“Revolution in Thought: A new look at determinism and free will"

[bilby]

It's all controversial.

Not to the degree that "making up any wild shit you like" becomes a resonable position.

There's a controversy over whether a tomato is a fruit, or a vegetable. This does not justify you in declaring a tomato to be an automobile.

 

[bilby]

I meant digital signals that are converted into radio waves.

No, you absolutely did not. You made that up, as a post-hoc response to the realisation that your earlier claim was wrong.

It's a well known technique amongst confidence tricksters who are primarily focussed on maintaining the trust and credibility of their marks, rather than on any tenuous link with reality.

 

[pood]

Afraid to read the link?

Not at all, but there is a lot of theory involved in the early formation of the universe, just as there is a lot of theory in archeology when it comes to our origins. It's all controversial.

From the linked page:

How is Webb able to see back in time? Because light takes time to travel through space (at a consistent 186,000 miles or 300,000 kilometers per second), there is a delay between when we see something and when it actually happened. In the small space of a room, the time for light to travel from the bulb to the corner is not noticeable. Between the Earth and the Moon, light takes 1.3 seconds, which means that we see the Moon as it was 1.3 seconds ago. Multiplied over the vast distances of the universe, light can take billions of years to reach us.

 

[southernhybrid]

Why are you still trying to convince us, when it's obvious that none of us find anything compelling about your claims? Plus, you never tell us how this magical idea of your father's is supposed to work or what it has to do with how long it takes light to reach our eyes. Why does that keep coming up? What is the correlation between the speed of light and world peace? Did I miss something?

If you honestly believe his ideas can bring about world peace, why aren't you explaining that instead of trying to get people to read what appears to be a long, boring book. Why did he have to write over 500 pages to explain the dynamic discovery you claim he made regarding determinism?

There is a disorder called Reading OCD. The symptoms include reading a book in a certain way and/or reading the details over and over again, while trying to make sense of every word. What reminded me of this is that you told us you had just read the book your father wrote once again, looking for any little errors. While this type of OCD doesn't usually include just one book, perhaps it can, or perhaps you have some symptoms of something similar to what I mentioned. You say you aren't obsessed but it's very obvious to me based on all the time you've spent reading the book and trying to convince others to read the book over a period of many years that you are obsessed with this book. Aren't you the one who organized and put the book together for publication as well? I'm not trying to diagnose you with some type of OCD disorder, but your symptoms are a bit similar to OCD in some respects. If not OCD, you at the very least suffer from an obsession. I honestly feel bad for you. It must be awful to be so frustrated over an obsession with a book that very few people want to read.

My comment regarding this isn't meant to be the least bit insulting. It's meant to be helpful, an effort to encourage you to at least speak to a mental health counselor about how many years you've tried to convince people to read the book, how much time you've spent here and in other places trying to convince others to read the book, and how many times you've read the book yourself etc. To me, it appears like an obsession that is robbing you of some better ways to live. Let someone know about this and then ask if it's a healthy way for you to be spending your time. It's not a weakness. It's not something you chose. I guess your father and his work influenced you to be obsessed with his writings, so of course it's not your fault that you're stuck with this obsession.


You don't need to respond to this post as I'm just trying to help you understand how I think you come across to others. All I'm doing is giving you my perspective on what seems like an unhealthy obsession over a book.

I actually read about 60 pages of the book yesterday, as I found the first 3 chapters online in an easy to read format. Your father was obviously an intelligent man, but he was also extremely wordy, often repeating himself over and over, while never getting to the point, imo. He criticized academics for not taking him seriously due to his lack of formal education, but a few of them at least tried to listen to him. I agree that a lot of highly educated people aren't nearly as smart as they think they are and some look down on those with less education. Having lots of letters after one's name doesn't always equate with intelligence, but believing you've unlocked the secret to world peace is also quite an arrogant claim.

Some of it reminded me of the book I read a few years ago called, "The Cruelty of Free Will". That author discussed how Bill the thief couldn't help himself, unless something stood in his way and that we should understand that, but that book never suggested there was some great discovery that would end violence etc. He just said we shouldn't judge people as they are unable to help who they are. Other than prison reform so that these people are treated more humanely, I don't think there is a thing we can do to keep society safe from violent people.

Plus, do you or did your father have any understanding of brain disorders like PTSD, psychopathy, schizophrenia or bipolar disorder? These brain malfunctions have no effective treatment at this time and while most people who suffer from them with the exception of psychopaths are harmless, some commit violent acts. How is your father's discovery, which you haven't explained going to cure these people of these brain diseases? This is all part of science. Do you not believe in medical science? Medical care changes as new research comes up with more effective treatments, as I mentioned before. We have vaccines that despite the anti vaccine fools, have prevented a massive number of deaths and disabilities since the beginning of my life. The polio vaccine came out when I was in grade school and we couldn't wait to get it. You father criticized education in his book, but without higher education, we'd have no progress when it comes to things like vaccines and cures for diseases. Sadly, mental illness has been neglected and so we still don't do a good job of helping those who suffer with brain disorders, which is how I prefer to refer to mental illnesses.


And, btw, it's not the price of the book that prevents me from reading it, if I felt it was worth my time, I'd buy it and read it. I could barely read the 50 or so pages without getting a headache due to the repetitious nature of the book and how it was beginning to sound very irrational. Plus I currently have enough Amazon digital dollars to get the book for free, but there are other books I'd rather use them on.

I know you mean well, but your father did not discover the secret way to bring about world peace, anymore then the Baha'i religion did. The prophet of that religion seemed to mean well too, especially considering it was started in Persia as, imo, a way to make the Muslim religion more gentle and reasonable. Sadly, to this day Baha'is are subject to persecution in Iran. Humans have a long history of persecuting those who don't believe what they do when it comes to religion. So, the Baha'i prophecies didn't work out so well and however well your father's intentions were, there is no way he found a valid way to make the world a better place including establishing world peace, an end to violence and even according to his book, an end to careless driving. Those are all irrational claims. Sorry you don't see it.

I hope you can get some help with this obsession and live a more enjoyable productive life. As we used to say back in the idealistic hippy days of my youth, Peace, love and happiness to you. Yeah. We thought we could establish world peace too, but we were just idealistic kids who didn't understand human nature that well. I will do my best to leave this discussion and I hope the other posters will be charitable to you if they feel they must continue engaging with you. Better yet, I hope you will find a better way to spend your time.

 

[peacegirl]

It's all controversial.

?

It's all controversial.

Not to the degree that "making up any wild shit you like" becomes a resonable position.

There's a controversy over whether a tomato is a fruit, or a vegetable. This does not justify you in declaring a tomato to be an automobile.

Who is doing that bilby?

 

[peacegirl]

Afraid to read the link?

Not at all, but there is a lot of theory involved in the early formation of the universe, just as there is a lot of theory in archeology when it comes to our origins. It's all controversial.

From the linked page:

How is Webb able to see back in time? Because light takes time to travel through space (at a consistent 186,000 miles or 300,000 kilometers per second), there is a delay between when we see something and when it actually happened. In the small space of a room, the time for light to travel from the bulb to the corner is not noticeable. Between the Earth and the Moon, light takes 1.3 seconds, which means that we see the Moon as it was 1.3 seconds ago. Multiplied over the vast distances of the universe, light can take billions of years to reach us.

I know what is believed to be scientific fact, Pood. Giving me a link that you know will confirm what you believe is airtight is the very thing being challenged. I know people are angry regarding this claim (Lessans predicted this), but by golly, the extent of the anger is beyond me.

I am very aware that if I am not careful, the resentment of these people will nail me to a cross, and they would do it in the name of justice and truth. However, it appears that they will not be given the opportunity because the very moment the will of God is perceived and understood, man is given no alternative as to what direction he must travel, which is away from condemning someone who has uncovered a falsehood. The real truth is that there are thousands upon thousands of differences existing in the external world, but when words do not describe these differences accurately, we are then seeing a distorted version of what exists — as with free will.

 

[peacegirl]

Why are you still trying to convince us, when it's obvious that none of us find anything compelling about your claims? Plus, you never tell us how this magical idea of your father's is supposed to work or what it has to do with how long it takes light to reach our eyes. Why does that keep coming up? What is the correlation between the speed of light and world peace? Did I miss something?

If you honestly believe his ideas can bring about world peace, why aren't you explaining that instead of trying to get people to read what appears to be a long, boring book. Why did he have to write over 500 pages to explain the dynamic discovery you claim he made regarding determinism?

There is a disorder called Reading OCD. The symptoms include reading a book in a certain way and/or reading the details over and over again, while trying to make sense of every word. What reminded me of this is that you told us you had just read the book your father wrote once again, looking for any little errors. While this type of OCD doesn't usually include just one book, perhaps it can, or perhaps you have some symptoms of something similar to what I mentioned. You say you aren't obsessed but it's very obvious to me based on all the time you've spent reading the book and trying to convince others to read the book over a period of many years that you are obsessed with this book. Aren't you the one who organized and put the book together for publication as well? I'm not trying to diagnose you with some type of OCD disorder, but your symptoms are a bit similar to OCD in some respects. If not OCD, you at the very least suffer from an obsession. I honestly feel bad for you. It must be awful to be so frustrated over an obsession with a book that very few people want to read.

My comment regarding this isn't meant to be the least bit insulting. It's meant to be helpful, an effort to encourage you to at least speak to a mental health counselor about how many years you've tried to convince people to read the book, how much time you've spent here and in other places trying to convince others to read the book, and how many times you've read the book yourself etc. To me, it appears like an obsession that is robbing you of some better ways to live. Let someone know about this and then ask if it's a healthy way for you to be spending your time. It's not a weakness. It's not something you chose. I guess your father and his work influenced you to be obsessed with his writings, so of course it's not your fault that you're stuck with this obsession.


You don't need to respond to this post as I'm just trying to help you understand how I think you come across to others. All I'm doing is giving you my perspective on what seems like an unhealthy obsession over a book.

I actually read about 60 pages of the book yesterday, as I found the first 3 chapters online in an easy to read format. Your father was obviously an intelligent man, but he was also extremely wordy, often repeating himself over and over, while never getting to the point, imo. He criticized academics for not taking him seriously due to his lack of formal education, but a few of them at least tried to listen to him. I agree that a lot of highly educated people aren't nearly as smart as they think they are and some look down on those with less education. Having lots of letters after one's name doesn't always equate with intelligence, but believing you've unlocked the secret to world peace is also quite an arrogant claim.

Some of it reminded me of the book I read a few years ago called, "The Cruelty of Free Will". That author discussed how Bill the thief couldn't help himself, unless something stood in his way and that we should understand that, but that book never suggested there was some great discovery that would end violence etc. He just said we shouldn't judge people as they are unable to help who they are. Other than prison reform so that these people are treated more humanely, I don't think there is a thing we can do to keep society safe from violent people.

Plus, do you or did your father have any understanding of brain disorders like PTSD, psychopathy, schizophrenia or bipolar disorder? These brain malfunctions have no effective treatment at this time and while most people who suffer from them with the exception of psychopaths are harmless, some commit violent acts. How is your father's discovery, which you haven't explained going to cure these people of these brain diseases?

He never said that his discovery was a cure-all for every single genetic disease. He said that this knowledge can prevent war and crime due to a change in human conduct. If someone had an incurable disease that caused people to kill or rape, they would have to be taken off the streets, just like a mad dog would be. But once the Great Transition begins, mental illness will be virtually nonexistent.

to be cont...

This is all part of science. Do you not believe in medical science? Medical care changes as new research comes up with more effective treatments, as I mentioned before. We have vaccines that despite the anti vaccine fools, have prevented a massive number of deaths and disabilities since the beginning of my life. The polio vaccine came out when I was in grade school and we couldn't wait to get it. You father criticized education in his book, but without higher education, we'd have no progress when it comes to things like vaccines and cures for diseases. Sadly, mental illness has been neglected and so we still don't do a good job of helping those who suffer with brain disorders, which is how I prefer to refer to mental illnesses.


And, btw, it's not the price of the book that prevents me from reading it, if I felt it was worth my time, I'd buy it and read it. I could barely read the 50 or so pages without getting a headache due to the repetitious nature of the book and how it was beginning to sound very irrational. Plus I currently have enough Amazon digital dollars to get the book for free, but there are other books I'd rather use them on.

I know you mean well, but your father did not discover the secret way to bring about world peace, anymore then the Baha'i religion did. The prophet of that religion seemed to mean well too, especially considering it was started in Persia as, imo, a way to make the Muslim religion more gentle and reasonable. Sadly, to this day Baha'is are subject to persecution in Iran. Humans have a long history of persecuting those who don't believe what they do when it comes to religion. So, the Baha'i prophecies didn't work out so well and however well your father's intentions were, there is no way he found a valid way to make the world a better place including establishing world peace, an end to violence and even according to his book, an end to careless driving. Those are all irrational claims. Sorry you don't see it.

I hope you can get some help with this obsession and live a more enjoyable productive life. As we used to say back in the idealistic hippy days of my youth, Peace, love and happiness to you. Yeah. We thought we could establish world peace too, but we were just idealistic kids who didn't understand human nature that well. I will do my best to leave this discussion and I hope the other posters will be charitable to you if they feel they must continue engaging with you. Better yet, I hope you will find a better way to spend your time.

 

[steve_bank]

Peacegirl

I am not all tat interested in philosophy.

I participated in free will and determinism threads mostly for a general understanding.

Throughout history philosophical terms change and are co opted to mean different things.s.

Philosophy threads can descend into debate over meaning.

So if you bring in free will and determinism you have to define for the purpose of argument what that means.

There are degrees of determinism. Hard core Libertarians have there own meaning of free will.

So, define your terms. Free will si a,b,c. Determinism is a,b,c. Evil is a,b,c.

Then say how by the definitions what your father's discovery was and how it eliminates evil.

Say it on a few paragraphs. A summary. Make your case.

If you understand what real time means how is t you say we see in real time with no delay?

 

[peacegirl]

Peacegirl

I am not all tat interested in philosophy.

I participated in free will and determinism threads mostly for a general understanding.

Throughout history philosophical terms change and are co opted to mean different things.s.

Philosophy threads can descend into debate over meaning.

So if you bring in free will and determinism you have to define for the purpose of argument what that means.

There are degrees of determinism. Hard core Libertarians have there own meaning of free will.

So, define your terms. Free will si a,b,c. Determinism is a,b,c. Evil is a,b,c.

Then say how by the definitions what your father's discovery was and how it eliminates evil.

Say it on a few paragraphs. A summary. Make your case.

If you understand what real time means how is t you say we see in real time with no delay?

Are you kidding me? I have bent over backwards to get people interested and they won’t meet me halfway. With such extreme skepticism, I have no chance in hell here. Did you ever think how exhausting this is for me?

 

[pood]

Afraid to read the link?

Not at all, but there is a lot of theory involved in the early formation of the universe, just as there is a lot of theory in archeology when it comes to our origins. It's all controversial.

From the linked page:

How is Webb able to see back in time? Because light takes time to travel through space (at a consistent 186,000 miles or 300,000 kilometers per second), there is a delay between when we see something and when it actually happened. In the small space of a room, the time for light to travel from the bulb to the corner is not noticeable. Between the Earth and the Moon, light takes 1.3 seconds, which means that we see the Moon as it was 1.3 seconds ago. Multiplied over the vast distances of the universe, light can take billions of years to reach us.

I know what is believed to be scientific fact, Pood. Giving me a link that you know will confirm what you believe is airtight is the very thing being challenged. I know people are angry regarding this claim (Lessans predicted this), but by golly, the extent of the anger is beyond me.

I am very aware that if I am not careful, the resentment of these people will nail me to a cross, and they would do it in the name of justice and truth. However, it appears that they will not be given the opportunity because the very moment the will of God is perceived and understood, man is given no alternative as to what direction he must travel, which is away from condemning someone who has uncovered a falsehood. The real truth is that there are thousands upon thousands of differences existing in the external world, but when words do not describe these differences accurately, we are then seeing a distorted version of what exists — as with free will.

Nobody is angry, peacegirl.

 

[pood]

Afraid to read the link?

Not at all, but there is a lot of theory involved in the early formation of the universe, just as there is a lot of theory in archeology when it comes to our origins. It's all controversial.

From the linked page:

How is Webb able to see back in time? Because light takes time to travel through space (at a consistent 186,000 miles or 300,000 kilometers per second), there is a delay between when we see something and when it actually happened. In the small space of a room, the time for light to travel from the bulb to the corner is not noticeable. Between the Earth and the Moon, light takes 1.3 seconds, which means that we see the Moon as it was 1.3 seconds ago. Multiplied over the vast distances of the universe, light can take billions of years to reach us.

I know what is believed to be scientific fact, Pood. Giving me a link that you know will confirm what you believe is airtight is the very thing being challenged. I know people are angry regarding this claim (Lessans predicted this), but by golly, the extent of the anger is beyond me.

I am very aware that if I am not careful, the resentment of these people will nail me to a cross, and they would do it in the name of justice and truth. However, it appears that they will not be given the opportunity because the very moment the will of God is perceived and understood, man is given no alternative as to what direction he must travel, which is away from condemning someone who has uncovered a falsehood. The real truth is that there are thousands upon thousands of differences existing in the external world, but when words do not describe these differences accurately, we are then seeing a distorted version of what exists — as with free will.

The linked page is by scientists and astronomers behind the Webb telescope, which sees 13 billion years into the past.

 

[peacegirl]

Why are you still trying to convince us, when it's obvious that none of us find anything compelling about your claims? Plus, you never tell us how this magical idea of your father's is supposed to work or what it has to do with how long it takes light to reach our eyes. Why does that keep coming up? What is the correlation between the speed of light and world peace? Did I miss something?

Yes, you missed everything.

If you honestly believe his ideas can bring about world peace, why aren't you explaining that instead of trying to get people to read what appears to be a long, boring book. Why did he have to write over 500 pages to explain the dynamic discovery you claim he made regarding determinism?

It is not a long boring book but Pood always brings this part of the book up. I can't get away from it.

There is a disorder called Reading OCD. The symptoms include reading a book in a certain way and/or reading the details over and over again, while trying to make sense of every word. What reminded me of this is that you told us you had just read the book your father wrote once again, looking for any little errors.

I did this because I have people reviewing the book. It motivated me to use Quillbot to help find any typos or grammatical mistakes. I didn't have a proofreader. Any author or editor wants to do their best and are their own worst critics. There is nothing weird about that.

While this type of OCD doesn't usually include just one book, perhaps it can, or perhaps you have some symptoms of something similar to what I mentioned. You say you aren't obsessed but it's very obvious to me based on all the time you've spent reading the book and trying to convince others to read the book over a period of many years that you are obsessed with this book.

I wouldn't call it obsessed, but I am on a mission. You would be on one too if you knew that this discovery can do what it claims. But your skepticism won't let you even open your mind.

Aren't you the one who organized and put the book together for publication as well? I'm not trying to diagnose you with some type of OCD disorder, but your symptoms are a bit similar to OCD in some respects. If not OCD, you at the very least suffer from an obsession. I honestly feel bad for you. It must be awful to be so frustrated over an obsession with a book that very few people want to read.

You don't have to feel bad for me. This knowledge has helped me in so many ways, I'm grateful to be a steward of this work.

My comment regarding this isn't meant to be the least bit insulting. It's meant to be helpful, an effort to encourage you to at least speak to a mental health counselor about how many years you've tried to convince people to read the book, how much time you've spent here and in other places trying to convince others to read the book, and how many times you've read the book yourself etc. To me, it appears like an obsession that is robbing you of some better ways to live. Let someone know about this and then ask if it's a healthy way for you to be spending your time. It's not a weakness. It's not something you chose. I guess your father and his work influenced you to be obsessed with his writings, so of course it's not your fault that you're stuck with this obsession.

Nope, I have a good life. I have 14 wonderful grandkids that live 5 minutes from me. I also am trying to promote my children's book, not just this one.

You don't need to respond to this post as I'm just trying to help you understand how I think you come across to others. All I'm doing is giving you my perspective on what seems like an unhealthy obsession over a book.

I know you mean well (at least I think you do) but you really don't know me. I wouldn't dare be that arrogant to think I could psychoanalyze someone on a forum like this.

I actually read about 60 pages of the book yesterday, as I found the first 3 chapters online in an easy to read format. Your father was obviously an intelligent man, but he was also extremely wordy, often repeating himself over and over, while never getting to the point, imo. He criticized academics for not taking him seriously due to his lack of formal education, but a few of them at least tried to listen to him. I agree that a lot of highly educated people aren't nearly as smart as they think they are and some look down on those with less education. Having lots of letters after one's name doesn't always equate with intelligence, but believing you've unlocked the secret to world peace is also quite an arrogant claim.

It's not an arrogant claim if it's a claim that is supported by evidence. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," and I believed he did just that. He was the humblest man you would ever meet. Do you see how wrong you can be when you make false judgments about someone? I know the beginning of the book is wordy. That was my doing, not his (this book is my compilation), but it was important because of the very reaction you just gave. It's very easy to criticize when you have not grasped the concepts. People here are so biased, all they would discuss is how bad the writing is. I'm curious, did you understand the two-sided equation? Did you follow Chapter Three and how this principle, when put into effect, can prevent accidents due to carelessness?

Some of it reminded me of the book I read a few years ago called, "The Cruelty of Free Will". That author discussed how Bill the thief couldn't help himself, unless something stood in his way and that we should understand that, but that book never suggested there was some great discovery that would end violence etc. He just said we shouldn't judge people as they are unable to help who they are. Other than prison reform so that these people are treated more humanely, I don't think there is a thing we can do to keep society safe from violent people.

Plus, do you or did your father have any understanding of brain disorders like PTSD, psychopathy, schizophrenia or bipolar disorder? These brain malfunctions have no effective treatment at this time and while most people who suffer from them with the exception of psychopaths are harmless, some commit violent acts. How is your father's discovery, which you haven't explained going to cure these people of these brain diseases?

He never said that his discovery was a cure-all for every single genetic disease. He said that this knowledge can prevent war and crime due to a change in human conduct. If someone had an incurable disease that caused people to kill or rape, they would have to be taken off the streets, just like a mad dog would be. But once the Great Transition begins, mental illness will be virtually nonexistent.

This is all part of science. Do you not believe in medical science? Medical care changes as new research comes up with more effective treatments, as I mentioned before. We have vaccines that despite the anti vaccine fools, have prevented a massive number of deaths and disabilities since the beginning of my life. The polio vaccine came out when I was in grade school and we couldn't wait to get it. You father criticized education in his book, but without higher education, we'd have no progress when it comes to things like vaccines and cures for diseases. Sadly, mental illness has been neglected and so we still don't do a good job of helping those who suffer with brain disorders, which is how I prefer to refer to mental illnesses.

He did not criticize education, not at all. You misinterpreted. Can you not see how important it is to read and reread, not give it a once over, especially a book like this? I still have not received from you or anyone here a pertinent question that shows me they understood his discovery. Spoiler alert: It is not that man's will is not free.

And, btw, it's not the price of the book that prevents me from reading it, if I felt it was worth my time, I'd buy it and read it. I could barely read the 50 or so pages without getting a headache due to the repetitious nature of the book and how it was beginning to sound very irrational. Plus I currently have enough Amazon digital dollars to get the book for free, but there are other books I'd rather use them on.

It's okay. You read what is interesting to you. You're not obligated to me.

I know you mean well, but your father did not discover the secret way to bring about world peace, anymore then the Baha'i religion did. The prophet of that religion seemed to mean well too, especially considering it was started in Persia as, imo, a way to make the Muslim religion more gentle and reasonable.

Whoa, please don't compare this to the Baha'i religion or any religion. Don't you see why it was important for me to use repetition in the beginning? I could always take out some of the repetition, but I think it's needed, at least for now. But calling it irrational? That's a little out the door, don't you think? The big giveaway is that you are telling me, after reading the first three chapters (if you actually did; I have my doubts), that he did not discover the secret that can bring about world peace when you can't even tell me what his discovery is. It saddens me because you could have gotten a lot out of it if you had continued reading. What can I say?

Sadly, to this day Baha'is are subject to persecution in Iran. Humans have a long history of persecuting those who don't believe what they do when it comes to religion. So, the Baha'i prophecies didn't work out so well and however well your father's intentions were, there is no way he found a valid way to make the world a better place including establishing world peace, an end to violence and even according to his book, an end to careless driving. Those are all irrational claims. Sorry you don't see it.

It is true that there are many religions, many factions, many conflicts in the world, but that does not mean world peace cannot be achieved. Mankind is developing at a certain rate and has not yet reached adulthood.

War seems to be an inescapable feature of the human condition that can only be subdued, not eradicated. But we must insert a question mark between the empirical fact that a feature is characteristic of human life as we know it and the empirical claim that this feature is a sociological inevitability. Another reason that war is viewed as an unfortunate and intractable aspect of human existence is due to suffering itself, which sadly robs its victims of the ability to dream or have the breadth of vision to even contemplate the possibility of peace. The evil in the world has so constricted man’s imagination that his mind has become hardened, and he shows contempt for anyone who dares to offer a solution because such claims appear ludicrous and unfounded.

I hope you can get some help with this obsession and live a more enjoyable productive life. As we used to say back in the idealistic hippy days of my youth, Peace, love and happiness to you. Yeah. We thought we could establish world peace too, but we were just idealistic kids who didn't understand human nature that well. I will do my best to leave this discussion and I hope the other posters will be charitable to you if they feel they must continue engaging with you. Better yet, I hope you will find a better way to spend your time.

I think your decision to leave this discussion is a good one. I grew up in the era of hippies and idealism. This knowledge is not idealism, but not everyone will understand it. You read a few paragraphs. No wonder you didn't get anything out of it. You had no questions other than criticism. I will continue to spend my time wisely: trying to bring this knowledge to light, while I have time left. Take care.

 

[bilby]

It's all controversial.

Not to the degree that "making up any wild shit you like" becomes a resonable position.

There's a controversy over whether a tomato is a fruit, or a vegetable. This does not justify you in declaring a tomato to be an automobile.

Who is doing that bilby?

You are.

But I can see you.

 

[peacegirl]

Afraid to read the link?

Not at all, but there is a lot of theory involved in the early formation of the universe, just as there is a lot of theory in archeology when it comes to our origins. It's all controversial.

From the linked page:

How is Webb able to see back in time? Because light takes time to travel through space (at a consistent 186,000 miles or 300,000 kilometers per second), there is a delay between when we see something and when it actually happened. In the small space of a room, the time for light to travel from the bulb to the corner is not noticeable. Between the Earth and the Moon, light takes 1.3 seconds, which means that we see the Moon as it was 1.3 seconds ago. Multiplied over the vast distances of the universe, light can take billions of years to reach us.

I know what is believed to be scientific fact, Pood. Giving me a link that you know will confirm what you believe is airtight is the very thing being challenged. I know people are angry regarding this claim (Lessans predicted this), but by golly, the extent of the anger is beyond me.

I am very aware that if I am not careful, the resentment of these people will nail me to a cross, and they would do it in the name of justice and truth. However, it appears that they will not be given the opportunity because the very moment the will of God is perceived and understood, man is given no alternative as to what direction he must travel, which is away from condemning someone who has uncovered a falsehood. The real truth is that there are thousands upon thousands of differences existing in the external world, but when words do not describe these differences accurately, we are then seeing a distorted version of what exists — as with free will.

Nobody is angry, peacegirl.

Maybe you aren't, but bilby is. He's gone ballistic!

 

[bilby]

Nobody is angry, peacegirl.

She needs to try harder; Once people are angry, she can declare herself to be the only calm and rational person present.

Sadly, she's not very good at needling people; Her arguments are too absurd to enrage, and instead we are laughing.

Even populist manipulation turns out to be quite hard - it's not only a matter of applying all the tricks, you need to do it with the right style and timing, and (most important of all) to pick your marks carefully.

 

[pood]

Her standard line at other boards is that her interlocutors are angry and resent Lessans because he threatens their precious world view. I’m sure she has said that somewhere in this thread.

 

[steve_bank]

I am serous Peacegirl.

You have not posted a clear statement of the thesis as I just asked for. From what I looked trough of the book I did not see one there either.

You post tings from the book and argue pseudoscience. You think it is clear, it is not.

Restart the thread with a clear statement as I asked for and then we can see what happen jnexts.

Imagine you are going face to face with a group of people with science and philosophy credentials in a room and you are presenting an idea.

You are presenting an overview in the hope of getting a formal review and perhaps a research grant.

Ladies and gentlemen I give you Peacegirl..you walk up to the podium and begin.

Some old sayings

Imagine the audience are 8th graders who know nothing about what you are talking about. You have to go step by step.

Tell then what you are going to say, tell them, then tell them what you just aid.

It is harder than you might think in a formal setting. Been there done that.

I(f you want support it is on you to do what it takes to convince us. You can;t just a say read the book it is all true and profound.

 

[pood]

I am serous Peacegirl.

You have not posted a clear statement of the thesis as I just asked for. From what I looked trough of the book I did not see one there either.

You post tings from the book and argue pseudoscience. You think it is clear, it is not.

Restart the thread with a clear statement as I asked for and then we can see what happen jnexts.

Imagine you are going face to face with a group of people with science and philosophy credentials in a room and you are presenting an idea.

You are presenting an overview in the hope of getting a formal review and perhaps a research grant.

Ladies and gentlemen I give you Peacegirl..you walk up to the podium and begin.

I explained right from the get-go of this thread that for the free will/determinism stuff, she should present a formal argument with premises and a conclusion. I even tried to help her formulate the argument, but in the end she ignored the advice and just did what she always does. People got bored and left.

 

[peacegirl]

I am serous Peacegirl.

You have not posted a clear statement of the thesis as I just asked for. From what I looked trough of the book I did not see one there either.

You post tings from the book and argue pseudoscience.

I do not argue pseudoscience. You have no right to say this just because you don't believe he was right about the eyes.

You think it is clear, it is not.

It is as clear as I could make it. Didn't you read the preface?

It is important to know that this book does not contain a theory but an undeniable equation that can be scientifically proven. It has no biases, prejudices, or ulterior motives — its only concern is in revealing facts about the nature of man never before understood. Furthermore, so as to prevent jumping to conclusions, this book has nothing whatever to do with communism, socialism, capitalism, government, or religion; only with the removal of inaccurate facts that have been passed along from generation to generation in the guise of genuine knowledge. There are those who may be blinded by this mathematical revelation as they come out of Plato’s cave having lived so many years in the shadows that distorted their beliefs into a semblance of reality — and may deny what they do not understand or don’t want to be true. Just bear in mind that any disagreement can be clarified in such a manner that they will be compelled to say, “Now I understand and agree.” I am about to demonstrate, in a manner our world’s leading scientists will be unable to deny, not only that the mankind system is just as harmonious as the solar system despite all the evil and ignorance that ever existed, but that the inception of the Golden Age cannot commence until the knowledge pertaining to this law is accurately understood. What is about to be revealed is unprecedented. Soon enough everyone will know, without reservation, that mankind is on the threshold of a NEW WORLD prophesied in the Bible that must come to pass out of absolute necessity when this natural law is stamped by the exact sciences with the brevet of truth.

In view of the fact that the first two chapters must be read thoroughly before any other reading is done, it is my hope that the table of contents will not tempt you to read in a desultory manner. Should you jump ahead and read other chapters this work could appear like a fairytale; otherwise, the statement that truth is stranger than fiction will be amply verified by the scientific world, or by yourself, if you are able to follow the reasoning of mathematical relations. If you find the first two chapters difficult, don’t be discouraged because what follows will help you understand it much better the second time around. This book was written in a dialogue format to anticipate the questions the reader may have and to make these fairly difficult concepts as reader friendly as possible. There is a certain amount of repetition for the purpose of reinforcing important points and extending the principles in a more cohesive fashion, but despite all efforts to make this work easier to understand, it is still deep and will require that you go at a snail’s pace, reading many things over and over again. When you have finally grasped the full significance and magnitude of this work and further realize there has never been and will never be another like it because of what is undeniably achieved, you will cherish it throughout your entire life.

Restart the thread with a clear statement as I asked for and then we can see what happen jnexts.

I've been there, done that. You said you looked through the book and you did not see one there. I guarantee that if you had read carefully, you would have found the discovery. It's right there in Chapter Two. People have to meet me halfway.

Imagine you are going face to face with a group of people with science and philosophy credentials in a room and you are presenting an idea.

I would first have to prove that will is not free; from there I would show how the extension of this knowledge overcomes the impasse of blame and in so doing, changes the trajectory our world is headed. But this is too hard to explain in a couple of sentences. It would not do it justice and people would laugh like they're doing now. Has anyone read the first three chapters in earnest? The answer is no.

You are presenting an overview in the hope of getting a formal review and perhaps a research grant.

I'm not looking for a research grant.

Ladies and gentlemen I give you Peacegirl..you walk up to the podium and begin.

Some old sayings

Imagine the audience are 8th graders who know nothing about what you are talking about. You have to go step by step.

An eighth grader would learn quicker than an adult because adults have their guard up. I would start by explaining why man's will is not free. I've been over this so many times, yet no one knows the reason why. It's like it goes in one ear and out the other.

Tell then what you are going to say, tell them, then tell them what you just aid.

It is harder than you might think in a formal setting. Been there done that.

My father spoke at my university and there was standing room only. He did great but this was a drop in the bucket of what was needed to bring this knowledge to light. At that time, there was no internet, no AI, no iphone, no way to even get traditionally published. He typed his book on a manual typewriter and then later bought an electric typewriter. He even justified his own margins.

I(f you want support it is on you to do what it takes to convince us. You can;t just a say read the book it is all true and profound.

I never said that, but the content is mathematical; it is not logical, which gives rise to opinions.

 

[bilby]

People have to meet me halfway.

Do they? Why?

You are the one sellling this idea. It's entirely on you to persuade people, if you can. They are under zero obligation to assist you in your efforts.

Expecting people to help you to persuade them of something is both abusual and unnormal.