Discussion:
Here is some of my thoughts that i have extended
Add Reply
rami18
2017-06-15 16:41:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Hello........


Here is some of my thoughts that i have extended, please read this post
to understand better my thoughts..


What is the essence of organization ?

Those are the questions that we ask in courses of philosophy.

Now i have to be smartness and rationality and logic to answer this
question. Smartness is an important requirement that fulfill this
goal.

And you have to learn how to think Sir and Madam..

So how can we attack this problem ?

When you start thinking it is like also abstracting to the essentials to
be able to simplify our thinking..

So this process of abstraction needs also my smartness to decompose
efficiently...

Smartness is also a fast process that finds fast the shortest path to
the solution or that finds the solution to the problem..

So my smartness will answer like this:

Look at our essence, we are a composition of consciousness and physical
body..

But we can try to say that we are guided by the process of survival of
fittest..

But this is not good abstraction..

We have to be smartness..

So why do we need to organize ?

You will say that we have to be organized because of the process
survival of the fittest..

But this is a narrow view..

Because it is a definition that is pejorative and not efficient..

Because of the following question:

Why we need to survive better ?

It is because of our weaknesses.

But i say that it is still not a correct answer , because
it is too much abstraction that lacks efficiency.

Because our weaknesses need to be organized by optimization.

This is the magical word, it is optimization.

Why do we optimize ? to be more powerful and more reliability and
correctness.

You will ask a question such as:

Is optimization: reliability and correctness ?


My answer:

When you are not reliable and/or correctness you are less
efficient, so efficiency is also reliability and correctness.

This is why i have abstracted the essence of organization to the process
of optimization.

But that's lacking Abstraction.

Because we have to look at the composition of optimization.

Optimization is performance and reliability.

So that the essence of organization is the composition of optimization
that is performance and reliability.

So the essence of optimization is not only performance , but it is
reliability.

And that's also efficient morality, and efficient morality is Liberty
and Liberty is efficient morality.

So now my answer is not finished:

Because the optimization is constrained..

Because corruption of morality is related to optimization..

So how can we measure corruption of morality ?

What is corruption of morality ?

This is an interesting subject..

It's like abstracting, you have to decompose and compose..

You can say for example what are the causes of corruption of morality?

You can say what is the consequences of corruption ?

You can define efficiently morality to be able to know about corruption.

So if you define morality you will define it as a composition of:

Guidance of moral, and a priori pure moral and empirical moral.

And now you see that the difficulty is how to set the reference to be
able to measure corruption of morality with it.

What is the reference of morality ?

The reference must be optimization that knows how to be optimization.

I mean that optimization can not set itself as being performance alone.

And optimization can not set itself to be extreme justice that lacks
optimization, like ignoring the optimization by the "heuristic" of
"tolerance" that optimizes the economic system and the social system.

And optimization must be an effort to maintain stableness and
raliability of the system, that means reliability of the system, this is
related to security, and security is also related to compassion and love
and respect, because neglecting compassion , love and respect do cause
extremism and violence that hurt the system.

How optimization must be this effort ? because discipline and progress
are inherent to Liberty, so you have to enforce them efficiently and
wisely by the hard way, that means by laws and by the soft way
that i talked about..

So all in all the schema seems to be more clear and seems to indicate
to us more what is corruption of morality, and it indicate to us
what is the essence of organization..

I was thinking more, and here is my new thinking:

Determinism easy for us to set the truth and sets the way of logic, and
this truth and way of logic must be computed by our brain to create
a consistent system that is efficient morality that is optimization
that is performance and reliability. So there is some truth that hurts
and some truth that is efficient morality that is optimization that we
call tolerable or good, so the essence of truth is based on our essence
that is our consciousness of space-time and the determinism of our
empirical and physical world, and about the essence of logical
consistency of the system, you can understand it by example like this:

About the consistency of the system

We call it consistency of the system..

When the system is:


If A is smaller than B

And B is smaller than C

And if B is medium


The system above doesn't allow to say that: A is smaller than B

Because if you say that , it is as you are saying that A is smaller than
B only, so that's a contradiction that hurts consistency of the system.

And The system above doesn't allow to say that: B is smaller than C

Because if you say that , it is as you are saying that B is smaller than
C only, so that's a contradiction that hurts consistency of the system.

So the system has to be consistent, so the system force you to say all
at the same time:

A is smaller than B

B is smaller than C

B is medium


So that to be strict and clear to not create any contradiction.

And about the essence of measure..

Philosophy is like mathematics..

Now what is the essence of measure ?

I think that the reference is the consciousness of space-time as
i have explained, adjoined with the senses of measure that we have,
such as the sense of orientation and the sense of measuring space and
saying that this is bigger than this etc. those ingrediants
permit us to measure, i will ask for example, what is a point (in
geometry) ? to understand a point we must map it to our consciousness
of space-time as i have explained, so this is rooted on the physical
empirical world, even if we are using our senses of measure, so this
is why i have explained that mathematical logic and the mathematical Set
theory for example are also rooted on the physical and empirical world ,
but the space-time can be relative or general, relativeness permit also
to measure the truth , but this seems to create some contradictions in
the system, this has been showed in my writing and explanation of my
previous post of what is the essence of love and what is love, but i
have showed that this can be resolved by using the reference of the
general morality of the society as the reference that permits to measure
and that must be enforced by laws and police.

The essence of the Truth

What is a Truth ? what is the essence of the Truth ?

That's an important question..

Philosophy is like mathematics, because Philosophy must be based on
efficient morality and efficient morality is optimization and
optimization is performance and reliability.

So if you look at mathematical logic..

What is mathematical logic ?

Mathematical logic is also being conscious and feeling the space-time..

Here is why:

Now I will give my explanation of what is consciousness...

I hope that in my previous messages you have understood my explanation
of how the consciousness of time is generated by our brain, I have said
that the brain has a sense of direction that makes it possible to say
that one object is left or on the right and back or front etc., and the
brain is also able to see space in 3 dimensions with the sense of the
gaze for example, that is to say to give coordinates as cartesian or
polar in three dimensions to objects in the space of reality, and also
the brain by means of the sense of touch and the eye is capable of the
sense of the measurement of the magnitudes in the space of reality,
these are ingredients of the brain which gives birth to the
consciousness of time, for consciousness
of time means that for two objects that follow each other, we
are able to feel the existence in space
of the back of the first object (by the sens of the orientation of the
brain) Which is for example "nothing", and that one also feels the
existence in the space of the back of the second object which is the
first object, and that we are therefore able to associate the back of
the second object to the word "before", and this is how the
consciousness of time is engendered ... now i come to a question even
more important, but what is consciousness really?
i start with an example so that you can understand what
it really is: when you touch your hands with water
very hot, you are able to feel the pain and
to say that it is you who feel the pain, so the meaning
of touch is closely linked to the consciousness of the "I", but
Let us return, if you like, to the experiences of a child,
you will notice that a necessary condition for the child
to be able to learn and understand is to be able to
ask the question of "what is", but you see this question has as a
necessary condition the consciousness of the self, for when the child
arises, question of "what is" is that it would mean:
"I would like to know what it is", and the "I would like to know"
demonstrates the presence of a consciousness of the pre-ego which
guide the questioning of the child, but then what is this
awareness of the pre-ego that guides the questioning that
makes a consciousness too? Here is my answer: I believe that
as in the case of the sense of touch which is in close relationship
with the consciousness of the ego, the act of reflection is also a sens
as the sens of touch that is able to make us feel that
we exist and feel the space in three dimensions, as for touching the
very warm water that allows us to feel that the feeling of hot water
hurts us ... what would I like to say?
that the sens of touch and the sens of smell for example are adjoined
to space-time to give a better consciousness of space-time,
that is, the ideas we have of space-time are not
, for example, just rules of logic, but also are recorded with
sensations of touch and other sensations to give a better
consciousness, so the act of reflection is not just able to logically
reason with simple rules of logic for building more complex logic rules
etc. But it is also capable of associating space-time sensations with
objects that are displaced in a 3-dimensional world, and therefore my
theory makes us see the act of thought as also being also another sens
that resembles the sens of touch , this is my explanation of how the
consciousness and consciousness of the ego is engendered by the brain.

When you say in mathematical logic:

A or B

How do you think you understand this logical rule?
You must go back to your childhood when you were
to learn it, you were told for example there are two balls,
and you had to take just one and give it back, and the teacher
made us understand for example the following: when you want to take two
balls you are informed with gestures that it is NO,
And when you just take one and turn the ball back, you get
to know that it is YES, therefore I affirm that it is thanks to the
existence of space-time which is also a consequence of our interior
sensation of the space-time which gives the consciousness of space-time,
I mean you are able for example with your brain
to feel and understand what BEFORE or BEHIND
Or LEFT or RIGHT, and you are able to feel the
space and to say that it exists and what it is, so you
are able to feel the space-time, and this sensation
in our brain that we have of space-time helps us
to understand the logical rule of: A or B, or the logical rule
of: A and B.

So let us return to the following theorem in mathematical logic:

If A then B, and if B then C, then A then C.

So how do you understand the:
If A then B? As in my explanation above, you can not
understand this rule without being conscious and without feeling
space-time, because even if you are a blind person, you can
feel your individuality and your singularity
which is the consciousness of the ego, and this self-consciousness
is a consequence of the sensation in our brain of space-time that allows
us to feel that the object which is
"WE" is different from other objects etc. Then what makes
even the blind man feels the space-time and is capable
to say that this object is before that object in time,
So it is able to understand the logical rule of:
If A then B, and since he is capable of doing so, he is capable, thanks
to the sensation of the space-time
that we have in our brain, that permit us to understand
The following theorem:

If A then B, and if B then C, then A then C.

This is my evidence based on the empirical facts
and this proves that mathematical logic is also a consequence
of the sensation that we have in our brain of space-time,
without this sensation we can not, in my opinion, understand
mathematical logic, and since the machine is incapable of
feeling like a human being space-time, then
we can not say that artificial intelligence
Is capable of achieving the emergence of
consciousness.

Now what is the truth ?

In mathematical logic the truth is rooted on our consciousness
and feeling of space-time as i have explained, so the reference
is space-time, so we are capable of deducting the truth by
mapping mathematical logic to our consciousness and our feeling
of the space-time, this is i think the reference that permit
to measure the Truth and define the Truth. And in the mathematical Set
theory that's the same as logic. Also the reference is important,
the reference can be general or it can be relative, as i have explained by:


Getting more rational...

Today i will ask a question of: what is love ?

And the answer must be more rational.

So we have to use smartness..

Like the theorems of Kurt Gödel, there is something that seems happening..

If you say that there is still some suffering in your life..

You can come to a deductive conclusion that it is not love.

But if you choose a reference as being one person that is suffering more
than you, you will conclude that your "some" suffering is considered to
be part of good, and this good is part of love.

So as you have noticed there seems like there is a contradiction in the
system..

But this is just our senses, my rationality says that if the reference
is individual morality, so the person above will say that some suffering
is not love.

But if the reference is general morality of the society, you will say
that this some suffering is considered to be part of good, so it is part
of love.

So this relativeness to the general reference that is general of
morality of the society is a good measure i think.

It is like when we are asking the questions of:

What is the essence of corruption ? and how can we measure corruption ?

I have said that optimization measures corruption of morality.

How it can measure it?

Optimization is performance and reliability, and Efficiency is part of
optimization, efficiency is: you have the ressources that is our
universe(we are part of the universe) and our other universes, and you
have to produce an output from this input that is our universe or
universes that is performant, it is performance, so it is related to
the essence of quality, so today because of our own essence that
knows also about quality, we are measuring corruption of morality
by the level or degree of quality, that means by performance and
reliability, and we are measuring craziness and foolishness by the level
or degree of quality, that means by performance and reliability, so if
the level or degree of quality is lower and not tolerable, we say that
it is corruption of morality or it is craziness or foolishness.

How can we measure the level and degree of quality ?

It is like saying that such thing is relative to such thing, also it is
a process that is dynamic, so if our civilization is at time t1 is
more performant and more reliable, we say that this degree of more
reliable and more performant is the level or degree of quality that
measures corruption of morality. So optimization that is performance and
reliability measures corruption of morality in a such way.

I give you an example..

If at time t1 our civilization has only one machine or robot, and this
civilization and one robot or one machine are capable of being more
performance and more reliability with this one robot or one machine, but
they are doing less performance and less reliability, we call this
corruption of morality.

About the essence of the language of love..

The language of love is love..

But what is the language of love ?

You will say that such song of the Beatles is love..

But this is narrow view that doesn't answer the question of what
is the essence of the language of love..

The relativeness to the general reference that is general morality of
the society is a good measure to measure love, as i said before

So the essence of the language of love must be rooted on general
morality that must be efficient morality, and efficient morality must
be optimization that is performance and reliability.

So as you see I am speaking right now the language of love..

So you hear for example that: Justice must constrain happiness
and responsability must constrain justice, that's not the language of
love.. because that's not a correct view, because we are constrained
by empirical moral that says that a kind of tolerance over
responsability plays the role of an heuristic that optimizes our
economic system and our social system, like when we are applying a kind
of tolerance over arab immigrants that are useful to the economic system
and to the social system, so usefulness is the key point also that
optimizes the system and that constrain the system to be a kind of
tolerance over responsbility by not saying that arab immigrants are not
as beautiful as white europeans and be discrimination with them, that's
not the language of love, because the language of love is also
optimization that mandate a kind of tolerance over responsability, this
is the same when i say that optimization is the language of love also ,
because we must know how to be compassion and respect and love towards
arabs and africans to attract consumers and to higher consumer
confidence index, also democracy is subjected to a constrain of
financial and banks institutions that have there rating methodology that
take into account the Political Risk factor and the economic conditions,
this is a counter-power that creates more quality and more world
stability because we have to optimize our economic systems and by being
responsable by being also responsable governance, other than that
compassion and respect can be virility and they are like mandatory for
the system, because compassion and respect gets us more organized
because neglecting compassion and respect cause violence and extremism
that make our society unstable and less optimized , so tuning
compassion and respect right with social services and medical services
and with educational services and with help to the people to avoid
violence and extremism is also more stability and more power , so this
compassion and respect is virility. So as you see optimization is the
language of love.

And what is the essence of corruption ? and how can we measure corruption ?

I have said that optimization measures corruption of morality.

How it can measure it?

Optimization is performance and reliability, and Efficiency is part of
optimization, efficiency is: you have the ressources that is our
universe(we are part of the universe) and our other universes, and you
have to produce an output from this input that is our universe or
universes that is performant, it is performance, so it is related to
the essence of quality, so today because of our own essence that
knows also about quality, we are measuring corruption of morality
by the level or degree of quality, that means by performance and
reliability, and we are measuring craziness and foolishness by the level
or degree of quality, that means by performance and reliability, so if
the level or degree of quality is lower and not tolerable, we say that
it is corruption of morality or it is craziness or foolishness.

How can we measure the level and degree of quality ?

It is like saying that such thing is relative to such thing, also it is
a process that is dynamic, so if our civilization is at time t1 is
more performant and more reliable, we say that this degree of more
reliable and more performant is the level or degree of quality that
measures corruption of morality. So optimization that is performance and
reliability measures corruption of morality in a such way.

I give you an example..

If at time t1 our civilization has only one machine or robot, and this
civilization and one robot or one machine are capable of being more
performance and more reliability with this one robot or one machine, but
they are doing less performance and less reliability, we call this
corruption of morality.

Communication, simplicity, feedback, respect

Those are essentials steps also, you have to know how to communicate
your your ideas and how to simplifying them correctly, and efficient
communication is also efficient abstration, so you have to know how to
decompose and how to abstract the essentials to be able to communicate
efficiently, and this better reliability and correctness, feedback is
also important, i mean like the testing phase, you have to improve your
ideas layer by layer and incrementally using the patience of science ,
because as i have said your perception takes time to be correct
perception , so you have to know how to be patience of science waiting
for your perception to be set correctly, this is in accordance with
efficient morality and in accordance with Liberty.

So as you have seen we have to be able to think correctly using
the tools of logic and rationality, like the following:

Deductive reasoning is when, given certain premises, conclusions are
unavoidably implied. Rules of inference are used to infer conclusions
such as, modus ponens, where given “A” and “If A then B”, then “B” must
be concluded.

And you have to take into account the following:

Consistency, which means that no theorem of the system contradicts another.
Validity, which means that the system's rules of proof never allow a
false inference from true premises.
Completeness, which means that if a formula is true, it can be proven,
i.e. is a theorem of the system.
Soundness, meaning that if any formula is a theorem of the system, it is
true. This is the converse of completeness. (Note that in a distinct
philosophical use of the term, an argument is sound when it is both
valid and its premises are true).

And there is also:

inductive reasoning, which covers forms of inference that move from
collections of particular judgements to universal judgements

And there is also:

Abductive reasoning (also called abduction, abductive inference,] or
retroduction) is a form of logical inference which starts with an
observation then seeks to find the simplest and most likely explanation.
In abductive reasoning, unlike in deductive reasoning, the premises do
not guarantee the conclusion. One can understand abductive reasoning as
inference to the best explanation, although not all uses of the terms
abduction and inference to the best explanation are exactly equivalent.


About the essence of hate...

When you root your ideology on the primitive tribal mentality of "We
against Them," it's an inferior thinking that must be enhanced,
hate must be calculated like a scientist, we can not say jews are
bad, because that's not science, we have to study it scientifically
and rationally, this way we will avoid the disadvantage of the
weaknesses in all of us, the reference must be rationality and logic and
science, and this reference must be better known to be capable of
choosing correctly and setting your perception correctly, and perception
must be subjected to science and rationality and it must also be
subjected to the advantage of patience of science, because patience of
science knows that perception can not be set fast, you have to be
patience to wait for your perception to be set correctly. And you have
to be able to fine tune tolerance, and not to fear tolerance because of
the disadvantage of too much tolerance, this is the weakness of
nationalism, so be smart and be clever and always enhance yourself with
better quality, because that's the essence of survival, and the essence
of survival must not be rooted in the survival of the fittest, because
that's and inferior thinking, it must be subjected to ratinality that
says that we are also weaknesses that must be organized with wisdom,
so this wisdom does play a priomordial role in guiding us
towards a better world.


Can we travel back in time?

Here is my thoughts that i have just wrote:

It is a very interesting question that demands rationality
and logical thinking to answer it ...

To answer it, i start from a mathematical subject which is the
mathematical arithmetic series.

An arithmetic series has as its main characteristic that
the difference between its terms is constant ... and that its sum
gives (a_n * (a_n + 1)) / 2), a_n being the last term ... now you have
to be smart and notice with me that just before the final step of the
final calculation that resulted as a general equation of the arithmetic
series, the calculation of the arithmetic series required of us a much
bigger time to solve the series .. But as soon as the result (a_n * (a_n
+ 1)) / 2 has been reached, the time for the resolution of the
arithmetic series has greatly diminished, therefore the time preceding
the resolution has compressed a lot and allowed us to travel in the the
future quickly, the resolution of the arithmetic series which gave: (a_n
* (a_n + 1)) / 2), it's like a wormhole in the universe permit us to
time travel in the future more quickly, but understand with me that the
time travel in the future that allows you to make the equation of (a_n *
(a_n + 1)) / 2) is relative to the time taken previously by the
arithmetic series just before the discovery of the equation (a_n * (a_n
+ 1)) / 2), and thus that the universe is computable and that ultimately
it allowed a time travel and thanks to mathematics that is something
extra-ordinary in itself.

Now I will be more logical and ask myself the following question:

Is there any contradiction in my evidence since a car
is not a machine to allow time travel in the future to
the simple reason that the regions where we will travel and arrive
faster with a car will not have aged in time that corresponds to the
future time in which one arrives by the feet?

I answer this in a more logical way:

Notice that when I said that the mathematical equation
of the arithmetic series (a_n * (a_n + 1)) / 2) is a time travel machine
that permits to travel in the future, because it is an equation that
also predicts the result more quickly to which one arrives by paper
without this equation, so the time has no hold on the theoretical result
that is predicted faster so that there is no contradiction when it comes
to theoretical prediction. Also when you use this invention That is this
mathematical equation of the arithmetic series: (a_n * (a_n + 1)) / 2),
it is that you are living the future of the one who has not yet
invented or used this equation and who will arrive there in its future,
therefore it is for this reason that this equation is also a time travel
machine that permits to travel in the future and it has a predictive
characteristic.

So there is no contradiction and therefore we can
consider a car as a time traveling machine to travel in the future, like
the microprocessor, and like several other mathematical inventions
as the mathematical equation of the arithmetic series.

Here is one of my conclusion:

If you are traveling from Montreal to Paris
by airplane, and that another person swims and walk
by foot to Paris, and assume that the person who moves by swiming
and walking wants to see Paris and answer some questions,
And if you travel to Paris by plane and you
answer these questions more quickly since you are going to see Paris
more quickly than the person swimming and and walking , so that
has a predictive character as the mathematical equation of the
arithmetic series (a_n * (a_n + 1)) / 2), since you will be able
to send an email quickly to the person who wants to
to swim and walk to Paris and give him
the answers he's looking for, so you'll be able to see
the answers of his future, and this predictive characteristic
can be considered as a time travel machine that permits to travel in the
future,
so the aircraft and the car are like time travel machines that permit to
travel in the future ... as well as the processors and other
mathematical inventions and others...


Rationality and logic also have a predictive characteristic,
so you must also reason better in a more scientific manner and take into
account the scientific and empirical evidence to
be ahead of others, like a time machine that permits to travel in the
future..

If a first person receives a valuable advice and this advice
of value allows him to better control his future and to succeed in his
life in the future by executing this valuable advice and also it allows
him to predict his future, and besides, imagine that a second person
will receive in its future this valuable advice, then the first person
will be able to guess with CERTITUDE the future of the second person
which will be the consequence of the execution of this valuable advice ,
and not only the first person will have lived the future of the second
person before the second person, since the two will have lived the same
event by the execution of this valuable advice, then in my opinion we
must reason as in fuzzy logic rather than in boolean logic and
notice that since the first person will guess with CERTITUDE
The future of the second person and will also live the future event of
the second person, then those two theoretical and
empirical evidences confirms that the first person has lived the future
event of the second person, so this valuable advice could be called by
mathematical approximation a time machine that permits to travel in the
future, I say "approximation", because we by analogy are as in fuzzy
logic rather than in boolean logic, in addition to that, that the fact
that the first person guesses with CERTITUDE the future of the second
person, this informs in a logical manner that this certainty change our
way of perceiving, for this certainty, even if
it is not travel in the future, it is by approximation
as a journey into the future, for a journey into the future
will lead to the same certainty, and as a result
the same certainties permit us to affirm by approximation
that the valuable advice is a time machine that permits us to travel
in the future.

Then you understand that I am also a Platonist,
Because you noticed that I can define this time travel in the future as
a platonic event, so when i said that a valuable advice is a time
machine that permits to travel in the future, you understand that it
makes us live platonically the future of others, and since I am a also
Platonist, I affirm that a valuable advice is a time travel machine
that permits us to travel in the future of others since time has no hold
on the ideas, and that the same idea through time inside two
persons, is the same idea, therefore my proof is made that the valuable
advice is a time machine that permits us to travel in the future.

When you imagine a circle, I asserts that not only can you imagine the
circle in material or matter but also in immaterial, as was my proof
that I have just given you , this immaterial essence of the idea is
reified by our reason, and that is the reason that gives it existence.
So this in my opinion is sufficient proof that the idea exists because
we feel it by our reason and it pays homage to our beloved philosopher
Plato.

It is this reification of the immaterial essence of the idea
by reason which gives the necessary and even sufficient approximation to
call even a valuable advice a time machine that permits to travel in the
future.

Then since the idea exists and since a sensation also exists,
then one can not also distinguish an idea from the generated sensation
by the execution as an automaton of a valuable advice at a time t1 and a
time t1 + t2, and since an idea does not age then we can affirm that
valuable advice is a time machine that permits us to travel in the
future, and the valuable advice has a predictive characteristic, because
the approximation is sufficient since we are not in boolean logic but in
fuzzy logic.

What is the most important goal of my political philosophy?

In my opinion the most important aim of my political philosophy is that
as I have just explained that the idea in the Platonic sense has a very
important characteristic, it is that one can perfect it and bring it to
be more and more perfect or even perfect, then in my opinion the aim of
my political philosophy it is to perfect ideas and to make them follow
by the people, not only that, but these architectural and efficient and
correct ideas of my political philosophy should be regarded as automata
that should be executed to arrive at there efficient goals, now a
question arises from it: how to encourage the people to execute these
architectural ideas as executing automata to perfect more our world ?
One of the ways to do this is what I have done in my political
philosophy is to show that rationality and science and microprocessors
and valuable advices etc. etc. are also as time machines that permit to
travel in the future , that is the architectural ideas of my political
philosophy and this architectural ideas of my political philosophy leads
the people to perceive the world differently by giving for example more
importance and high priority to science and efficient technics and
technology, the other method is also to reinforce more these
architectural ideas of my politicial philosophy to be able to enhance
and perfect, as we are enforcing laws..


Now about a philosophical problem..

I have explained with 2 + 2 = 4 that the "consciousness"
is the "consequence" of "understanding", then once
that you build a hierarchy of ideas and
Logical relations and by also measure, then you will be able to
understand mathematical equality Of 2 + 2 = 4, and once you understand
that, at this very precise moment that you understand mathematical
equality 2 + 2 = 4, then you will be ultimately conscious
Of the mathematical equality of 2 + 2 = 4, that is why I have said that
the process of consciousness is much simpler than the process of
intelligence in action, so I hope that my argumentation is clear. Now
there remains something to be explained is that even if the process of
intelligence in action has not been easy for humanity, the fact that a
human being understands the mathematical equality of 2 + 2 = 4, then
this understanding will greatly reduce complexity and let us see the
"truth" as it really is, a child who tries initially to understand the
the mathematical equality of 2 + 2 = 4 will see this process as being
"difficult", but is that really "truth"? I do not believe because the
understanding of the essence of what is "truth" tells us that truth can
only be reached when there is complete comprehension of a process or a
thing, then the perception of the child who sees in the beginning of the
process of understanding the mathematical equality of 2 + 2 = 4 as being
"difficult" is not the truth, it is rather the perception of the one who
understood "completely" the mathematical equality of 2 + 2 = 4 and which
tells us that equality is easy which is the truth.

I have spoken of the understanding of the very essence of what is
the truth, for example, when you look at the door of a car, can you say
that it's a car ? I do not think, it's who looks and understands
everything that is Car that can say it's a car! do you understand ?
Then, in my opinion, it can be inferred that it is understanding of a
process or thing that greatly reduce or erase "complexity" and which
reveals to us the truth, It is like this for the mathematical equality
of 2 + 2 = 4 If a child in the beginning tries to understand this
equality, he will say that the mathematical equality is "difficult", but
is that the truth? I think no, because it's like the example of the car
which I have just given you, it is once the understanding
of equality is complete that it will greatly reduce or erase the
"complexity" and will confirm that the equality is truly "easy", and
This is the truth and that is the veridic perception and this is the
very essence of truth.

So if you have understood what I'm trying to explain,
Is that we could say that mathematics is easy and simple, our universe
is easy and simple and any thing or process is easy and simple,
But it is because we are limited intellectually or physically that we do
not understand it, i see this as in an axis of reality, i mean that the
complexity of mathematics and knowledge of mathematics is 0.1
on a scale of 100, and we are still weaker at 0.001 on a scale of 100 ,
even though knowledge of the universe and mathematics is easy, we feel
this as difficult.

But my point of view is not complete, I will present my other reasoning:

We can say, for example, that to define what a car is, we have
to "understand" what a car is, then we
can therefore affirm that the completeness of knowledge
of the car brings us to understand in a perfect way
what is a car .. now the important question in logic is: is it possible
to state the same thing about the variable of the "complexity" of
comprehension, that is to say: perfect knowledge leads us to understand
the very nature of the complexity of knowledge, as in the case of the
car i have just given you above, because it is the one who really knows
the car who can define the car, can we say the same thing about the
complexity of understanding? does it is the one who really knows
knowledge that can say what is the complexity of the understanding of
this knowledge? Do you understand my problem that
use logic effectively to solve this problem?
As in the problem of the car, above, what can we
say about the heaviness or the size of the car which characterizes
the car, we can say that it is the one who has knowledge about the car
and who understands the car that can accurately state what the heaviness
or the size of the car, but can we say the same thing about the
characteristic which is called the "Complexity" of understanding? I mean
that by analogy, if complexity is the characteristic of the
size of the car and if comprehension is the understanding of the car,
can we say the same thing and say that the completeness of understanding
can be defined only when there is more complete understanding and that
greatly reduce or erase complexity because when you understand more
fully this leads us to say that understanding is easy? I think that to
solve this problem it is necessary to look that in the case of the car,
the size and the heaviness are not of the variables of the
"comprehension" function, whereas in the case of complexity,
comprehension is, on the other hand, a variable of the complexity of
comprehension, so these are two different problems, so that the nature
of the complexity of Comprehension is relative to comprehension, since
comprehension is a variable of the complexity of comprehension, so the
problem is better solved in this way and complexity should be seen as a
function of comprehension, and more there is comprehension and more
there is understand and more there is less complexity of understanding.

And now here is my definitive proof and solution to this problem:

As you noted in my second reasoning, I have concluded that understanding
is a variable of complexity of understanding, for the more there is
comprehension the more there is less complexity of understanding. The
problem is not resolved as we can assert that understanding is the
theoretical representation of the car example that i have given above,
but since the more we understand theoretically the car, the more there
is less complexity of understanding, so we can say that the theoretical
representation of the understanding of the car system is easy, but this
is not true because, first of all, there is a contradiction, since two
theoretical systems, one which is more complex and another that is less
complex system, can both become as easy when there is definitive
understanding, and since the mechanism of awareness of the theoretical
understanding of the understanding of the car system rely on the speed
of our brain, that means that when you remember an understanding in your
brain, the brain is quick in its computation to do it, and This rapidity
of computation of the brain makes us see comprehension as easy, for
example, when you look at an equality of 2 + 2 = 4, your brain has
already understood this equality before when you were still a child, but
when you look at this equality now, the brain brings back the
understanding of this equality and it does so quickly , and this is what
does our brain, you do not have to understand the equality yet again,
no, the brain makes a quick computation and brings you back the
understanding of this equality quickly, that's what makes it easy to
understand the theoretical representation of the understanding of the
car system, since the theoretical representation of the understanding
of the system of a car is brought back quickly by the brain in the form
of an understanding of the parts of the theoretical system of the car,
as in the case of 2 + 2 = 4, and this shows us the theoretical
representation of understanding of the system of the car as being easy,
it is the brain that is fast and which facilitates because of its speed
of computation as in the case of 2 + 2 = 4.. so the ease of
understanding is a consequence of the speed of computation of the brain,
so it is not the theoretical representation of the understanding of the
car system that is easy. Thus I believe that the problem is definitely
resolved by my logical and effective reasoning.



Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
Markus Klyver
2017-06-15 18:16:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rami18
Hello........
Here is some of my thoughts that i have extended, please read this post
to understand better my thoughts..
What is the essence of organization ?
Those are the questions that we ask in courses of philosophy.
Now i have to be smartness and rationality and logic to answer this
question. Smartness is an important requirement that fulfill this
goal.
And you have to learn how to think Sir and Madam..
So how can we attack this problem ?
When you start thinking it is like also abstracting to the essentials to
be able to simplify our thinking..
So this process of abstraction needs also my smartness to decompose
efficiently...
Smartness is also a fast process that finds fast the shortest path to
the solution or that finds the solution to the problem..
Look at our essence, we are a composition of consciousness and physical
body..
But we can try to say that we are guided by the process of survival of
fittest..
But this is not good abstraction..
We have to be smartness..
So why do we need to organize ?
You will say that we have to be organized because of the process
survival of the fittest..
But this is a narrow view..
Because it is a definition that is pejorative and not efficient..
Why we need to survive better ?
It is because of our weaknesses.
But i say that it is still not a correct answer , because
it is too much abstraction that lacks efficiency.
Because our weaknesses need to be organized by optimization.
This is the magical word, it is optimization.
Why do we optimize ? to be more powerful and more reliability and
correctness.
Is optimization: reliability and correctness ?
When you are not reliable and/or correctness you are less
efficient, so efficiency is also reliability and correctness.
This is why i have abstracted the essence of organization to the process
of optimization.
But that's lacking Abstraction.
Because we have to look at the composition of optimization.
Optimization is performance and reliability.
So that the essence of organization is the composition of optimization
that is performance and reliability.
So the essence of optimization is not only performance , but it is
reliability.
And that's also efficient morality, and efficient morality is Liberty
and Liberty is efficient morality.
Because the optimization is constrained..
Because corruption of morality is related to optimization..
So how can we measure corruption of morality ?
What is corruption of morality ?
This is an interesting subject..
It's like abstracting, you have to decompose and compose..
You can say for example what are the causes of corruption of morality?
You can say what is the consequences of corruption ?
You can define efficiently morality to be able to know about corruption.
Guidance of moral, and a priori pure moral and empirical moral.
And now you see that the difficulty is how to set the reference to be
able to measure corruption of morality with it.
What is the reference of morality ?
The reference must be optimization that knows how to be optimization.
I mean that optimization can not set itself as being performance alone.
And optimization can not set itself to be extreme justice that lacks
optimization, like ignoring the optimization by the "heuristic" of
"tolerance" that optimizes the economic system and the social system.
And optimization must be an effort to maintain stableness and
raliability of the system, that means reliability of the system, this is
related to security, and security is also related to compassion and love
and respect, because neglecting compassion , love and respect do cause
extremism and violence that hurt the system.
How optimization must be this effort ? because discipline and progress
are inherent to Liberty, so you have to enforce them efficiently and
wisely by the hard way, that means by laws and by the soft way
that i talked about..
So all in all the schema seems to be more clear and seems to indicate
to us more what is corruption of morality, and it indicate to us
what is the essence of organization..
Determinism easy for us to set the truth and sets the way of logic, and
this truth and way of logic must be computed by our brain to create
a consistent system that is efficient morality that is optimization
that is performance and reliability. So there is some truth that hurts
and some truth that is efficient morality that is optimization that we
call tolerable or good, so the essence of truth is based on our essence
that is our consciousness of space-time and the determinism of our
empirical and physical world, and about the essence of logical
About the consistency of the system
We call it consistency of the system..
If A is smaller than B
And B is smaller than C
And if B is medium
The system above doesn't allow to say that: A is smaller than B
Because if you say that , it is as you are saying that A is smaller than
B only, so that's a contradiction that hurts consistency of the system.
And The system above doesn't allow to say that: B is smaller than C
Because if you say that , it is as you are saying that B is smaller than
C only, so that's a contradiction that hurts consistency of the system.
So the system has to be consistent, so the system force you to say all
A is smaller than B
B is smaller than C
B is medium
So that to be strict and clear to not create any contradiction.
And about the essence of measure..
Philosophy is like mathematics..
Now what is the essence of measure ?
I think that the reference is the consciousness of space-time as
i have explained, adjoined with the senses of measure that we have,
such as the sense of orientation and the sense of measuring space and
saying that this is bigger than this etc. those ingrediants
permit us to measure, i will ask for example, what is a point (in
geometry) ? to understand a point we must map it to our consciousness
of space-time as i have explained, so this is rooted on the physical
empirical world, even if we are using our senses of measure, so this
is why i have explained that mathematical logic and the mathematical Set
theory for example are also rooted on the physical and empirical world ,
but the space-time can be relative or general, relativeness permit also
to measure the truth , but this seems to create some contradictions in
the system, this has been showed in my writing and explanation of my
previous post of what is the essence of love and what is love, but i
have showed that this can be resolved by using the reference of the
general morality of the society as the reference that permits to measure
and that must be enforced by laws and police.
The essence of the Truth
What is a Truth ? what is the essence of the Truth ?
That's an important question..
Philosophy is like mathematics, because Philosophy must be based on
efficient morality and efficient morality is optimization and
optimization is performance and reliability.
So if you look at mathematical logic..
What is mathematical logic ?
Mathematical logic is also being conscious and feeling the space-time..
Now I will give my explanation of what is consciousness...
I hope that in my previous messages you have understood my explanation
of how the consciousness of time is generated by our brain, I have said
that the brain has a sense of direction that makes it possible to say
that one object is left or on the right and back or front etc., and the
brain is also able to see space in 3 dimensions with the sense of the
gaze for example, that is to say to give coordinates as cartesian or
polar in three dimensions to objects in the space of reality, and also
the brain by means of the sense of touch and the eye is capable of the
sense of the measurement of the magnitudes in the space of reality,
these are ingredients of the brain which gives birth to the
consciousness of time, for consciousness
of time means that for two objects that follow each other, we
are able to feel the existence in space
of the back of the first object (by the sens of the orientation of the
brain) Which is for example "nothing", and that one also feels the
existence in the space of the back of the second object which is the
first object, and that we are therefore able to associate the back of
the second object to the word "before", and this is how the
consciousness of time is engendered ... now i come to a question even
more important, but what is consciousness really?
i start with an example so that you can understand what
it really is: when you touch your hands with water
very hot, you are able to feel the pain and
to say that it is you who feel the pain, so the meaning
of touch is closely linked to the consciousness of the "I", but
Let us return, if you like, to the experiences of a child,
you will notice that a necessary condition for the child
to be able to learn and understand is to be able to
ask the question of "what is", but you see this question has as a
necessary condition the consciousness of the self, for when the child
"I would like to know what it is", and the "I would like to know"
demonstrates the presence of a consciousness of the pre-ego which
guide the questioning of the child, but then what is this
awareness of the pre-ego that guides the questioning that
makes a consciousness too? Here is my answer: I believe that
as in the case of the sense of touch which is in close relationship
with the consciousness of the ego, the act of reflection is also a sens
as the sens of touch that is able to make us feel that
we exist and feel the space in three dimensions, as for touching the
very warm water that allows us to feel that the feeling of hot water
hurts us ... what would I like to say?
that the sens of touch and the sens of smell for example are adjoined
to space-time to give a better consciousness of space-time,
that is, the ideas we have of space-time are not
, for example, just rules of logic, but also are recorded with
sensations of touch and other sensations to give a better
consciousness, so the act of reflection is not just able to logically
reason with simple rules of logic for building more complex logic rules
etc. But it is also capable of associating space-time sensations with
objects that are displaced in a 3-dimensional world, and therefore my
theory makes us see the act of thought as also being also another sens
that resembles the sens of touch , this is my explanation of how the
consciousness and consciousness of the ego is engendered by the brain.
A or B
How do you think you understand this logical rule?
You must go back to your childhood when you were
to learn it, you were told for example there are two balls,
and you had to take just one and give it back, and the teacher
made us understand for example the following: when you want to take two
balls you are informed with gestures that it is NO,
And when you just take one and turn the ball back, you get
to know that it is YES, therefore I affirm that it is thanks to the
existence of space-time which is also a consequence of our interior
sensation of the space-time which gives the consciousness of space-time,
I mean you are able for example with your brain
to feel and understand what BEFORE or BEHIND
Or LEFT or RIGHT, and you are able to feel the
space and to say that it exists and what it is, so you
are able to feel the space-time, and this sensation
in our brain that we have of space-time helps us
to understand the logical rule of: A or B, or the logical rule
of: A and B.
If A then B, and if B then C, then A then C.
If A then B? As in my explanation above, you can not
understand this rule without being conscious and without feeling
space-time, because even if you are a blind person, you can
feel your individuality and your singularity
which is the consciousness of the ego, and this self-consciousness
is a consequence of the sensation in our brain of space-time that allows
us to feel that the object which is
"WE" is different from other objects etc. Then what makes
even the blind man feels the space-time and is capable
to say that this object is before that object in time,
If A then B, and since he is capable of doing so, he is capable, thanks
to the sensation of the space-time
that we have in our brain, that permit us to understand
If A then B, and if B then C, then A then C.
This is my evidence based on the empirical facts
and this proves that mathematical logic is also a consequence
of the sensation that we have in our brain of space-time,
without this sensation we can not, in my opinion, understand
mathematical logic, and since the machine is incapable of
feeling like a human being space-time, then
we can not say that artificial intelligence
Is capable of achieving the emergence of
consciousness.
Now what is the truth ?
In mathematical logic the truth is rooted on our consciousness
and feeling of space-time as i have explained, so the reference
is space-time, so we are capable of deducting the truth by
mapping mathematical logic to our consciousness and our feeling
of the space-time, this is i think the reference that permit
to measure the Truth and define the Truth. And in the mathematical Set
theory that's the same as logic. Also the reference is important,
Getting more rational...
Today i will ask a question of: what is love ?
And the answer must be more rational.
So we have to use smartness..
Like the theorems of Kurt Gödel, there is something that seems happening..
If you say that there is still some suffering in your life..
You can come to a deductive conclusion that it is not love.
But if you choose a reference as being one person that is suffering more
than you, you will conclude that your "some" suffering is considered to
be part of good, and this good is part of love.
So as you have noticed there seems like there is a contradiction in the
system..
But this is just our senses, my rationality says that if the reference
is individual morality, so the person above will say that some suffering
is not love.
But if the reference is general morality of the society, you will say
that this some suffering is considered to be part of good, so it is part
of love.
So this relativeness to the general reference that is general of
morality of the society is a good measure i think.
What is the essence of corruption ? and how can we measure corruption ?
I have said that optimization measures corruption of morality.
How it can measure it?
Optimization is performance and reliability, and Efficiency is part of
optimization, efficiency is: you have the ressources that is our
universe(we are part of the universe) and our other universes, and you
have to produce an output from this input that is our universe or
universes that is performant, it is performance, so it is related to
the essence of quality, so today because of our own essence that
knows also about quality, we are measuring corruption of morality
by the level or degree of quality, that means by performance and
reliability, and we are measuring craziness and foolishness by the level
or degree of quality, that means by performance and reliability, so if
the level or degree of quality is lower and not tolerable, we say that
it is corruption of morality or it is craziness or foolishness.
How can we measure the level and degree of quality ?
It is like saying that such thing is relative to such thing, also it is
a process that is dynamic, so if our civilization is at time t1 is
more performant and more reliable, we say that this degree of more
reliable and more performant is the level or degree of quality that
measures corruption of morality. So optimization that is performance and
reliability measures corruption of morality in a such way.
I give you an example..
If at time t1 our civilization has only one machine or robot, and this
civilization and one robot or one machine are capable of being more
performance and more reliability with this one robot or one machine, but
they are doing less performance and less reliability, we call this
corruption of morality.
About the essence of the language of love..
The language of love is love..
But what is the language of love ?
You will say that such song of the Beatles is love..
But this is narrow view that doesn't answer the question of what
is the essence of the language of love..
The relativeness to the general reference that is general morality of
the society is a good measure to measure love, as i said before
So the essence of the language of love must be rooted on general
morality that must be efficient morality, and efficient morality must
be optimization that is performance and reliability.
So as you see I am speaking right now the language of love..
So you hear for example that: Justice must constrain happiness
and responsability must constrain justice, that's not the language of
love.. because that's not a correct view, because we are constrained
by empirical moral that says that a kind of tolerance over
responsability plays the role of an heuristic that optimizes our
economic system and our social system, like when we are applying a kind
of tolerance over arab immigrants that are useful to the economic system
and to the social system, so usefulness is the key point also that
optimizes the system and that constrain the system to be a kind of
tolerance over responsbility by not saying that arab immigrants are not
as beautiful as white europeans and be discrimination with them, that's
not the language of love, because the language of love is also
optimization that mandate a kind of tolerance over responsability, this
is the same when i say that optimization is the language of love also ,
because we must know how to be compassion and respect and love towards
arabs and africans to attract consumers and to higher consumer
confidence index, also democracy is subjected to a constrain of
financial and banks institutions that have there rating methodology that
take into account the Political Risk factor and the economic conditions,
this is a counter-power that creates more quality and more world
stability because we have to optimize our economic systems and by being
responsable by being also responsable governance, other than that
compassion and respect can be virility and they are like mandatory for
the system, because compassion and respect gets us more organized
because neglecting compassion and respect cause violence and extremism
that make our society unstable and less optimized , so tuning
compassion and respect right with social services and medical services
and with educational services and with help to the people to avoid
violence and extremism is also more stability and more power , so this
compassion and respect is virility. So as you see optimization is the
language of love.
And what is the essence of corruption ? and how can we measure corruption ?
I have said that optimization measures corruption of morality.
How it can measure it?
Optimization is performance and reliability, and Efficiency is part of
optimization, efficiency is: you have the ressources that is our
universe(we are part of the universe) and our other universes, and you
have to produce an output from this input that is our universe or
universes that is performant, it is performance, so it is related to
the essence of quality, so today because of our own essence that
knows also about quality, we are measuring corruption of morality
by the level or degree of quality, that means by performance and
reliability, and we are measuring craziness and foolishness by the level
or degree of quality, that means by performance and reliability, so if
the level or degree of quality is lower and not tolerable, we say that
it is corruption of morality or it is craziness or foolishness.
How can we measure the level and degree of quality ?
It is like saying that such thing is relative to such thing, also it is
a process that is dynamic, so if our civilization is at time t1 is
more performant and more reliable, we say that this degree of more
reliable and more performant is the level or degree of quality that
measures corruption of morality. So optimization that is performance and
reliability measures corruption of morality in a such way.
I give you an example..
If at time t1 our civilization has only one machine or robot, and this
civilization and one robot or one machine are capable of being more
performance and more reliability with this one robot or one machine, but
they are doing less performance and less reliability, we call this
corruption of morality.
Communication, simplicity, feedback, respect
Those are essentials steps also, you have to know how to communicate
your your ideas and how to simplifying them correctly, and efficient
communication is also efficient abstration, so you have to know how to
decompose and how to abstract the essentials to be able to communicate
efficiently, and this better reliability and correctness, feedback is
also important, i mean like the testing phase, you have to improve your
ideas layer by layer and incrementally using the patience of science ,
because as i have said your perception takes time to be correct
perception , so you have to know how to be patience of science waiting
for your perception to be set correctly, this is in accordance with
efficient morality and in accordance with Liberty.
So as you have seen we have to be able to think correctly using
Deductive reasoning is when, given certain premises, conclusions are
unavoidably implied. Rules of inference are used to infer conclusions
such as, modus ponens, where given “A” and “If A then B”, then “B” must
be concluded.
Consistency, which means that no theorem of the system contradicts another.
Validity, which means that the system's rules of proof never allow a
false inference from true premises.
Completeness, which means that if a formula is true, it can be proven,
i.e. is a theorem of the system.
Soundness, meaning that if any formula is a theorem of the system, it is
true. This is the converse of completeness. (Note that in a distinct
philosophical use of the term, an argument is sound when it is both
valid and its premises are true).
inductive reasoning, which covers forms of inference that move from
collections of particular judgements to universal judgements
Abductive reasoning (also called abduction, abductive inference,] or
retroduction) is a form of logical inference which starts with an
observation then seeks to find the simplest and most likely explanation.
In abductive reasoning, unlike in deductive reasoning, the premises do
not guarantee the conclusion. One can understand abductive reasoning as
inference to the best explanation, although not all uses of the terms
abduction and inference to the best explanation are exactly equivalent.
About the essence of hate...
When you root your ideology on the primitive tribal mentality of "We
against Them," it's an inferior thinking that must be enhanced,
hate must be calculated like a scientist, we can not say jews are
bad, because that's not science, we have to study it scientifically
and rationally, this way we will avoid the disadvantage of the
weaknesses in all of us, the reference must be rationality and logic and
science, and this reference must be better known to be capable of
choosing correctly and setting your perception correctly, and perception
must be subjected to science and rationality and it must also be
subjected to the advantage of patience of science, because patience of
science knows that perception can not be set fast, you have to be
patience to wait for your perception to be set correctly. And you have
to be able to fine tune tolerance, and not to fear tolerance because of
the disadvantage of too much tolerance, this is the weakness of
nationalism, so be smart and be clever and always enhance yourself with
better quality, because that's the essence of survival, and the essence
of survival must not be rooted in the survival of the fittest, because
that's and inferior thinking, it must be subjected to ratinality that
says that we are also weaknesses that must be organized with wisdom,
so this wisdom does play a priomordial role in guiding us
towards a better world.
Can we travel back in time?
It is a very interesting question that demands rationality
and logical thinking to answer it ...
To answer it, i start from a mathematical subject which is the
mathematical arithmetic series.
An arithmetic series has as its main characteristic that
the difference between its terms is constant ... and that its sum
gives (a_n * (a_n + 1)) / 2), a_n being the last term ... now you have
to be smart and notice with me that just before the final step of the
final calculation that resulted as a general equation of the arithmetic
series, the calculation of the arithmetic series required of us a much
bigger time to solve the series .. But as soon as the result (a_n * (a_n
+ 1)) / 2 has been reached, the time for the resolution of the
arithmetic series has greatly diminished, therefore the time preceding
the resolution has compressed a lot and allowed us to travel in the the
future quickly, the resolution of the arithmetic series which gave: (a_n
* (a_n + 1)) / 2), it's like a wormhole in the universe permit us to
time travel in the future more quickly, but understand with me that the
time travel in the future that allows you to make the equation of (a_n *
(a_n + 1)) / 2) is relative to the time taken previously by the
arithmetic series just before the discovery of the equation (a_n * (a_n
+ 1)) / 2), and thus that the universe is computable and that ultimately
it allowed a time travel and thanks to mathematics that is something
extra-ordinary in itself.
Is there any contradiction in my evidence since a car
is not a machine to allow time travel in the future to
the simple reason that the regions where we will travel and arrive
faster with a car will not have aged in time that corresponds to the
future time in which one arrives by the feet?
Notice that when I said that the mathematical equation
of the arithmetic series (a_n * (a_n + 1)) / 2) is a time travel machine
that permits to travel in the future, because it is an equation that
also predicts the result more quickly to which one arrives by paper
without this equation, so the time has no hold on the theoretical result
that is predicted faster so that there is no contradiction when it comes
to theoretical prediction. Also when you use this invention That is this
mathematical equation of the arithmetic series: (a_n * (a_n + 1)) / 2),
it is that you are living the future of the one who has not yet
invented or used this equation and who will arrive there in its future,
therefore it is for this reason that this equation is also a time travel
machine that permits to travel in the future and it has a predictive
characteristic.
So there is no contradiction and therefore we can
consider a car as a time traveling machine to travel in the future, like
the microprocessor, and like several other mathematical inventions
as the mathematical equation of the arithmetic series.
If you are traveling from Montreal to Paris
by airplane, and that another person swims and walk
by foot to Paris, and assume that the person who moves by swiming
and walking wants to see Paris and answer some questions,
And if you travel to Paris by plane and you
answer these questions more quickly since you are going to see Paris
more quickly than the person swimming and and walking , so that
has a predictive character as the mathematical equation of the
arithmetic series (a_n * (a_n + 1)) / 2), since you will be able
to send an email quickly to the person who wants to
to swim and walk to Paris and give him
the answers he's looking for, so you'll be able to see
the answers of his future, and this predictive characteristic
can be considered as a time travel machine that permits to travel in the
future,
so the aircraft and the car are like time travel machines that permit to
travel in the future ... as well as the processors and other
mathematical inventions and others...
Rationality and logic also have a predictive characteristic,
so you must also reason better in a more scientific manner and take into
account the scientific and empirical evidence to
be ahead of others, like a time machine that permits to travel in the
future..
If a first person receives a valuable advice and this advice
of value allows him to better control his future and to succeed in his
life in the future by executing this valuable advice and also it allows
him to predict his future, and besides, imagine that a second person
will receive in its future this valuable advice, then the first person
will be able to guess with CERTITUDE the future of the second person
which will be the consequence of the execution of this valuable advice ,
and not only the first person will have lived the future of the second
person before the second person, since the two will have lived the same
event by the execution of this valuable advice, then in my opinion we
must reason as in fuzzy logic rather than in boolean logic and
notice that since the first person will guess with CERTITUDE
The future of the second person and will also live the future event of
the second person, then those two theoretical and
empirical evidences confirms that the first person has lived the future
event of the second person, so this valuable advice could be called by
mathematical approximation a time machine that permits to travel in the
future, I say "approximation", because we by analogy are as in fuzzy
logic rather than in boolean logic, in addition to that, that the fact
that the first person guesses with CERTITUDE the future of the second
person, this informs in a logical manner that this certainty change our
way of perceiving, for this certainty, even if
it is not travel in the future, it is by approximation
as a journey into the future, for a journey into the future
will lead to the same certainty, and as a result
the same certainties permit us to affirm by approximation
that the valuable advice is a time machine that permits us to travel
in the future.
Then you understand that I am also a Platonist,
Because you noticed that I can define this time travel in the future as
a platonic event, so when i said that a valuable advice is a time
machine that permits to travel in the future, you understand that it
makes us live platonically the future of others, and since I am a also
Platonist, I affirm that a valuable advice is a time travel machine
that permits us to travel in the future of others since time has no hold
on the ideas, and that the same idea through time inside two
persons, is the same idea, therefore my proof is made that the valuable
advice is a time machine that permits us to travel in the future.
When you imagine a circle, I asserts that not only can you imagine the
circle in material or matter but also in immaterial, as was my proof
that I have just given you , this immaterial essence of the idea is
reified by our reason, and that is the reason that gives it existence.
So this in my opinion is sufficient proof that the idea exists because
we feel it by our reason and it pays homage to our beloved philosopher
Plato.
It is this reification of the immaterial essence of the idea
by reason which gives the necessary and even sufficient approximation to
call even a valuable advice a time machine that permits to travel in the
future.
Then since the idea exists and since a sensation also exists,
then one can not also distinguish an idea from the generated sensation
by the execution as an automaton of a valuable advice at a time t1 and a
time t1 + t2, and since an idea does not age then we can affirm that
valuable advice is a time machine that permits us to travel in the
future, and the valuable advice has a predictive characteristic, because
the approximation is sufficient since we are not in boolean logic but in
fuzzy logic.
What is the most important goal of my political philosophy?
In my opinion the most important aim of my political philosophy is that
as I have just explained that the idea in the Platonic sense has a very
important characteristic, it is that one can perfect it and bring it to
be more and more perfect or even perfect, then in my opinion the aim of
my political philosophy it is to perfect ideas and to make them follow
by the people, not only that, but these architectural and efficient and
correct ideas of my political philosophy should be regarded as automata
that should be executed to arrive at there efficient goals, now a
question arises from it: how to encourage the people to execute these
architectural ideas as executing automata to perfect more our world ?
One of the ways to do this is what I have done in my political
philosophy is to show that rationality and science and microprocessors
and valuable advices etc. etc. are also as time machines that permit to
travel in the future , that is the architectural ideas of my political
philosophy and this architectural ideas of my political philosophy leads
the people to perceive the world differently by giving for example more
importance and high priority to science and efficient technics and
technology, the other method is also to reinforce more these
architectural ideas of my politicial philosophy to be able to enhance
and perfect, as we are enforcing laws..
Now about a philosophical problem..
I have explained with 2 + 2 = 4 that the "consciousness"
is the "consequence" of "understanding", then once
that you build a hierarchy of ideas and
Logical relations and by also measure, then you will be able to
understand mathematical equality Of 2 + 2 = 4, and once you understand
that, at this very precise moment that you understand mathematical
equality 2 + 2 = 4, then you will be ultimately conscious
Of the mathematical equality of 2 + 2 = 4, that is why I have said that
the process of consciousness is much simpler than the process of
intelligence in action, so I hope that my argumentation is clear. Now
there remains something to be explained is that even if the process of
intelligence in action has not been easy for humanity, the fact that a
human being understands the mathematical equality of 2 + 2 = 4, then
this understanding will greatly reduce complexity and let us see the
"truth" as it really is, a child who tries initially to understand the
the mathematical equality of 2 + 2 = 4 will see this process as being
"difficult", but is that really "truth"? I do not believe because the
understanding of the essence of what is "truth" tells us that truth can
only be reached when there is complete comprehension of a process or a
thing, then the perception of the child who sees in the beginning of the
process of understanding the mathematical equality of 2 + 2 = 4 as being
"difficult" is not the truth, it is rather the perception of the one who
understood "completely" the mathematical equality of 2 + 2 = 4 and which
tells us that equality is easy which is the truth.
I have spoken of the understanding of the very essence of what is
the truth, for example, when you look at the door of a car, can you say
that it's a car ? I do not think, it's who looks and understands
everything that is Car that can say it's a car! do you understand ?
Then, in my opinion, it can be inferred that it is understanding of a
process or thing that greatly reduce or erase "complexity" and which
reveals to us the truth, It is like this for the mathematical equality
of 2 + 2 = 4 If a child in the beginning tries to understand this
equality, he will say that the mathematical equality is "difficult", but
is that the truth? I think no, because it's like the example of the car
which I have just given you, it is once the understanding
of equality is complete that it will greatly reduce or erase the
"complexity" and will confirm that the equality is truly "easy", and
This is the truth and that is the veridic perception and this is the
very essence of truth.
So if you have understood what I'm trying to explain,
Is that we could say that mathematics is easy and simple, our universe
is easy and simple and any thing or process is easy and simple,
But it is because we are limited intellectually or physically that we do
not understand it, i see this as in an axis of reality, i mean that the
complexity of mathematics and knowledge of mathematics is 0.1
on a scale of 100, and we are still weaker at 0.001 on a scale of 100 ,
even though knowledge of the universe and mathematics is easy, we feel
this as difficult.
We can say, for example, that to define what a car is, we have
to "understand" what a car is, then we
can therefore affirm that the completeness of knowledge
of the car brings us to understand in a perfect way
what is a car .. now the important question in logic is: is it possible
to state the same thing about the variable of the "complexity" of
comprehension, that is to say: perfect knowledge leads us to understand
the very nature of the complexity of knowledge, as in the case of the
car i have just given you above, because it is the one who really knows
the car who can define the car, can we say the same thing about the
complexity of understanding? does it is the one who really knows
knowledge that can say what is the complexity of the understanding of
this knowledge? Do you understand my problem that
use logic effectively to solve this problem?
As in the problem of the car, above, what can we
say about the heaviness or the size of the car which characterizes
the car, we can say that it is the one who has knowledge about the car
and who understands the car that can accurately state what the heaviness
or the size of the car, but can we say the same thing about the
characteristic which is called the "Complexity" of understanding? I mean
that by analogy, if complexity is the characteristic of the
size of the car and if comprehension is the understanding of the car,
can we say the same thing and say that the completeness of understanding
can be defined only when there is more complete understanding and that
greatly reduce or erase complexity because when you understand more
fully this leads us to say that understanding is easy? I think that to
solve this problem it is necessary to look that in the case of the car,
the size and the heaviness are not of the variables of the
"comprehension" function, whereas in the case of complexity,
comprehension is, on the other hand, a variable of the complexity of
comprehension, so these are two different problems, so that the nature
of the complexity of Comprehension is relative to comprehension, since
comprehension is a variable of the complexity of comprehension, so the
problem is better solved in this way and complexity should be seen as a
function of comprehension, and more there is comprehension and more
there is understand and more there is less complexity of understanding.
As you noted in my second reasoning, I have concluded that understanding
is a variable of complexity of understanding, for the more there is
comprehension the more there is less complexity of understanding. The
problem is not resolved as we can assert that understanding is the
theoretical representation of the car example that i have given above,
but since the more we understand theoretically the car, the more there
is less complexity of understanding, so we can say that the theoretical
representation of the understanding of the car system is easy, but this
is not true because, first of all, there is a contradiction, since two
theoretical systems, one which is more complex and another that is less
complex system, can both become as easy when there is definitive
understanding, and since the mechanism of awareness of the theoretical
understanding of the understanding of the car system rely on the speed
of our brain, that means that when you remember an understanding in your
brain, the brain is quick in its computation to do it, and This rapidity
of computation of the brain makes us see comprehension as easy, for
example, when you look at an equality of 2 + 2 = 4, your brain has
already understood this equality before when you were still a child, but
when you look at this equality now, the brain brings back the
understanding of this equality and it does so quickly , and this is what
does our brain, you do not have to understand the equality yet again,
no, the brain makes a quick computation and brings you back the
understanding of this equality quickly, that's what makes it easy to
understand the theoretical representation of the understanding of the
car system, since the theoretical representation of the understanding
of the system of a car is brought back quickly by the brain in the form
of an understanding of the parts of the theoretical system of the car,
as in the case of 2 + 2 = 4, and this shows us the theoretical
representation of understanding of the system of the car as being easy,
it is the brain that is fast and which facilitates because of its speed
of computation as in the case of 2 + 2 = 4.. so the ease of
understanding is a consequence of the speed of computation of the brain,
so it is not the theoretical representation of the understanding of the
car system that is easy. Thus I believe that the problem is definitely
resolved by my logical and effective reasoning.
Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
"arithmetic series (a_n * (a_n + 1)) / 2) is a time travel machine
that permits to travel in the future"

What the hell is that even supposed to mean?

Loading...