protecting the female gender within a species is not because males are empirically dominant, but, more likely naturally, because females are that much more important to continuation of a species than the random need for the male gender, (6) Earth is in a solar system.
Darwin:
-----------------------------------------
Now, let's consider a possible manifestation (including commentary from these two men).
Atheist: Darwin proved there is no God. (Darwin: no I didn't.)
Monotheist: Darwin's work was inspired by the devil. (Darwin: Actually, I went well out of my way to disprove wholly natural theories once my own prejudices about monotheism were challenged.)
Both: Darwin was an atheist! (Darwin: I was not!) Prove there is/is not a God.
Monotheist: The Bible says that God exists, and explains it. (Aristotle: yeah, that's my work.)
Atheist: All one has to do is understand biology. (Aristotle: yeah, that's my work.)
Monotheist: Heaven is in the sky. (Aristotle: yeah, that's my work.)
Atheist: There is no life outside our physical bodies. (Aristotle: yeah, that's my work.)
Hopefully, you get the point.
------------------------------------
In the end:
Darwin: died suffering personal guilt and utter despair for 'realizing' the exponential odds negative familial traits common between he and his wife/cousin, who he adored, were inherited by their children, as 'the truth unfolded for him.'
Aristotle: encountered death trying to run from it.
-------------------------------------
Conclusion: if one will step back from the line so 'depth' can be seen, it is possible to see that Darwin is both given more gravity by those at '0' and '1' than 'he gave himself;' whereas, the source of contradictory empirical arguments eminate from Aristotle are given 'the same levity' by those at '0' and '1' 'as the source gave himself.'
Darwin was correct, or, at least, more correct: 'the truth of life lies at the zero intersect' and 'that his work does not prove the existence, or non-existence, of a godlike concept,' 'except to the degree' that 'Aristotle was incorrect' on 'both contradictory accounts.'
Though diamonds may have great value, this diamond should not exist.
=============================================
Afterthoughts:
7/9/07 - Though diamond shape, it is upside-down from the way one would normally display or mount a diamond. The 'brilliance' of this diamond' would eminate from that portion which is in the natural. However, I am starting to see a strong correlation between the 'flow of life' and the 'flow of light.'
Consider light as a fifth dimension; explain the ripple effect in application to the theory of the universe - it gives us the answer to what lies beyond the edge of the universe, and beyond that.
Saturday, July 07, 2007
Aristotle and Atheism
I was reading today, and came across a line that contended that the concept that nothing exists past our senses, the basis of atheism, is also from Aristotle. On that, he disagreed with 'Plato's other students' (and likely Socrates as a consequence) who contended that our senses act as filters to give us the 'illusion of reality.'
Both poles of religion are embracing the same person's thoughts, and challenging the thoughts that eminated from him in contradiction to those they are told to believe!
Is that not wild?!
It's at the bottom of page one.
Both poles of religion are embracing the same person's thoughts, and challenging the thoughts that eminated from him in contradiction to those they are told to believe!
Is that not wild?!
It's at the bottom of page one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)