rami18

2017-06-15 16:41:41 UTC

Permalink

Hello........Raw Message

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.