|
2nd Part
Discussions
about the Philosophy of Balance
2nd Part
Discussions
about the Philosophy of Balance
The main idea:
Philosophy of
Balance is an attempted physical
(i.e. exact) philosophy using the most general physical laws
to solve the general philosophical issues.
Every act in
this world, described by the concepts of social sciences (theology,
philosophy, psychology, history, aesthetics, etc.) or the terms of the
exact sciences (biology, chemistry, physics) is essentially a
mechanical act, on which the laws of physical mechanics of microcosm apply. Truth of any statement about the world,
including from the social sciences, can be verified theoretically
always on the basis of the mechanical model of micro world of the
statement and the reality, then in practice by the
experiment. Physical micro-mechanics of movement of micro particles,
will be in the future extended, in my opinion, about
the existing laws of movement of real points in
space-time.
Development of
nature, virtually somewhat random, all self-regulating movement of it
making microparticles completely determines the behavior and the
movement of by them made all living organisms and all inanimate nature.
The development
of nature, in my opinion, in every moment
maximally moderates the power of the overall collisions,
virtually disputes in society and gradually goes towards harmonic
society, i.e. society almost without collisions, virtually disputes.
One of the tasks of philosophy and science in general is, in my view,
to find and to mediate to all living creatures enjoying the full rights
the exact knowledge of the general objectives of the development of
nature.
a) Universal Ethics http://forum.filosofie.cz/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=719 : Univerzální etika
I do not divide
according to my universal ethics in a dispute on one side the
good and the evil on the other side. Its objective is to stop the
dispute, regardless of who are good and who evil (all are in fact
innocent either bad or good, in other words, the strict liability for
their illegal actions).
(see topic: http://www.filosofie.cz/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=696
: Můj Bůh je soulad všech a všeho)
quoted:
Post of Dalibor Grůza
In terms of the physical nature of social
relations, i.e. relations between living organisms themselves, it is
always the movement of micro particles in terms of microscopic physics
and macro particles, virtually bodies formed by micro particles in
terms of physics of macro world. At the same time on this movement, in
my opinion, always the principle of equilibrium applies, which
means free movement of living organisms according to their nature, if
there is no collisions, virtually conflicts.
As to the collisions it is always necessary to balance the vector of
momentum of colliding living organisms (in particular I mean the
rational regulation of momentum, i.e. in particular the speed and
direction of movement of a living organism, the weight can be
influenced by living organisms probably much worse), that the resulting
momentum vector of system formed by living organisms in a crash sooner
or later is zero (see below diagram, where o
is the conflicting object or micro particles of three or more living
organisms, p1,2,3
is the momentum vector of living organisms,
from which p1 is the momentum
vector of factor-a living organism equalizing momentum vectors of other
living organisms of the momentum vectors p2.3 in their
conflict). It occurs to
decrease the movement and thus overall strength of collisions of all
living organisms.
It is thus probably the physical definition
of the main social rule of my Philosophy of Balance: i.e. an obligation
of each living organism (in my diagram below, symbolized by
the momentum balancing factor-specific living organism of the momentum
vector p1) sooner or later maximally to moderate overall
strength of collisions, virtually conflicts in the society of all
living organisms.
Diagram (with the example
values of momentum p1,2,3)
1) The imminent clash of all or only some of the living organisms of
momentum vectors p2.3
without the
intervention of certain factor-living organism of the momentum vector p1, adjusting of momentum vectors in the
event of a bilateral conflict:
o (p2=- 2) ->
<-----(p3= +5) o
2) The threatening conflict of all or only some of the living organisms
of momentum vectors p2.3
with
intervention of factor-a living organism of the momentum vector p1 adjusting
momentum vectors in the event of a tripartite conflict:
o (p1=- 3
)---> o (p2=- 2) ->
<-----(p3= +5) o
3) Tripartite conflict of living organisms, where there is slowing
their movement at speed v1,2,3= 0, adjustment
of vectors of momentum, the momentum vector of the system will
be p1+p2+p3 =-3-2+5 = 0:
o (p1=- 3 +3 =
0)> o (p2=- 2 +2 =
0)> <(p3= 5-5 = 0) o
<--- --->
<- ->
<----- ----->
Applying for an explanation of the above-mentioned
general physical and mathematical definitions the general
English language, we can say the following:
ad 1)
1.1
In the case of an attack against a particular individual from the
society of living creatures makes this attack from the living creatures
retreat this particular individual due to the society of living
creatures.
1.2 In the case of retreat of living creatures makes this retreat of
the living creatures the individual to the attack against these living
creatures.
ad 2) Reasonable behavior:
2.1 In the case
of an attack by the living creatures against a certain individual it is
reasonable, so that this individual responded in contrast to paragraph
ad 1.1 not by a retreat but by appropriate attack against the society
of living creatures (Eg.
the seduction of a person of the same sex can be responded by own idea
of his or her genital organs).
2.2
In the case of retreat of society of living creatures from a
particular individual it is reasonable, that this individual responded
in contrast to paragraph ad 1.2 not by an attack but by an adequate
retreat from the society of living creatures.
Ad 3)
3.1 Reasonable attack of
certain individuals as a response to the attack of the living creatures
against the particular individual neutralizes (or zero) both attacks, sooner or later (i.e.
educational, not destructively).
3.2 Reasonable retreat of
some individuals in response to the retreat of living creatures from
the particular individual neutralizes (or zero) both retreats sooner or later.
The result of
this procedure is sooner or later, stable development of all living
creatures.
Note: I was trying to verify the above model of the
behavior of bodies on a collision by sending two balls one against
another of the same weight with the same speed, and
they have stopped completely shortly after a frontal
collision, after a brief movement in the opposite direction. If I sent
a ball against a stationary ball of the same weight, so the ball has
completely stopped moving and the other motionless ball has become to
move away likely with the same speed as before the collision the first
ball in the opposite direction.
In the attack as an appropriate response to attack by society of living
organisms it should always be considered if:
1) We are able to stop the attack from the side of the living world,
sooner or later, without us getting seriously hurt by the
attacker and we cause the least possible death and pain
of living creatures (see variable momentum vector p1 above in my
diagram), or
2) We are able the attack from the society of
living organisms only to hamper (see variable momentum vector p2 in my above
mentioned diagram), without us getting seriously hurt by the attacker
and we cause the least possible death and pain
of living creatures, cessation of attacks by living
organisms in this case, then we leave it to another living organism
(see variable momentum vector p1 above, that in my diagram).
With almost
certainty, we know, that this is an attack, if we feel the pressure
(stress), and the appropriate counter-attack, if there is a permanent
reduction in pressure.
quoted:
Post of okref
Dalibor Grůza,
I did not look much at your universal ethics,
but from what I can read, I concluded that such an ethical code was
functional, but it works only if they would be talking about human
behavior towards other people or other beings. However, when enjoying
physical terms it is a justifiable assumption, that this ethics does
not demand such rights only for thinking beings, but for each particle
of the Universe. But according to my notions such ethics in practice is
only possible if it was for us the same peace and nothingness,
because such behavior would result in particles to the disturbance of
dynamics and such a conduct would result in nothingness, it would be
somewhat unethical and speech could be about a universal not-Ethics.
The second possible case, where such behavior would result in particle
velocity of zero of all the space particles such ethical
behavior would be completely unnecessary, or I have lost the sense of
your ethics.
Dear okrefe,
thanks for your interesting contribution.
When a boulder is rushing against me, I or someone or something should stop it sooner or later, as a murderer
who wants to kill me (in other words, each attack must be
answered sooner or later, by an appropriate counter-attack). When the
nature, or someone will offer me something for free it is more enough
what I need, I should not have to take it more than I need, for
example, air (the retreat, the answer is also an appropriate retreat).
The Universe has a nonzero momentum and energy, so it is not to stop.
In terms of physics, in the case of a counterattack by my universal
ethics they are concerned the collisions that reduce future collisions,
either in the form of past or subsequent suspension or to delay of the
attack in the form of redistribution of momentum of colliding bodies.
In the case of retreat in response to the retreat the partial
final objective of nature evolution is achieved, i.e. the above
collisions, which reduce the overall power of collisions in nature,
i.e. relating to the movement without collisions. In my
opinion, in case of my universal ethics, i.e. alleviation of collisions
it is concerned the basic law (algorithm) of nature evolution,
which applies to both living and inanimate matter for the eventual
purpose of compliance of each and all, i.e. the movement of each and
everything without any collisions. Thus I cannot agree with you.
In my opinion,
by more or less probable deviation of the various micro
particles from their most probable motion it is secured in nature, that
such collisions have been progressively constrained by mutual
interactions of micro particles, the movement of the micro particles
(i.e. energy) with high probability is ultimately directed to the
location of the micro particles (i.e. energy) of low probability,
thereby reducing the probability of collisions of micro particles in
the micro world, and ultimately of the bodies of macro world
(i.e. mechanical basis of evolution). In other words,
evolution is directed, in my opinion, to the termination of collisions
and evolution from a less to more probable state of nature.
Answer Miloslav Bažant:
Dalibor.
Originally I had no interest in responding. Then I visited the
website you offered and it seems, I began to understand something. So
far it's just an insight into things, not knowledge. Only now I seem to
understand what it means, that your glorious movement of the micro
particles. The particles are not even concerned, but more the attempt
to express the inexpressible. Trying to reach a compromise between
materialism and idealism, trying to show, that it may be unrealistic to
realistic. You and your equations are nothing more than inserting
random numbers into the equation, which would not otherwise have been
calculated. Maybe you just took someone from and you do not fully
comprehend his intentions, and so enjoying it as fact. Perhaps not and
you realize, that this is merely a mean to express the inexpressible.
But you should be aware that many people that cannot understand the
specific logic, and indeed you do the confusion in their thinking. The
result is then bound to the idea that for you it is a sort of obsessive
illogical idea or mania. If anyone shows good will and comes to your
logic, then may realize, that you're talking about total natural
things, that we can express in the common language, and they are then
understandable. So I look at your way to express, forgive me, like an
occupational disease. You are Judr and lawyers are always
trying to talk most complex, it's somehow part of their
profession and even the judges are not interested to admit, that their
words no one understand, so it is a sure path to success. But you are
not speaking in court and with simple people who want you to
understand. Do not take it as an insult, but if these people do not
understand, they do not judge themselves, but you. To turn your words
about the micro particles to the normal logic it is not exactly easy,
so people rather do not respond to, or criticize. So I admit that even
for me it is too tiring to crack the difficult to get to something what
is in fact simple, even though interesting. I do not judge you, no, I
know it's your way of thinking that leads you to understand many
things, but when you understand things, you could express it in a
simple word, not as crossword that most is not
interested in. This fact, I deny myself, because I said that wisdom is
the communication of the objective, but the path to this goal and what
you say is indeed a journey, but this road is impassable for most
people. To understand this trip it is necessary to have algorithmic
thinking, the ability to see with inner eye the progress of action and
to compare it with other algorithms. But this type of thinking is not
given to most people, but only a few individuals, who then are able to
understand you. Others accept the surface and they consider what you
say is a nonsense. They have no right, but they cannot assess it. In
general also I had a similar opinion on your words
before I began to analyze them, I knew that the
situation is different.
MB
Adding a reply Miloslav Bažant:
Dalibor.
There is no doubt. These are normal physical laws. You could also add
that the ball, which is resting, is on the move little slower because
there are always losses. If the balls moving against each other had
greater rate than loss that arises during the impact, they would be
moving in the opposite direction. Nor it is necessary to
conduct the experiment because it is widely known. But to think, that,
when the balls meet, to bounce or something, people will act
differently, it already sounds like a nonsense. Only when there is a
comparison with human behavior and its consequences on the actions of
the other man, it is possible to find similarities here. Then this
could be used and it may explain a certain difficult
phenomena important and advantageous. I have an impression, that your
point is exactly that. Likewise it is the case with the zero points in
a vacuum and need to transfer life after death. The simple word it
could be said that after death is nothing. When you say, that life
carries on zero points at infinity, it's quite the same, but it sounds
nobly, they who believe in an afterlife, have no objections, because it
somehow corresponds to what they say. I consider this clever word of
the bar, but nothing more. And so I could go from point to point. As I
say, if a man takes the surface of your words, then they misled and
obviously they think about anything not flattering. Only when
one penetrates the shell, one will find something rational. But how
many people can penetrate the shell and how many take you
because of that
shell with caution?
This is a question, that you would have to ask. It is good to create a
shell that others had to look, or bring them to the searching path, but
when the shell is too thick, most people are not looking for anything
and they judge. I discovered your style just at your
sites.
MB
Adding my answers:
Slávo,
I agree with you, that I am trying to communicate the incommunicable.
In other words, the calculations with variables, of which value is
infinity.
To say in the general English language the problem of
reasonableness of an individual's conduct is that the attack of
individuals responding to the attack of the living creatures and the
retreat of the individual responding to a retreat of living creatures
were indeed reasonable, or that the value of collisions momentum of the
entire system was actually equal to zero (see diagram above). However,
there is always only an approximate calculation, since the zero value
of collisions momentum of the entire system requires knowledge of the
movement of the Universe (in other words, everything relates to
everything), so we get to the calculations of the variables equal to
infinity (in other words the Universe includes infinitely many
sub-movements). Therefore mind always makes a rough
calculation, that we have not been wrong in its gross value,
i.e. subject´s momentum, which should be an overall zero
value of momentum of collisions across the system (see my diagram
above), and to determine the exact value the emotion of individual
should be used.
I met with the objection, that in the event of a frontal collision of
the two balls of the same weight and the same speed, one can calculate,
where the ball stops. It can be answered again that such a calculation
is ever only approximate again, because it always will be a
model picture of the actual collision of two balls, and in my view it
can never perfectly capture the fact since it would not be a picture
but an exact copy of reality i.e. the second same reality. In
other words, the exact model, virtually idea is the second castle
Karlstejn, the same castle Karlstejn. The above actual collision of two
balls, unlike the model of thought, virtually the image is related to
any movement of the Universe, virtually reality, because in fact,
everything relates to everything and this fact implies an infinite
number of sub-movements of each of the different points of space-time.
Answer Miloslav Bažant:
Dalibor.
I cannot shake the feeling, that you are doing difficult from a simple
matter and also people who are able to penetrate the skin, you would
count on the fingers of one hand. It is not easy to transfer what is
going on between some balls on the causes and consequences of human
action, then the man found that the same is quite easy to express in a
normal language. No. We will not deal with it. For me is essential
something very different. Your style of expression, the parable tells
me that for you become pretty dominant algorithmic thinking, which is
the next evolutionary stage of development following the permanent
verbal thinking. The disadvantage of such thinking is, that such a person becomes to
some extent incompatible with the others. The advantage is, that you
get the ability to see through inner
vision the progress of
algorithms and a total of
complex processes and thus the processes for you to become streamlined
and easier for you to know the laws that govern them.
The algorithmic thinking occurs when the memory capacity exceeds a
certain threshold, whether it is due to innate genius, and that
happened during your life due to unreasonable stress, or perhaps due to
investigating something difficult, when proper sleep was neglected.
People are thinking permanently in words, they use much less memory
capacity and even highly educated people. This creates insurmountable
incompatibility and it would say
comparison of 8bites computer and trying to get into it
the program 16bites. Lapidary said. For you it is easier to express
through action description, or algorithm, which in addition to transfer
to another happening. Do you think, that in such a form people will
better understand. But in fact it is precisely the stumbling block.
Just the majority of algorithmically thinking people can understand
to
you, to the others the algorithm does not fit into RAM, and if
they show effort to understand you, it will perform their
memory, it will start to feel fatigue and sleepiness, a phenomenon
accompanying the filling capacity of memory. Most of them will leave this effort
and
they condemn you. I'm at the same level like you, with the only
difference, that I know and I am gradually learning to speak a language
that others are able to understand. It's difficult, but necessary.
Otherwise we know, that our algorithmic thinking is not useless,
because we cannot say it.
For others. These, my words to Dalibor may seem like the promotion or
exposure to the higher evolutionary role in man. This is a mistake.
Algorithmic thinking is not anything that a man haughty, but only a
kind of thinking. People thinking permanently in words are usually more
accurate and careful in thinking, easier to learn and to use more
memory. The algorithmic for who algorithmic thinking has become
dominant, any information they pass in the spirit of the algorithm, in
other words, this is the intense and in the memory and its logic to
include this information if they do not see, where there is a logic
error or conflict. So learning is complex and time consuming.
Algorithmic while they may appear complex patterns of phenomena, but
they have a big problem with their communication. If they can summarize
their discoveries into formulas or propositions, or compress the
information, it is possible for people thinking permanently in words
to
adopt it. They are little precious about such a algorithmic and others
are regarded them more as a fool, or weirdos, because people cannot
understand them.
Nature of permanent verbal thinking is quite simple. The word connects
the verbal and other sensory information into a single network in which
sensory information is activated by the word and vice versa.
Algorithmic thinking is still surrounded by a mystery because, as it
denied the basic principles of process of thinking. Information as to
activate the function without the words without sensory information.
The result is a phenomenon that is not possible yet to define.
Algorithmic sees through inner eye the action and feels the pressure
and a back preassure of patterns, which control the action. It is
really hard even to describe. The word seemed to be no great
importance, as if the information activated by itself. At the very
beginning of algorithmic thinking is pretty common fantasy. Fantasy is
algorithmic thinking in small and so I think, that it is through
imagination to understand what is algorithmic thinking. I do not know.
MB
My answer
Slávo,
Question of an above certain individual's
ability to adequately conduct is a question of the emotion or reason. Absolutely fair
conduct, in my view, is only the individual with a perfect reason or a
perfect emotion. Absolutely perfect reason presupposes the
absolute ability to perform calculations with values equal to different
infinites, absolutely perfect emotion in my opinion implies the
perception of everything that is ultimately each individual point of
space-time, with an individual feeling.
The above absolutely perfect reason and emotion
are characteristic of an individual, which are prerequisites, that in
this case it is concerned a savior, I believe those characteristics are
given only to the God, if any. If the man wants to get these properties
he or she would have to merge with God, in my opinion.
In my opinion the condition of a perfect reason or an emotion of the
individual is not eating of meat or anything that has to be because of
it killed. One can imagine, that in future people will receive
all the kinetic energy required for their life (or to move
them and all their parts) not by digesting (or by killing) of living
organisms but from nonliving matter (e.g. sockets). Prerequisite for
the establishment of heaven on Earth in my opinion it is that people do
not eat anything living, i.e. animals but (unlike the biblical
vision of paradise), nor plants, fungi or other living cells, virtually
organisms.
(see my first post to: http://www.filosofie.cz/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=672 : Nelze jíst nic, co se musí kvůli tomu zabít?)
Adding my answers:
Slávo,
I agree with you that particles of a zero-mass as points of
space-time, which we never see possibly with own eyes, they represent a
compromise between idealism and materialism, in an attempt to express
inexpressible.
Miloslav Bažant Reaction:
Dalibor.
I understand and agree, that this is wise. But there is just that just.
My defense mechanisms due to lack of education are relatively weak and
I do not like defending. Either they understand or misunderstand and
maybe someone else understands. I am not afraid of an actual attack
(perhaps reckless) and to let it do for me by somebody else it is
possible only if the other adopts it as his or her own. The third way I
would call a wise silence. I know, but I fear the resistance, and so I
am silent. So everything I've accumulated, as recognition it ends with
my life and people do not know, that I knew but, that I was silent, and
it has nothing common with the wisdom. This is cowardice. You
know it and I say it with
no formulas.
MB
My answer
In the case of application of basic physical
laws formulated by physics in the social, virtually interpersonal
relationships, it is not in any way as a metaphor, but in my opinion
the assumption (axiom of my philosophy) that these social relations are
governed by fundamental laws of physics as well as the movement of
inanimate matter, and because of that, living organisms are formed in
the final consequently only by an inanimate matter.
Adding my answers:
quoted:
Post of Stream
quoted:
Post of Dalibor Grůza
Lying is in any case, the collision,
virtually attack, but it may or may not be bad in a particular case.
1) Lie is ethical, when responding adequately to the attack,
virtually collision from the society and our goal is to stop or hinder
this attack by society.
I do not understand, what material particles
collision with what? Could you apply your equation of momentum, once
again I want a specific calculation.
Dear Stream
particular calculation should be based
on the physical experiment, and probably it is not possible, it would
have to be based on the movement and momentum of all the points of
space-time (see http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%8Casoprostor
), it would
therefore include the variable values equal to the different numbers of
infinity. But you can try, any case, the attempt to make the
calculation.
If I lie I create the model of the
reality that is inconsistent with this reality. Hence they are
collisions, conflicts of this model (or the constituent
micro-particles) in the brain of man with his or her own reality (or it
forming micro particles).
E.g. when applying the above equations in the above-mentioned example
of Miloslav Bazant of mercy lie of a doctor to the mortally
ill one:
If I apply the above equation (see the first post in this chapter),
then in case of attack against specific individuals in the form of the
disease a momentum vector of the micro particles of the attack
has value of p3,
which is e.g. momentum of micro particles of hostile microorganisms
that cause cancerous tumor, which collide with a healthy body and cause
the patient's illness. Momentum p2 is the micro particles of
the medicines and defensiveness of the body of the patient, which
collide with the aforementioned micro particles of microorganisms
causing disease.
In the event, that it is a drug that causes healing of the sick, then
in the event of the collisions of micro particles of drugs
with micro particles of illness, these drug micro particles
represent momentum p1,
a determinant factor in stopping an attack of the disease in the form
of a counterattack of this medicine.
In the event, that current medicine cannot cure the disease, then a
counterattack starts in the form of a merciful lie, where the micro
particles of a false model (or thought) really collide in the brain of
man with this fact (it forming micro particles), virtually human
disease creating inter alia this fact. This merciful lie
hinder, rather than stop the attack in the form of the disease to
improve the quality of remaining life of the patient, who better
tolerate pain (collisions of micro particles of micro-organisms) of the
disease. In the case of momentum of micro particles of mercy
lie, as an idea (fact created by a movement of micro
particles) in the brain of a man it is a momentum p2, which
slows down, but it is not stopping the momentum of the micro particles
of the disease.
Answer IPC:
For Dalibor
Grůza.
"I quoted:" I'm just trying to use the basic laws of physics
consistently (not as a parable, virtually metaphor) in interpersonal
relationships because I think, that the laws of physics determine a
movement of inanimate matter as well as interpersonal relationships and
relationships with other living organisms as well as living organisms
mutually, because they represent the movement of atoms or
ultimately lifeless matter. This is a fair attempt to lay the
scientific foundations of exact philosophy, or other social sciences. "
In all philosophies, which claim to describe reality by physical laws
that is fully to determine reality with the equations, we urge these
difficulties (of course you can try to explain):
1) What role is played by human freedom, if everything is given in
advance if everything can be limited?
2) The insufficiency of the mathematical model:
I sketch in two situations:
a) A load of
4000 kilograms shifts on an inclined plane with an inclination of 20
degrees of the certain speed
b) Indian
elephant falls from hill
Both of these
examples we can hold just as a physicist, he or she applies the same
solution, so it is no difference, between us but in reality it is the
Hell difference, if
an elephant falls or 4 tons of iron, or a car with people. Neglect
mathematical description something?
3) How to explain the coincidence?
My answer
Dear IPC,
I mention to your contribution the following:
ad.1) Freedom.
Free decision is the question of how the person
sees it, this is a psychological issue, if the human perceives his or
her decision to be free then it is free but only in the
above-mentioned objective sense. At the same time it is destined by
activities of his or her brain, of which activity is also predetermined
by the activity of brain cells, their activity is predetermined by
movement of them forming atoms (i.e., we come to the inanimate matter,
i.e. atoms, which creates a certain degree of analysis, decomposition of
living creatures, all movements of this living creatures) etc., until
we get to the points of space-time*, which determine the movement of
all in our Universe. Subjective freedom has therefore the
objective nature of the movement of the micro particles, which is
according Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle in quantum
physics according to some extent of probability random. The right
decision is the result of developmental (or evolutionary) perfection of
the brain in humans, virtually of the model of the outside world in
other living creatures, which is given by the freedom of links
of brain cells, namely the lack of complexes, i.e. of the strong links
of brain cells in my opinion, especially from killing of living
creatures. The perfect brain is always free in the sense that for each
of its decision no strong links between brain cells exist, virtually
between micro particles, i.e. it is not highly probable movement of the micro
particles, because the individual does not kill any living creatures.
ad. 2) The insufficiency of the mathematical description of the fall of
the elephant and nonliving matter from a inclined plane.
In both cases of these falls the general laws of physics fully apply that are so
valid for a fall of an elephant (i.e. the social relations of living
creatures, indeed, in interpersonal relations) and also for a fall of
dead matter. This is so because the living creatures, virtually man is
ultimately formed exclusively by inanimate matter (i.e. atoms, see ad.
1)
The different view of living creatures is in the fall of
elephant and dead matter. This is so because living creatures are
different from inanimate matter, that they have (they are endowed by
their Creator) model, virtually image of the surrounding reality, which
in humans is present in his or her mind, one speaks here about reason,
emotion and will, in fact, it is the only one model of reality
contained in his or her brain.
In my contribution to this forum, i.e. chapter w) My political
economy** I described
humanity, virtually all living creatures as one energetic
appliance virtually internal combustion engine, where the individual
living beings are parts of the internal combustion engine. In other
words, there is a continuity of movement (in other words, cooperation)
between various living creatures as components of a single combustion
engine, in which in case of conflict between living creatures,
virtually between people, or in case of death of living creatures,
virtually people, it is undermined its features it is its failure and
consequent energy losses in its operation (in case of war and death of
people there is falling annual economic product, virtually war,
affected the economic growth of the society). These links between
different living creatures such as the above components of the engine
make the man, virtually living creatures to perceive otherwise the fall
of elephant, virtually bus full of people and inanimate matter fall
within the model of the rest of the world contained in case of a
man in his or her brain.
Likewise, it works today a computer model, that includes its own
compositions (i.e., its hardware) within its software, it can diagnose
its disorder, in which case it knows its failure, it registers the
failure of its device through software, or this software requires to
repair the hardware parts. Similarly, in human reason and
emotion (i.e. the model of the world around in his or her brain, see
above), that identify a failure of the living creature as a single
component of above the engine made up by all living creatures,
registering the disorder and requiring its correction.
As a result of my philosophy it is the end of the exclusivity of a man
over animals, but also over any hominid or animal machines, which I put
by this in their perfect development, full to level of a man or an
animal. It is to end the pride of a man to themselves as a lord of
creation, the only creature capable of feeling and love, etc., while at
the same time, however, it is clear that the production of such live
equipment requires either a feeling and reason as humans, or
perfect reason, i.e. the ability to solve equations with values equal
with different numbers of infinity, or the perfect feeling, perception,
therefore, of each point of space-time *. Such an alive machine as to
me only God can create, virtually Being with the above perfect reason
and emotion.
ad.3) Regarding the accident.
According to current science the
above-mentioned freedom (ad.1) is described as more or less likely
chance. The stronger are the links between the atoms forming a fact,
the higher is a probability of chance approaching
certainty (or causality) of movement of such by ties binding atoms
forming a fact.
The chance for the movement of micro particles resulting from
Heisenberg’s principle of uncertainty, according to which we
can never determine with complete certainty the location of
micro-particles, only we can determine the higher or lower probability
of its occurrence in a particular place, in my opinion it is the result
of the endless possibility of cutting materials into smaller pieces,
the smallest parts are then * space-time points under Special Theory of
Relativity of Albert Einstein. This means, that if any specific micro
particle, or body divisible into smaller parts, then the smaller
parts predetermine the movement of larger micro particle,
virtually body in macro world, and their motion is so random,
because also the movement of the aforementioned minor part is
unique (but similar) and through unique (but similar),
not same way, these smaller particles predict the
movement by them formed larger micro particles, virtually bodies in
macro world.
A man or other living creature, that kills
other living creature on the basis of an objective possibility of
random movement, i.e. free links of their brain forming brain
cells-neurons and them forming micro particles he or she gets captured
by solid ties of micro particles, hence the brain cells, of which
purpose is to atone this sin. These sinful strong links of brain cells
appear to be the fear of revenge and vengeance of related
micro-organisms for the caused death of living cells of the body of a
killed living organism, for which the
offender brain cells must respond with creation of
fat reserves, greed, mental illness, escalation of killings,
alcoholism, etc.
Note:
* The points are called space-time events and we treat them
mathematically as Four-vectors. Orbits of particles in
space-time then we call worldlines. Multidimensional object
drawn in the so-called space-time world flat. (see: http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/%
C4% 8Casoprostor )
** My political
economy (see: http://www.filosofie.cz/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=698
)
Answer by stream:
Dear Dalibor.
quoted:
Post of Dalibor Grůza
In case of a lie I create the model of
reality that is inconsistent with this reality. Hence collision,
conflict of this model (or it constituting micro-particles) in the
brain of man with his or her own reality (or it forming micro
particles).
All is also in
contrary to reality. If I say, that the G. Bush has a green nose (lie),
then according to you physical particles forming in my brain model
(model of some Bush with green nose) collide
the particles, forming a real nose of Bush, on the other end of the
globe. Perhaps then the material particles fly from my brain,
they fly to Bush, there will be a collision, and therefore it is a lie.
When I say the truth, the particles do not fly anywhere? With nothing
to collide?
As that makes no sense. Of course, the brain is composed of material
particles. But lie is not a lie because somewhere would those particles
collide with something. Lie is not related to some momenta etc.
The same with the disease and medicine. Surely drugs do not work on the
principle of some momentum. The effectiveness of the drug is given by
complex chemical reactions of complex compounds. It is absolutely
pointless to look at medicine only as a set of some particles with
momenta and its efficacy cannot be so explained.
A cure against a bacterium does not act as a hammer,
its momentum (i.e., speed and weight) to hit and to squish, it is a
ridiculous idea. Read some of pharmacology.
Moreover, as we have mentioned, at the level of elementary particles
the momentum (and its equation) essentially does not work because the
weights of the particles are extremely small. A movement of these
particles is determined by other forces (e.g. the so-called weak and
electromagnetic force) and patterns. Your physical outlets, as I have
ever wrote, at the level of knowledge of secondary school. Today is a
modern physics somewhere else.
The same is true for your "political economy". Although "Joule" can be
understood as a unit of work, but it is defined as 1 Newton force a
shift by 1 meter (the analogy Watt). I.e. for the work of man it
would be applied, perhaps if people worked purely
manually, or by pushing and lifting various heavy objects, etc. The
man, whose least part of work is mental, this is manifestly
inapplicable. The work, which will take away the programmer is given
the sum of the Joules, which he or she develops by pressing keys on the
computer. That is nonsense. It's everywhere that while you are writing
your equation, but you are not able to single
practical calculation, it is in itself significant.
You are trying to build a philosophy in physics, but you do not know
either. The idea of high school physics you have extended of
maybe a couple of popular books on philosophy, probably not even that.
Unfortunately, the result happened to be exactly according to it.
My answer
Dear Stream
According to me, by you shown chemical reactions of medication
can be ultimately limited to the physical, really quantum mechanics
(i.e., kinematics and dynamics of movement of the micro particles).
This is so because in the case of chemical bonds of atoms, essentially
mediated by movement of atoms and electrons it is always a collision
and the movement of micro particles in the final result it will always
be a movement of space-time points. Chemistry so I understand as a
generalization of physics that contains the general terms (e.g. names
of the different types of atoms), which may be analyzed in the
physics (or desintegrated), up to points of space-time.
Physical science (mechanics, i.e. the kinematics and dynamics) of the
movement of space-time points and in my opinion it is the essence of
chemistry, virtually of any chemical reactions (including chemical
reactions of drugs in the patient's body).
Regarding different types of forces, electromagnetic, gravitational,
nuclear, etc., which are caused by the movement of micro particles,
again there is a question of momentum (low weight of micro particles is
in my opinion compensated by high speed of their movements in relation
to the momentum p = mv, where p is momentum, m mass and v speed).
What is concerning the lie about the green nose of G. Bush, so we can
say, that in the United States green nose of G. Bush does not
constitute a single object of collision of a false notion of
the individual with reality. Other nearby objects of collisions are
immediate ideas of your neighbors, ideas in the brain of living
individuals that a normal person has a green nose, as if you are
watching color television, you see that G. Bush has not a green nose
etc. All of these collisions of lie with the reality are as to me, in
fact, the collisions of micro particles (in the final sense
i.e. movement of space-time points), which consist all the above
objects, then your immediate neighbors, their ideas in the brain, their
brains, lying individual and his or her brain, television and
its broadcasting.
As to the brain activity and done work, so in its activity the brain
consumes also energy (and often in quantities comparable to manual
labor), and this energy is expressible in calories or Joules and
derived from food digestion.
The application of general laws of physics on interpersonal
relationships it is necessary to know these general laws of physics and
also these interpersonal relationships. In your case, it is not a
general ignorance of the laws of physics, but a lack of imagination in
their use in interpersonal relationships.
Try for a moment to assume (i.e., leave your prejudged
thoughts probably for religious reasons) that the general laws of
physics do not determine only the course of a relationship of inanimate
matter but also of social, virtually interpersonal relationships,
because, according to the materialist (and current scientific opinion),
people are formed exclusively by inanimate matter, and try to describe
the mechanisms of action of physical laws in interpersonal, virtually
social relations. I believe, that you will reach as I some interesting
results.
Reaction IPC:
I really wonder
how you address the possibility of mathematical induction, if you are
just packed by those formulas.
My answer
For IPC.
As to the parallels between ethics and physics,
a bad deed in my opinion is an unnecessary conflict in society in terms
of ethics and also an unnecessary collision of micro particles in terms
of physics that also is not on track to reduce the total
cumulative strength of collisions of all living creatures.
As to me the intellectual free decision a person only sees as
arbitrary, in fact it is an objective act, because for each acting
their brain gives a command, which is determined by actions (or
synergies) of his or her brain cells, thus by functions or
movement of any brain cells.
And brain cells are formed by micro particles of
inanimate matter. Free movement of micro particles is
from view of a general physics the issue of little probable
coincidences (which was tested by shooting same
photons against the screen, where on the places of the most probable
occurrence the majority of photons fell and on places with a
lower probability of occurrence, the number of fallen photons were
smaller). For strong links of micro particles but
this is highly probable chance of movement approaching certainty, i.e.
causality known in our world (eg in the case of atoms in the body in
the solid state, such as bowling ball, our fingers catching only
certain atoms by throw and other atoms of the ball adapt nearly
causally to a movement initiated by a throw by our fingers caught atoms
of the bowling ball against the bowling pins).
I believe, that I agree with you that the freedom of man is
actually more or less probable coincidence.
quoted:
Post of Dalibor Grůza
The chance for
the movement of micro particles resulting from Heisenberg’s
principle of uncertainty, according to which we can never determine
with complete certainty the location of micro-particles, only we can
determine the higher or lower probability of its occurrence in a
particular place, in my opinion it is the result of the endless
possibility of cutting materials into smaller pieces, the smallest
parts are then * space-time points under Special Theory of Relativity
of Albert Einstein. This means, that if any specific micro particle, or
body divisible into smaller parts, then the smaller
parts predetermine the movement of larger micro particles,
virtually bodies in macro world, and their motion is so random,
because also the movement of the aforementioned minor part is
unique (but similar) and through unique (but similar), not same
way, this smaller particles predict the movement by them
formed larger micro particles, virtually bodies in macro world.
Ignorance of man, in my opinion steams from the
fact, that the movement of reality, virtually it forming micro
particles is with greater or lesser degree of probability random, which
is as to me, as I mentioned, the possibility of infinite division of
matter, and down to the level of space-time points. Perfect individual,
I believe God, if there, he or she (further also as he) is not
suffering from that ignorance of the random movement of reality,
because he or she feels the movement of each point of time and space
(therefore he or she has a perfect emotion), or he or she can calculate
the motion of each point of space-time separately, and in the whole
working of mathematical equations with infinite number of different
values (therefore perfect reason).
Mathematical induction
means for me on the
contrary that, if the general laws of physics apply to
inanimate matter from which man, possibly other living organism are
composed exclusively (it is a materialistic view), such
general laws of physics must also be valid as well as for this man, or
other living organism as a whole and their social relations. At the
same time as we can stop the movement of balls which collide with the
ball with the same momentum of the opposite direction in terms of
macrophysics, we can stop movement in my opinion of
micro particles, which collides with the micro particles of the same
momentum of the opposite direction in terms of microphysics, which is
the essence of my patterns, for which the evidence I have formulated as
follows the induction assumption under by you mentioned mathematical
induction.
Adding my answers
quoted:
[quote]Post of Stream
Dear Dalibor,
[quote]Post of Dalibor Grůza
According to
me, by you shown chemical reactions of medication can be
ultimately limited to the physical, really quantum mechanics (i.e.,
kinematics and dynamics of movement of the micro particles). This is so
because in the case of chemical bonds of atoms, essentially mediated by
movement of atoms and electrons it is always a collision and the
movement of micro particles in the final result it will always be a
movement of space-time points. Chemistry so I understand as a
generalization of physics that contains the general terms (e.g. names
of the different types of atoms), which may be analyzed in the
physics (or desintegrated), up to points of space-time.
Physical science (mechanics, i.e. the kinematics and dynamics) of the
movement of space-time points and in my opinion it is the essence of
chemistry, virtually of any chemical reactions (including chemical
reactions of drugs in the patient's body).
In terms of physics it is not true, many of the phenomena
have the wave nature, not reducible to the idea of movement of
material particles.
"On the question whether the radiation has wave or particle
nature, it cannot be answered unequivocally. Some phenomena in optics
may be explained only through wave nature of light, while other
phenomena (e.g. the photoelectric effect) can be explained only by
photons.
From this point of view it is argued that both theories are
complementary, and the phenomenon is always necessary to select an
appropriate theoretical description. The light is understood as a
physical phenomenon that has wave and the corpuscular nature.
Quantum theory shows that all the particles show the wave characteristics (in certain
situations). This is one of the important discoveries of quantum
physics.
"
http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualita_%
C4% 8D% C3% A1stice_a_vln% C4% 9Bn% C3% AD
Regarding the different types of forces,
electromagnetic, gravitational, nuclear, etc. these forces cause the
movement of micro particles, again there is a question of momentum (low
weight of micro particles is in my opinion compensated by the
high speed of their movements in relation to the momentum p = mv, where
p is momentum, m mass and v speed).
Momentum is sometimes reflected of course, but the particles are
including the charge, which operates differently. Particles are
repelling or attracting, interacting, without collisions, because of
the size of the hub, not just momentum.
Incidentally, the physics you do not study in wikipedia.
[quote]
Dear Stream
in my opinion all the forces (electric, gravitational
and nuclear, etc.) cause the acceleration or deceleration of the
movement of microparticles, which is either a wave or particle nature,
in all cases, however, this movement is characterized by universal
property, which is the momentum. Created a mathematical model of
(algebraic and geometric) description of the momentum vectors of
microparticles or bodies, of the momentum them forming micro
particles or parts, ultimately the momentum of all forming all
points of space-time it can be described motion in all Universe. In my
opinion by the sum of momentum vectors of all points of space-time the
movement of the Universe as a whole can also be determined.
Adding my answers:
Dear stream and
IPC,
to use the basic laws of physics to human relations, firstly a
philosopher must know the general physical laws, secondly he or she
must be an expert on these interpersonal relationships, which is my
case.
For my philosophy, virtually universal ethics it is not a
search for new physical laws, only the consistent application of
existing fundamental physical laws applicable to the social, virtually
interpersonal relationships. This application is also considered, that
momentum, virtually nature of the whole movement is always the sum of
momentums, virtually movement of its parts, regardless which power
(nuclear, electromagnetic, gravity) cause the whole movement, virtually
of its parts.
quoted:
Post of Dalibor Grůza
Dear Stream
Since what concerns me, so I'm an idealist at 55% (i.e. at 45%
materialist) philosophy is for me a mean of speculation about the
invisible, of course, which crosses the border of special exact science
disciplines. Such my speculation on invisible I do as
exactly based person, only just on the basis or near on the basis of
the exact sciences (i.e. visible) using specific terms of the exact
sciences.
Given,
that my philosophy deals with the current invisible rather than the
current visible, an area described by contemporary exact science (e.g.
physics), I do not compete physics directly. It also implies,
that my philosophy that is based on application, but only a theoretical
application of the basic valid physical laws to human, virtually social
relations, it is also currently difficult falsifiable given
the fact, that I am using exact physical terms, it is
anticipated, that in the future (with future expansion of the exact
sciences visible) my philosophy will be possible to clearly confirm or
refute.
Adding my answers:
Rational
axioms (i.e. the axiom of reality of being, of phenomena, of living
creatures and the reality of consciousness) are the basis for an exact
science. An exact science can also be very useful for humans, which is
showed by their proliferation on the Earth and its mastery by man using
an exact science.
The
philosophy deals in my opinion with invisible. An exact science as the
basis of a philosophy (the doctrine of the invisible based on the
doctrine of the visible) is the surest, virtually useful starting
point, we have, but even that does not guarantee the exactness of such
a philosophy as above rational axioms are not proved by an
experience (notices of the invisible are always uncertain, as evidenced
by such subjective idealism, empiricism, transcendental
idealism-agnosticism, skepticism, etc. in philosophy and Hinduism and
Buddhism in the religion, denying the above rational axioms). It
remains then to try to formulate on the basis of the exact sciences as
most exact philosophy, a doctrine of the invisible based on the
doctrine of the visible as much verifiable experience of living
creature that would do from the philosophy the exact science, of which
opinions the vast majority of philosophers-scientists will be
able to agree on.
(see
http://www.filosofie.cz/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1165 : Jediné prokazatelné pravdy
)
quoted:
Post of Dalibor Grůza
Mathematical induction for me on the contrary means that, if the
general laws of physics apply to inanimate matter from which man,
possibly other living organism are composed exclusively (it is a
materialistic view), it must also be valid such general laws of physics
as well as for this man, or other living organism as a whole and their
social relations. At the same time as we can stop the movement of balls
which collide with the ball with the same momentum of the opposite
direction in terms of macrophysics we can stop movement in my
opinion of micro particles, which collide with the micro particles of
the same momentum of the opposite direction in terms of microphysics,
which is the essence of my patterns, for which the evidence I have
formulated as follows the induction assumption under by you mentioned
mathematical induction.
Regarding the mathematical induction, so I
commented the problem of mathematical induction, as defined by an exact
science. You will probably have in mind the general problem of proof of
induction, which is expressed by the philosopher Hume.
quoted:
Post of Dalibor Grůza
The chance for
the movement of micro particles resulting from Heisenberg’s
principle of uncertainty, according to which we can never determine
with complete certainty the location of micro-particles, only we can
determine the higher or lower probability of its occurrence in a
particular place, in my opinion it is the result of the endless
possibility of cutting materials into smaller pieces, the smallest
parts are then * space-time points under Special Theory of Relativity
of Albert Einstein. This means, that if any specific micro particle, or
body divisible into smaller parts, then the smaller
parts predetermine the movement of larger micro particles,
virtually bodies in macro world, and their motion is so random,
because also the movement of the aforementioned minor part is
unique (but similar) and through unique (but similar), not same
way, this smaller particles predict the movement by them
formed larger micro particles, virtually bodies in macro world.
Free movement
of micro particles is from view of
a general physics the issue of unlikely coincidences (which was
tested by shooting same photons against the screen,
where on the places of the most probable occurrence the
majority of photons fell and on places with a lower probability of
occurrence, the number of fallen photons were smaller). For strong
links of micro particles but this is highly probable chance
of movement approaching certainty, i.e. causality known in
our world (eg in the case of atoms in the body in the solid state, such
as bowling ball, our fingers catching only certain atoms by throw and
other atoms of the ball adapt nearly causally to a movement initiated
by a throw by our fingers caught atoms of the bowling ball
against the bowling pins).
The general problem of induction can be
answered as to me as follows:
From the foregoing, it follows that the laws proved by induction are
basically laws of more or less probable chance. If there are
strong links with the micro particles of certain fact (especially the
laws of motion of solid bodies in macro world in terms of physics, i.e.
in our world), it is almost causality, virtually a highly probable
chance of the observance of certain laws of nature, in the case,
however, of free micro particles of certain fact (or space-time points,
which are completely free micro particles in my opinion), then their
motion is determined by less probable chance to comply with certain
laws of nature, in extreme case it is a complete coincidence, where in
my opinion no specific laws of nature (i.e. no evidence of a general
induction) are.
Adding my answers:
For IPC
in the case of space-time points that would have no strong ties and
therefore they would not form, together with other points of space-time
no bigger micro particles or bodies of non-zero relativistic mass it
would have to be an absolute vacuum. Existence of an absolute vacuum,
however, a present exact science questions. The position of
the moving points of the absolute vacuum of space-time should, in my
opinion, not be determined with the lowest degree of probability, it
would be a completely random motion, because their movement has no
known physical forces (like gravity, electricity, nuclear, etc.) do
predetermine. In absolute vacuum it could be a totally passive
(passive, virtually completely random) principle of movement
predetermined by the surrounding material of a non-zero relativistic
mass.
The position of the moving points of space-time, which create with
other points of space-time through strong links of micro particles or
bodies which are of non-zero relativistic mass, it can be determined,
according to me, always with a lower or higher probability increasing
with increasing relativistic mass of the object formed by the fixed
links, by the related points of space-time.
Adding my answers:
Note:
The individual points of space-time are
called events and we treat them mathematically as Four-vectors. Orbits
of point particles in space-time then we call as worldlines.
Multidimensional object draws in the space-time so-called
world flat. See: http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/%
C4% 8Casoprostor
Dear Noemus,
from the foregoing, it is possible to talk about space-time points
lanes, thus also about their movement. The above implies that
space-time points are point particles, in my opinion; the point
particles must be of zero relativistic mass. From the foregoing, the
space-time points creates a multidimensional objects, a bigger micro
particles (for which I consider the matter particles visible only
microscopically, but unlike the space-time points, of the non-zero
relativistic mass) or bodies of our macro world.
I consider for strong ties the bindings of matter which create from the
points of space-time as a micro particles of zero relativistic mass
(see above), bigger micro particles, or bodies in our macro
world of a non-zero relativistic mass. The opposite is the absolute
vacuum, which would be constituted by points of
space-time that would be individually of zero relativistic mass and the
relativistic mass of zero would also have an absolute vacuum as a whole
(the question is whether the absolute vacuum then one describes as
nothing or as a matter of zero relativistic mass). According to current
science, however, an absolute vacuum does not exist in the Universe it
is always said as the space, which is filled by micro
particles of matter of relativistic nonzero mass.
1) Absolute vacuum, in my view, consists of only one inert particle
(space-time point) of zero speed and zero relativistic mass, possibly
spread out the space-time as nonabsolute vacuum.
2 ) Matter is made up in my view, by
an infinite number of particles of zero relativistic mass and
nonzero speed less than the speed of light c.
3) Light, virtually electromagnetic waves (or
light) in my view, consists of a finite number of particles of non-zero
relativistic mass, zero rest mass and the speed of light c.
It follows that the mass as the space-time points of positive
speed could accelerate points of space-time of zero velocity (i.e.
micro particles of absolute vacuum). Their accelerating from absolute
vacuum the matter become and resulting the solid (in my opinion it is
rather of a movement) bindings of material of a non-zero relativistic
mass. Reducing the speed of non-zero speed of points of space-time
would once again created an absolute vacuum. As above, speeding points
of absolute vacuum (i.e. zero velocity), slowing down the points of the
materials (i.e. non-zero velocity) at the speed equal to zero (i.e. the
creation of an absolute vacuum) it is independent of the points of the
space, it is fully dependent on their surroundings (i.e.
completely random).
Relativistic mass is the mass dependent on the speed of the reference
system, unlike the rest mass, which is a mass at zero speed of the
reference system (which follows from STR of A. Einstein).
Adding my answers:
quoted:
Post of noemus
Dear Dalibor
I hate to say it, but I knew, that it goes as follows: o))
When arguments fail, this is usually the end of discussion.
Now you cannot excuse anymore, that my criticism is vague (exactly what
you are doing, but probably only because you do not know how a
constructive criticism should look like)
And you may be right, that my criticism is
"destructive", but this is quite understandable, because the reasoning,
which stands on the water, collapses. Just some people do not recognize
it and they will continue to argue, that it still stands on solid
ground.
And you're also right that for someone who cannot think logically the
reasoning is certainly vague and uncertain.
You say that you follow string theory, but in those posts you do not
even once said anything, though I ask you. Moreover, it is not clear
why you talk about point particles.
For others:
I hope, that those who have completed secondary
education, and if possible even higher science education, they can even
without my help know, on which side is true
Superstring theory cannot be considered as dominant, and even nor the
current (as it's been superseded by other theories). Moreover, there is
no one theory, but has more options.
Moreover, I fear that the understanding of string theory is far beyond
the capabilities of ordinary people and logical thinking, it is quite
necessary prerequisite to any study of scientific theories. Who has
problems with primitive logic he would probably have even greater
problem with the mathematical apparatus of any current or past physical
theories.
Dear noemus,
Again it is concerned vague, general, and so unprofessional criticism.
Therefore, I ask you now, what do you think from a
professional point of view (whether allegedly you have the necessary
expertise) to the possibility of infinite division of matter, which
immediate consequence is a philosophical theory of space-time points as
relativistic particles with zero mass.
P.S. I just want to note that the
theory of the infinite division of matter is rather inconsistent with
string theory, which I have wanted to hear from you as an alleged
expert and constructive critic. Thus I cannot rely upon it, as you
suggest above, this is a vivid example, that you have not read my accounts at all or you have not understood them
at all.
P.P.S. The reader can easily verify who first
used diatribe (personal attacks) instead of purely technical argument.
Adding my answers:
Post of noemus
quoted:
Post of Dalibor Grůza
... the philosophical theory of point
particles as space-time points as to me of zero relativistic mass,
which act as the events ..., allowing infinite division of matter is
contrary to the prevailing current physical superstring theory
You say that you follow the string theory, but
in those posts you do not even once said anything, though I ask you.
Moreover, it is not clear why you talk about point particles.
I am sorry, I really missed, that you said
"conflict" - in mind, I had your earlier statement, that you follow the
current exact sciences. In addition, when you consider, that
you believe string theory as a most current physical theory, so I
connected it and then I did not check it after himself, for this
mistake I am sorry.
The fact, that your theory is inconsistent with this theory, on that we
will certainly agree. However, it is still true, that you clearly did
not say what physical theories you follow - the theory of
relativity? A general or special? Why, then, using different
terminology? With what physical theories is not your theory in
contradiction?
Dear noemus,
my philosophy (or universal ethics, which I have also used in
mechanical means to address our previous small misunderstandings),
virtually theory of space-time points as point particles with zero
relativistic mass it is not in contradiction, virtually it is
a direct consequence of the assumption of the possibility of infinite
division of matter, so I would like to know your professional opinion
on this assumption.
Adding my answers:
quoted:
Post of Noemus
According to this theory, based on your following statements:
V1. matter is divisible as to me to the
countless infinity
V2. my theory on space-time points as particles
with zero relativistic
mass arising from the infinite division of
matter
therefore any tangible object has zero rest mass, which can certainly
be verified by the experiment.
Moreover, you note, that I did not need the assumption of infinite
divisibility A3, and no assumption A2.
Furthermore, note that the theory is still missing to define the
concept "it created from an infinite division", which is different from
the concept of "infinitely divisible", it looks like there is playing a
role also time so it's probably more complicated, but to analyze it
more it does not make sense
I need not further analyze your "theory"
to know, that there is only a fantasy, because to make an experiment
that would disprove this theory, each can do it themselves, enough to
have a kitchen scale and any material, such as a piece of bread,
You can try it yourself, you will be surprised about the result,
apparently you made a mistake somewhere, where it is …
quoted:
Post of Dalibor Grůza
For Noemus,
The various values of zero:
As to me it is the difference between an abstract value
of 0 as a perfect nothing (that is absolutely empty set) a value of 0
kg (i.e. empty set, in terms of kilograms, but non-empty set of points
in terms of space-time) example is a point which is 0 as
defined above perfect nothing, it has 0 meters, while countless
infinite of these points may be dimension of the segment as a length of
3 meters. It is clear that the point of space-time as an event has a
weight of 0 kg, yet it is a perfect nothing (i.e. totally empty set)
and uncountable infinity of points of space-time can include the whole
space-time which is certainly of not zero (relativistic) mass.
For Noemus
A simple proof of the weight 0 kg as countless
infinitesimal part of a mass of 3 kilograms for example:
Assuming, that in the case of a mass of 3 kg as it is for water in a
container that has a density ζ = 1000 kg/m3 = m / V, where m
is the mass and volume V, then the mass of points of the water
container m= V * ζ, the volume of the points of the
water in the container V = 0 m3, the mass of points of the water in the
container m = 1000*0 kg = 0 kg.
Note:
By this simple calculation, clearly to me, I
refute your proposed experiment (see above), that if infinitesimal part
of the bread with weight of 0 kg this piece of bread must always be
weighing 0 kg and not, for example 3 kg
Adding my answers:
quoted:
Post of noemus
Post of Dalibor Grůza
A simple proof of the weight 0 kg countless
infinitesimal part of a mass of 3 kilograms for example:
Post of noemus
First, why you talk about the infinitely small parts of matter and why
do you say besides countless infinitesimal of matter? I mentioned the infinitesimal variables only in passing, I
commented that such a thing exists, and I stressed, that it is
non-standard mathematics (see e.g. infinitesimalis Calculus, Petr
Vopěnka - to find just in the library).
I therefore, unlike you, I did not need to define an infinitely small
quantity, you need to do it if you want to use in evidence, or evidence
does not make sense (or it is not evidence)
Note, that I am particularly talking about material items, and
especially the objects. Only for the body it makes sense to talk about
density, density does not make sense for a point. As the density is the
global (macroscopic) quantity, which is determined precisely from the
measured values of weight and volume of solids. If
you want to determine the density of points, so we went to nonsense - 0
kg / 0 m3. In addition, the water density is given
concentrations of water molecules in space, the number of molecules is
finite, and therefore if you went to various points in space, there
would not seem to find it.
If density of point of space-time you
specify as 0kg/0m3, then I agree with you completely, but
given the fact, that its density = m / V = 0kg/0m3, where m is the mass
and V volume of space-time point, then you took my argument that the
point of space has zero mass m = 0 kg, otherwise it would be
e.g. the density = m / V = 3kg/0m3, which is not mentioned.
In the latter case you have previously advocated the point of
space-time would have such a value of density = 3kg/0m3 = ∞
different according to non-zero mass m in the formula for density, and
only according to my theory about the value 0 for an infinitely small
part of the value of 3, in your approach, where an infinitely
small part of the 3 value cannot be 0, the example of the density (of
space-time point) = 3kg/0m3 was meaningless, really given point of
space-time should not even exist.
Adding my answers:
quoted:
Post of noemus
Post of Dalibor Grůza
A simple proof of the weight 0 kg countless
infinitesimal part of a mass of 3 kilograms for example:
Post of noemus
First, why you talk about the infinitely small parts of matter and why
do you say besides countless infinitesimal of matter? I mentioned the infinitesimal variables only in passing, I
commented that such a thing exists, and I stressed, that it is
non-standard mathematics (see e.g. infinitesimalis Calculus, Petr
Vopěnka - to find just in the library).
I therefore, unlike you, I did not need to define an infinitely small
quantity, you need to do it if you want to use in evidence, or evidence
does not make sense (or it is not evidence)
Note, that I am particularly talking about material items, and
especially the objects. Only for the body it makes sense to talk about
density, density does not make sense for a point. As the density is the
global (macroscopic) quantity, which is determined precisely from the
measured values of weight and volume of solids. If
you want to determine the density of points, so we went to nonsense - 0
kg / 0 m3. In addition, the water density is given
concentrations of water molecules in space, the number of molecules is
finite, and therefore if you went to various points in space, there
would not seem to find it.
For Noemus.
My last argument in this debate is, then I
probably end up with it for its vanity, that the equation of nonzero
value = 0 / 0, which in accordance with your arguments I
established for the density of space-time point of positive value (see
above) it is typical also in the calculation of the relativistic mass
of a photon of light (from STR) or:
m = m0/ √
(1-v * v / c * c) = 0 / (1-c * c / c * c) = 0 / 0, where m is the
relativistic mass of photon of beam in principle of non-zero value, m0 the rest mass of a photon of light with a zero
value, v the speed of light equal to the c and c is
the speed of light.
Equation 0 / 0 = nonzero value is quite normal for the
calculation of non-zero relativistic mass of a photon of light,
virtually electromagnetic waves, and it is in my opinion used to
calculate non-zero value of density of space-time point as a glass of
water weighing 3 kilograms.
Adding my answers:
quoted:
Post of Dalibor Grůza
that the formula-zero value = 0 / 0,
which I, in accordance with your arguments, establisheded for the
density of space-time point of positive value (see above) it is also
typical in the calculation of the relativistic mass of a photon of
light, virtually electromagnetic waves (from STR) or:
m = m0/
√ (1-v * v / c * c) = 0 / (1-c * c / c * c) = 0 / 0, where m
is the relativistic mass of photon of beam in principle of non-zero
value, m0 the rest mass of photon
beam, virtually electromagnetic waves with a zero value, v the speed of
light equals to the c and c is the speed of light.
Equation 0 / 0 = nonzero value is quite normal for the
calculation of non-zero relativistic mass of a photon of light,
virtually electromagnetic waves and it is in my opinion used to
calculate non-zero value of density of space-time point as a glass of
water weighing 3 kilograms.
Post of Noemus
It cannot be divided by zero, it is learnt at
elementary school and it still applies, but you do not seem to
understand.
That you are handpicked by the formula for relativistic mass data for
the photon, you just gave evidence that for the photon it is not
possible to use.
But you have the truth that the debate is futile because you are not
able to understand a little more complicated arguments, but I think,
that for some "audience" that discussion is not entirely in vain. I was
as amused, because I like knowledge and mathematics.
You, however, in my opinion, take it too
seriously, as if you were killed, as if the error would collapse your
whole world. It was a similar discussion as with believers. However, in
this case, you're the believer, and your faith is your theory. I will
not continue to warp it, as I have already stopped to warp people's
religious beliefs, why I should do it? This belief is probably
beneficial for them. In your case, but it is difficult, you are in fact
trying to act as if your theory is scientific or based on science, but
it is not.
Howg.
For Noemus.
From what do you guess the
above basic formula of special relativity (STR) from A. Einstein cannot
be used for the relativistic mass of a photon of light? Please cite the source.
Adding my answers:
Post of Noemus:
I do it reluctantly, but I violate my Howg, if
you ask me about it, but I will not response :
http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%
C4% 9Blen% C3% AD_nulou
In addition, you can open a textbook of mathematics and see what it
says to divide by zero
Perhaps I was thinking about limit for v going to c, but it
would have to prove it. However, the concept has just for the
photon little sense since the observer will measure for the photon a
non-zero mass, so if you try, it will depend on the momentum (impulse)
of the photon. The concept of relativistic mass is actually not used
much because it does not work well with it. You're probably the only
one who uses that term so consistently and persistently. Try Google a
little and perhaps you find it.
Noemus, I owe you one.
My approach described above of the
division by zero, virtually infinitely small parts such as of the
weight of 3kg, which is equal to the number 0 kilograms in the case of
space-time points, roughly it is equivalent to the mathematical
definitions described below:
see: http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%
C4% 9Blen% C3% AD_nulou under the heading "Limits and division by zero"
and under the heading "Division by zero in computers" see E.g.
The IEEE 754 a ÷ 0 is positive infinity, if a
is positive, negative infinity, if a is negative, and NaN (not
a number) when a = 0. Marks of infinities change at a division
by -0. This is possible because the IEEE 754 is two zeros,
positive and negative.
Adding my answers
Post of Stream:
I do not understand why the model of the
actions of individuals should be some bumps of material bodies. Surely
it on an intuitive level: if someone asks "why should I act morally as
follows (let us conjecture something specific) and you answer it,"
because when two bodies collide ... etc. etc. „it’s
totally unconvincing. This is no morality.
Of course, part of your positions is, that in fact there is no freedom,
but all human action is completely determined by these events at micro
points. But the consequence is that there is no morality, and therefore
it cannot do on ethics, because actions of people are completely
determined by these things, and people cannot behave differently than
they do. Thus, there is nothing moral or immoral, because the
notion of a moral contains
the appeal to the fact, that someone should do
something differently than it does, which implies, that it may act
differently than it is.
Thus, in that text terms like "reasonable conduct" did not make sense -
conduct of each determined by these movements of parts of their brain,
therefore, it cannot be distinguished between reasonable and
unreasonable conduct, each is an accurate and direct consequence of the
circumstances and causes.
Similarly, the "reasonable" attack does not make sense, since each
response is 'reasonable' it is true to the physical causes and
movements of particles that caused this reaction.
For streams
Human brain can be improved by two external ways: 1) medical
intervention, 2) non-violent with increasing experience, which
describes an empty board (tabula rasa) of human memory, virtually on
the basis of experience with growing number of memory traces in the
human brain. Notwithstanding the fact, that the external improvement of
human brains is objective, a man sees it as a result of their
subjective endeavor.
And, because as to me it becomes easier to diagnose the internal
activity of the brain of a person in a given point in time, since this
activity is the result of a relatively small number of fixed and free
internal relationships in the brain we cannot determine the development
of its surroundings (often a coincidence and free links), which is
infinitely complex. Infinite complexity of developing of free links the
man perceives as their freedom, in reality it was more or less probable
chance. Both also are an objective process of mass micro particles,
virtually evolution of nature (it is sort of software-program
performing calculations with infinite values).
My universal ethics represents from view of your person the experience,
of which effect on your brain I cannot anticipate, your answer to
my universal ethics
is the
experience for me, of which effect on my brain you cannot in
turn predict, because it is objectively random act. At the
same time according to me it is concerned the basic ethical
rules, which knowledge improves evolutionarily (from inside and outside)
the activity of cognizing human brain. It is as to me a sort of the
generalized (really indefinite) and random algorithm (which is
in contradiction with the definition of the algorithm), the above
evolution of nature as a program performing accurate calculations with
different infinite values.
Adding my answers:
Nature can be understood as, in my opinion,
cosmic computer hardware and evolution as its software
or computer program. Evolution as a designed program in my
opinion is directed to the following final results:
1) from the chance to causality
2) from free to strong ties with inanimate
matter and from the strong to free links with man and other
living beings (see the definition of freedom of Baruch Spinoza as
recognized necessity)
3) from chaos to orderliness (i.e. the harmony
of the each and all)
the general (i.e. philosophical) and random
algorithm of this program as to me is a universal ethics
(i.e., our attack as an adequate response to the attack and our retreat
as a reasonable response to a retreat from society of living creatures,
and the adequacy means in particular, that we could not really hurt
each other and we cause the least death and pain
of living creatures).
The above program of evolution worked initially with input data of
infinite values, because each point of space-time is moving almost
entirely at random, because it was not bound by almost no solid link in
the mass, i.e. Universe was characterized by the absolute chaos and its
momentum as the sum of all points of space-time could not be estimated
in terms of man (who cannot do the calculations with different numbers
of infinity). Gradually the program of evolution of the Universe, on
the basis of mutual still increasingly probable random interactions it
makes solid links of space-time points, which have caused more
probable chance (causality) of this space-time points bound in
the matter, so it is possible to make calculation to determine the
movement of the Universe based on movement of heavy (of a non-zero
weight) bodies, rather than them forming infinite points of space-time
of zero-weight, this program starts to work with the final input data
it becomes more causal or almost clear rather than random.
My Philosophy of Balance is also
attempted to provide less solid ties of humanity, greater orderliness
on the basis of more free movement of living organisms
through their knowledge of the above philosophical
algorithm, and of the final results of the evolutionary
program of the Universe, on the basis of and within activity of the
above program of evolution.
Man or other living creature, that kills other
living creature on the basis of an objective possibility of random
movement, i.e. free links of his or her brain forming brain
cells-neurons and them forming micro particles, they get captured
by solid ties
of micro
particles, hence the brain cells, of which purpose is to atone this
sin. These dirty strong ties, unlike free links of brain cells do not
perceive the whole Universe (emotion), but only its part (instinct,
complex, etc.), which leads to distorted perceptions of reality, strong
links of the brain cells appear to be the fear of brain cells of
culprit of revenge and vengeance of related micro-organisms for caused
death of living cells of the body of a killed living organism, for
which the offender brain cells respond by the creation of fat reserves,
greed, mental illness, escalation of killings, alcoholism, etc.
(viz. http://www.filosofie.cz/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=719 : Universální etika , http://www.filosofie.cz/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=680 : Má filosofie rovnováhy )
b) Could something be created from nothing http://forum.filosofie.cz/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=588 : Mohlo vzniknúť niečo z ničoho?
Earliest to the evidence of the material world.
From the idea of the material world contained in individual
model of the world in his or her brain (or in
individual’s world of experiance by I. Kant) the fact of the
material world cannot be proved. However, the adoption of tangible
reality of the world (the real world by I. Kant) is useful, good,
because it reduces the discrepancies in individual model of the world
contained in his or her brain. Non-adoption of the reality
of material world by individual increases
significantly the contradictions in his or her soul, virtually the
model of the world contained in his or her brain, we
can imagine someone who rejects the material world as whole
and in a full speed car he or she crashes into the wall, probably
followed by pain, treatment, disability and condemnation of other
people in his or her model of the world in his or her brain
(or in individual’s world of experiance by I. Kant).
Adoption of ideas about the spirit world without matter and energy in
my opinion, it puts at contradictions with the accepted idea
of reality of the material world. Space without matter, virtually
energy it is in terms of the material world the absolute
vacuum, or vacuum, and you can imagine, that this would be a bearer of
consciousness. At the same time the adoption of idea of reality of the
material world leads us to the observation, that the soul of man is
contained in his or her brain, which is again physical in nature. In
the past the denial of the brain as a bearer of the
soul led to absurd exorcising the Devil, instead of treating
the patient's brain by processes of the exact medicine. In both cases
there is the increase of contradictions of individual model of
the world (in individual’s world of experiance by I. Kant),
which is not useful or good.
Now the origin of the world from nothing. In my opinion, the matter is
infinitely divisible, after the division then, in my opinion, we get a
particle of zero mass, which could be for example a photon at rest, for
which physics assumes zero rest mass. Due to zero mass i.e.
the absence of the mass a point of space-time could also
be this particle. How then we can create from this zero-mass
particles a matter, in my opinion, they should be granted a non-zero
velocity, i.e.:
1) Absolute vacuum, in my view, consists of only one inert particle
(space-time point) of zero speed and zero relativistic mass, possibly
spread out the space-time as nonabsolute vacuum.
2) Matter is made up in my view, by an infinite
number of particles of zero rest and relativistic mass and
non-zero speed less than the speed of light c.
3) Light, virtually electromagnetic waves (or
light) in my view, consists of a finite number of particles of zero
rest mass and the speed of light c.
This, in my view, comes from the Special Theory of Relativity of A.
Einstein, substituting the above values into equations for the
relativistic mass and energy.
One can imagine, that our world was created by granting
motion, probably the final kinetic energy to absolute vacuum, or
vacuum, namely the particles of zero velocity and weight. This move
could be given to the absolute vacuum by the nature or God.
If we identify the God with all the kinetic energy or light,
then our world was created from nothing, virtually from absolute vacuum
that God bestowed on it probably a final part of his or her
kinetic energy i.e. movement. That all the kinetic energy is also under
the law of energy conservation eternal, indestructible, while, in my
opinion, it could be the carrier of God's consciousness, virtually
God's omniscience and means of his or her omnipotence.
c) Evidence of real material worldhttp://forum.filosofie.cz/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=611 : Důkaz reálného hmotného světa.
In my view from the individual's perceptions
of the senses, virtually from the model of the world contained in
individual´s brain we cannot determine the precise
description virtually prove the existence of the world as what is
necessarily beyond our brain. Immanuel Kant called this world model
contained in individual´s brain the individual´s "world of experiance" as opposed to the real
world, "the real world", which in my view we cannot prove from
individual´s world of experiance. As the only aspect
we are left with the aspect of harmony or discrepancies in
individual´s brain, virtually in his or her "world of
experiance". It follows, that, if an individual wants to experience the
peace of their model, or his or her "world of experiance,"
contained in his or her brain, he or she must strive for
harmony of each and all in his or her "world of experiance."
Hence:
1) It is undeniable that the current exact science, based on the
existence of the material world, it is able that a greater number of
people live to remove their poverty or to alleviate their conflicts
through exact knowledge, so it can be said that the exact knowledge of
science, based on existence of the material world ("real world") it is
useful, or it moderates the contradictions of
individual´s
"world of
experiance". Exact knowledge of the material world is consistent with
the material world (the real world), or it moderates conflicts between
individual and the material world in individual´s "world of
experiance."
2) At the same time that exact science moderates also contradictions
between the individual and the other living creatures by creating a
single exact model of "a real world", i.e., one harmonic "world of
experiance" common to all individuals, through the voluntary
unification of all "worlds of experiance" of all individuals, located
in the "world of experiance" of a certain individual.
It follows that the presumption of the existence of the material world
and other people and living organisms, which is as contrary to the
assumption, that there is only me and my consciousness (solipsism),
although not proved, but it is useful, because it moderates the
contradictions in individual´s world of experiance, or model
of the world contained in individual´s brain. Therefore, it
is not a demonstrable truth, but the good that moderates discrepancies
in individual´s "world of experiance," as the opposite of
evil, which amplifies the differences (such as solipsism).
Reaction by Miloslav Bažant:
Dalibor.
Try to compare side by side your life in the material real world and life in the virtual
world, where is only your perception, and nothing but you in fact
exists. In my opinion, there is no difference. The world of "matrix" is
less realistic than conventional material world and in my opinion I am
on the side of the tangible real world. Moreover, it should be
noted that there is a number of knowledge, that I do not know, I just
know, that it exists. If it was there just me and the others were
virtual reality, then this knowledge, which I do not know, it would be
totally unnecessary. This knowledge was reached by people and it is
determined them to exist. If they exist, then there is everyone else,
so it is a real material world.
MB
My answer
Adoption of image of the virtual world,
virtually solipsism it may result in the growth of conflicts in the
individual´s
world idea contained in his or her brain (the world of experiance by I. Kant). The
result could be, for example to kill another man who is after all under
the misguided notion of the world just a virtual reality, or the
possibility of environmental pollution, which in this mistaken notion
exists only virtually, or a car driving through a wall which is, after
all only virtual, further it is a vision of loneliness of man in the
matrix, virtually virtual world, which must surely hinder
him or her and emotionally restrict him or her, even when he or she
adopts its laws, etc. An example is the substitution of computer games
and material world by individual today. I'm not saying that the
material world (the real world by I. Kant) can be shown from the model
of the material world
contained in
individual´s brain (i.e. individual´s world of
experiance by I. Kant), but the adoption of its reality is useful,
good, because it relieves from contradictions of individual´s
model and vice versa, the adoption of its unreality, virtual reality
brings man in the contradictions in his or her model of the world,
manifested as individual´s mental or physical pain.
Reaction by Miloslav Bažant:
Dalibor.
I understand your words, but when one is talking about the virtual
world, it's something different than when one is talking about a
virtual computer world. In this virtual computer world would be
true what you wrote. In the virtual world there
should rule, and be part of the program, all physical and
other laws and by that such a virtual world would be equal to
the normal material world and there would not be a difference.
But you're right, that if someone has the idea that the world is
virtual, they could kill, destroy the environment, or even take a life.
Those who recognize this truth, thus they are promoting the
supernatural, which is in the virtual world possible.
If you have read some contributions of such people, then
you'll see, that they are actually able and even willing to destroy
their own lives to get into a better world after death. And that is
concerned what it really is. And that's they are trying to destroy the
foundations of materialism and rational thinking.
MB
My answer
Nature, in my view, forces a man to recognize
and influence it. It is a kind of normative force of reality.
Recognizing of the nature is useful not recognizing it can bring a man
big troubles.
Catholic theology considers the nature as the first manifestation of
God through its effectiveness (see St. Thomas Aquinas), I would like to
add that the nature as God's instrument or identical with God
(pantheism) rather it manifests the God also through its omnipotence,
while through its eternity, if we understand the nature as an energy
and we apply to the energy the law of energy conservation, and through
its collective justice or goodness, which is evolution. In other words,
from each work we can deduce the properties of the possible creator.
d) The meaning of being (life) http://forum.filosofie.cz/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=51 : Smysl bytí (života)
In my view, all actions of living organisms and
also a man are determined, virtually predetermined by the motion of
microparticles in the microworld, which is according to findings of
modern physics (Heisenberg uncertainty principle) purely accidental,
virtually given only to a certain degree of probability. At the same
time, I think, that the movement of microparticles in the microworld
determines both body and soul of man, which is physical in nature,
since the human psyche is apparently located in his or her brain, which
is again a movement of microparticles in terms of microscopic physics.
Human conduct, which is governed by brain commands, and which depends
on the idea that the brain idea has been marked with such a force that
the brain has given order to the rest of the body to a certain
behavior. The basis of objective nature of subjective freedom of man is
the clash of different ideas in mind, the strongest to prevail, the
conflict in the brain has also the form of networking through both free
and fixed neuronal connections, which mimics the movement of
microparticles in terms of microscopic physics, which is independent of
the actual man and it is not 100% to predetermine its outcome due to
Heisenberg´s uncertainty principle of microparticles
movement. If one wants to influence their conduct, it does not do
otherwise than through his
or her brain, thus
linking of neurons, virtually movement of microparticles in terms of
microscopic physics.
Man or other living creature, that kills other
living creature on the basis of an objective possibility of random
movement, i.e. free links of his or her brain forming
brain cells-neurons and them forming microparticles they get captured
by solid ties of microparticles, hence the brain cells, of which
purpose is to atone this sin. These sinful strong links
of brain cells appear to be the fear of revenge and vengeance
of related micro-organisms for the caused death of living cells of the
body of a killed living organism, that the brain
cells can reply by the creation of fat reserves, greed, mental
illness, escalation of killings, alcoholism, etc.
From the above it follows that the meaning of life is an objective
rather than subjective in nature, because human behavior and thinking
are determined by these aforementioned microscopic motion of the
microparticles.
In my opinion,
by more or low probable deviations of the various
microparticles from their most probable motion it is secured in nature,
that such collisions have been progressively constrained by mutual
interactions of microparticles, the movement of the microparticles
(i.e. energy) with high probability is ultimately directed to the
location of the microparticles (i.e. energy) of low probability,
thereby reducing the probability of collisions of microparticles in the
microworld, and ultimately of the bodies of macroworld (i.e.
mechanical basis of evolution). In other words, evolution is directed,
in my opinion, to the termination of collisions and evolution from a
less to more probable state of nature.
Primary means of leaving collisions of microparticles in
the microworld is the law of conservation of momentum and 3rd Newton's
law of action and reaction. If a body affects with a force
another body, then the second body affects the first body with just
same big force with opposite direction. The forces arise and
disappear also at the same time. Newton's third law says, that the
action of bodies is always reciprocal. However, the effects of forces
of action and reaction are not mutually dissolved. You cannot add them,
because each of these forces affects other body. (It is not therefore a
balance of forces.) So at the collision two forces of opposite direction effect upon
micro or macroparticles (bodies), thus the nature is limiting their any
possible future collision.
If a God exists then he or she must see the sense of the world from the above
reasons, in progressively more sophisticated, but apparently
never-ending movement towards consistency between each and everything,
that the above mentioned evolution. In other words, God or evolution,
either as an instrument of God, or by itself, in my view, they seek to
make us more perfect without apparently in finite time to
achieve perfection, virtually omnipotence and omniscience and to be
equal with this God, or power of nature.
Objective meaning of life thus I see at the fact, that the man improved
consistency of the world, virtually consistency and adherence of the
model of the world perceived and contained in his or her brain. While
the person does it consciously or unconsciously, because it is in my
view an objective, virtually more or less probable direction of motion
of microparticles, as I said above, which determines the
thinking and behavior of every living individual and
inanimate nature.
e) Why does not a man want to die http://forum.filosofie.cz/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=591 : Prečo sa človeku nechce zomrieť,
A man does not want to die because they feel
pain, and physical disorders in relation to his or her body as well as a mental
disorder in relation to his or her psyche, which is a model of the world
contained in his or her brain. People feel mental and physical pain
through his or her brain activity, which contains by him or her
perceived world model, in which the person exists. Another it would,
however, be probably the situation if at this man's disorders of the
body and psyche he or she felt pleasure in the brain. In my opinion,
this man´s pain they feel at their death, solved with the
progress of science, when it will be possible from the genetic
code of the sole survived living organism to reconstruct all the dead
living organisms.
Reaction by Miloslav Bažant:
Dalibor.
With what you wrote it can be agreed. Man, but also other living beings
accept pain as a top annoying thing, which they seek to avoid. When
dying, the pain may come, but it is not the rule. From my own
experience I know, that death does not hurt as such but rather,
this could be expressed by word nothing. As to me the start of
a new heart beating and breathing was accompanied by great pain in the
chest, as if you have missed breath, and through this pain, I was glad
to be alive. The pain was a sign of life. Of course the death of cancer
is something else, which is accompanied by long-term pain with no
chance to recover, but then man desires more for the
death to relieve of the pain. It is therefore something other
than pain. Remember that everything you perceive only as a living man,
and death ends all the sensations and the lack of any consciousness.
Death is a big nothing and in fact the dead does not care, because
there is no consciousness. Death would then be given to express by
number zero. But you're alive and you perceive good and
evil. The people tend to forget the evil and to
remember the good. And so it is actually a wonderful life, but at the
death all this you lose and it will not be anything, as if you had
never been born. It was the loss of all this it is about why people are
afraid of death. It's actually not logical, because after death the
loss will not be perceived, not knowing anything, nor how many
years they lived, what they experienced and so on, because their brain
will not work. So the fear is actually completely unnecessary and when
people are thinking about death it only spoils life. I'll
think about death about a minute before death and a minute after I will
forget everything. (It was an attempt to joke).
MB
My answer
In my opinion it is not clear, that after death
nothing follows, in other words, that one does not move from the
visible into the invisible world.
The invisible world can be regarded as the world of yet
undiscovered microparticles or the world of light, as from the
perspective of an observer in the world of light-selected reference
frame (which is of non-zero energy and relativistic mass under the
Special Theory of Relativity of Albert Einstein, although its forming
photons have zero rest mass) it is seen in my opinion the stationary
vacuum as the light and the light in turn as the vacuum, the matter as
the waves and the waves as the matter. Here it is concerned the
relativity of motion, as when the observer sees like a static
in the train and the landscape behind the window as floating.
Alternatively an invisible world we can search with exact sciences as
well somewhere else.
Disorder in the brain when a person loses consciousness, which is a
disorder of the psyche from my point of view, perhaps ending by the
absolute failure of the brain, namely its complete malfunction, it is
in my view, top mental pain, represented the death of brain cells
(bodily pain represents the death of substantial part of cells in the
body of certain part of the body outside the brain perceived just by
brain). From your perspective it's nothing, in my view it is an
absolute failure of the brain, meaning the biggest mental pain caused
by the gradual death of brain cells which humans are more or
less perceiving through this brain cells until the last moment.
Reaction by Miloslav Bažant:
Dalibor.
I do not know how a brain death emotionally corresponds to a normal
death (final) and I think, that no one knows. In my case a frontal
impact was occured, a clinical death, even the doctor said death.
Therefore, I was the only one left in the car (the mortician). After
five minutes I felt a sharp pain in the chest and I began to breathe. I
climbed out of the car on my own. When I was by an ambulance doctor
asked if I was unconscious, I said that not that there was an impact
and then the sharp pain in my chest, starting of respiration
and getting out the car. Only then I learnt that between the impact and
the return of consciousness it was the five minutes. There was no
suffering and actually for me that time did not exist. Something
similar occurred last year in January in ICU in the hospital. Recording
of devices reported heart failure and twice in a row and I did not know
it again. Again there was time that did not exist for me. I think, that
the normal death will be something identical, and indeed there is no
difference in whether it takes five minutes or forever. After those
five minutes the brain starts to register the absolute lack of oxygen
and it begins to transmit impulses throughout the body, as it is the
case at birth. It is the function of the brain stem. When the pulse
hits the heart and this is able to run, then life continues. If this
does not happen, or the heart is unable to work, then the
transmission of impulses reflected by the movement of limbs and as they
say, man is knocking slippers and the
final death followes.
You speak about the transmission of being to the invisible world, which
indeed could be seen as the transfer to an invisible world such as a microcosm. Here
is important to realize what all forms of such a being. They are all
the memory information stored in memory from birth to death. This
information is directly related to the brain mass without the mass and
energy it cannot exist. My and your awareness of the self is the result
of function word in the process of thinking. Word allows you to
activate sensory information, even without sensory perception and
sensory inputs activate at the contrary, blocks of words.
Interconnection is a continuous thinking, which you know as
your mind and what is actually your soul. I wonder which
way so much data would transfer anywhere. As to me it seems
quite unrealistic, and therefore I do not believe in the possibility of
an afterlife. I do not deny it, but I do not believe. If I knew the
real path to such an outcome, then I would accept also the idea of an
afterlife.
MB
f) I found what is an illusion of Christians http://forum.filosofie.cz/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=634 : Prišiel som na to, v čom je ilúzia kresťanov.
In my view, all actions of living organisms and
a man are determined, virtually predetermined by the motion of micro
particles in the micro world, which is according to findings of modern
physics (Heisenberg uncertainty principle) purely accidental, virtually
given only to a certain degree of probability. At the same time, I
think, that the movement of micro particles in the micro world
determines both body and soul of man, which is physical in nature,
since the human psyche is apparently located in his or her brain, which
is again a movement of micro particles in terms of microscopic physics.
Human conduct, which is governed by brain commands, and which depends
on the idea that the brain idea has been marked with such a force that
the brain has given order to the rest of the body to a certain
behavior. The base of objective nature of subjective freedom of man is
the clash of different ideas in mind, the strongest to prevail, the
conflict in the brain has also the form of networking through both free
and fixed neuronal connections, which mimic the movement of micro
particles in terms of microscopic physics, which is independent of the
actual man and it is not 100% to predetermine its outcome due to Heisenberg’s uncertainty
principle of movement of micro particles. If one wants to influence
their conduct, it would not do otherwise than through his or her brain,
thus linking of neurons, virtually movement of micro particles in terms
of microscopic physics.
It follows that man is punished for it if he or she has the imperfect
or sick (bad) brain, but this fact the people
themselves may not affect from the inside. Changes in the
brain, which is imperfect, are to achieve only with increasing
experience of the individual (which enlarges the model of the world
contained in his or her brain upon other ideas, virtually memory
traces, leading to a change of brain activity) or other outside
interference. Living creatures are responsible for something, which
they cannot control what is determined by the movement of the micro
particles in terms of microscopic physics. This
responsibility, which was primarily to educate, it is
important for the acquisition of experience of good and bad practices
in the model of the world in the brain of the individual.
In my
opinion, by more or low probable deviation
of the various micro particles from their most probable motion is
secured in nature, that such collisions have been progressively
constrained by mutual interactions of micro particles, the movement of
the micro particles (i.e. energy) with high probability is ultimately
directed to the location of the micro particles (i.e. energy) of low
probability, thereby reducing the probability of collisions of micro
particles in the micro world, and ultimately of the bodies of macro
world (i.e. mechanical basis of evolution). In other
words, evolution is directed, in my opinion, to the termination of
collisions and evolution from a less to more probable state of nature.
It follows that
with increasing experience, it is possible to improve each individual,
virtually each population of species of living organisms. In any living
organism, the holy man or a criminal, an animal or human in that
respect it should be viewed as a sort of semi-finished product in the
production represented by an evolution of nature, the aim of
production, virtually evolution is the finished product such as the
perfection of the individual. In every living organism we can, so in my
view, see the future perfect individual, rather than the current
imperfect "semi product". This production is, however, as I have
indicated above completely determined by the movement of micro
particles in terms of microscopic physics, virtually evolution of
nature, and if we understand this evolution as God's instrument, then
by God's will represented by this instrument.
The benefit of Christianity is that many people joined up with the idea
of reconciliation, wanted by God. Christianity, however, excludes from
the harmony certain living individuals, other believers, atheists,
minorities, animals, plants, fungi, single living cells, bacteria and
viruses, etc., they are not eligible to live in an ideal society,
whether on Earth or in heaven. This in my view is contrary to the
aforementioned opinion, that all the living individuals are ultimately
intended to perfection, it is in my view, contrary to the law of
evolution of nature, which seeks in my opinion the harmony of
each and everything. If we understand this evolution as God's
instrument, it is also contrary to God's will.
Reaction by Miloslav Bažant:
Dalibor.
And what about trying to explain what you mean by those movements of
particles in the micro world?
MB
My answer
I understand as micro particles the particles
visible only after the magnification with microscope, in my
opinion, these micro particles are then composed of these and other
micro particles, these micro particles are again composed of other
micro particles etc. infinitely. Ultimately, by this way we come to
micro particles of zero mass obviously characterized by the absolute
absence of matter, it could be a photon of light at rest or at a speed
less than the speed of light c, the photons are according to the
physics of zero rest mass, while as the real existing points of our
space-time. Because of these defined micro particles of zero mass, all
matter is composed, the movement of this mass shall be determined by
the movement of such micro particles. At the same time as all reality
(matter, electromagnetic waves, absolute vacuum) is composed of
space-time points, the movement of all reality
is simultaneously, in my view, determined by the movement of
all points of space-time.
Reaction by Noemus:
Hi Dalibor
These are
pretty unorthodox ideas, but if you like to imagine, it would like to
have your imagination at least consistent. You should also know a
little what you speak about. I think you do not still bear the
overwhelming criticism just because there's probably lazy winter
atmosphere.
1. When you infinitely divide something that has non-zero mass, and you
do not get zero weight, but "infinitely small" weight and that is quite
a substantial difference. As if infinitely zero you summarize and you
always get zero, but at infinitely small mass it would make
(at least in mathematics) sense
2. Light cannot have a lower speed than c, so the speed of
light is constant, and in some materials, the light appears to move
slower than c, but it really does not sustained movement, but movement
that is interrupted periodically by re-absorption and emission of light
that the movement slows, in this way you can almost stop the movement of light (not photons), the
photons cannot move slower than c.
3. The light cannot clearly be regarded as consisting of
particles - rather, it is possible in some cases its behavior to
interpret as particles and other like waves. The term photon was not
introduced as the name of the particles, but the name for the quantum
of light energy (electromagnetic) waves, which cannot be further
reduced, this quantum in some cases behaves like particles.
4. The fact, that a photon has zero rest mass, it is only in
other words said, that a photon at a rest does not exist. Zero weight
is the same as zero-energy, photon is a quantum of energy, if energy is
not, then there is not a quantum and it is not a photon. So, to sum up,
all the photons that have ever existed and they have energy and hence
mass.
5. It is also a bit-misleading image of particles as points
of space-time - I have no mention about whether space-time is real or
just fabricated. So first all particles in space-time must be
a minimum curve and not a point, otherwise there would be infinitely
short time. Then there are the results of quantum mechanics, which in
my opinion are contrary to the idea that the particles have a precise
location in space, i.e. the geometric point.
Apologize to Navy, that I have been entering this discussion, because
the original was not obviously about the physics.
Ad illusions Christians:
I think, that
not only Christians are living in illusions; rather I would say, that
the vast majority of people, if not all, are constantly creating the
illusion of the world, about themselves, about the past. So in this
context, illusions about God are not according to me
anything
special. I'd almost say, that to have any illusions about something is
for a man characteristic. I personally try not to
make illusions about the world
and myself but it's just the effort and not always succesful. Religion
has also the advantage, that it is institutionalized and considered
illusion that has unifying and inspiring effects. It gives people a
sense of belonging, the need, purpose, etc.
Illusions are for a lot of people necessary in order to even survive in
the world, and I do not think, that it is applicable for each the way
of skeptic and the program infidel. Moreover, I think, that
most so-called infidels just replace one illusion for another. Dalibor
views are a clear example. Dalibor, do not take it personally. The same
thing in varying levels I think about everyone, including me. It is
important as to me, at times, our own illusions to detect and attempt
to be honest to each other. But the question is to what extent and who
is capable of it.
My answer
I think, that the infinitesimal part is 0, an
example may be the geometry and measurement units. If we take the point
of space, it has zero dimensions, if we take infinite points, which
follow each other, we get the positive dimensions of line, or
infinitely small part of line dimension (i.e., point of space)
has zero dimension. On the other hand, I agree with you that neither
absolute vacuum would be
marked in your
approach as nothing, because it contains these (space) parts,
ultimately space-time points have zero weight (see above a
point as an example of an infinitely small part of line).
At the same time I would like to point out, that we are not talking
about points of three-dimensional space, but about points of
four-dimensional space i.e. space-time, namely our material world
(which, however, due to the relativity of movement can represent light,
virtually electromagnetic waves and waves of lower velocity if the
observer chooses the light as a frame of
reference for its monitoring), where in addition to the spatial
dimensions the time dimension (i.e. the
zero time interval in terms of relative time under STR) is too. This
point of space-time moves then in relative time and in terms
of three-dimensional space (the only space rates regardless of the
relative temporal rate) it can actually be concerned such a curve etc.,
depending on the movement of this point in relative time.
At the same time, I think, that no point of space-time is stable, i.e.,
by the ancient philosopher Heraclitus everything goes (i.e., everything
is in motion), you will not come into the same river twice.
Reaction by Noemus:
quoted:
Post of Dalibor Grůza
If we take the
point of space, it has zero dimensions, if we take infinite points
which follow each other, we get the positive dimensions of line
This is wrong, if you gradually divide matter into smaller and smaller
parts, and in each step you divide on a finite number of smaller parts,
and the infinity, of which you speak is enumerable,
but the line in the plane containing innumerable
number of points!
From countable number of points you do not ever create a continuous
set, which has some size, and generally it does not apply to numerous
points, see e.g. Cantor discontinuum, which
contains the same amount of points as a straight line, but the total
length is zero
quoted:
On the other
hand, I agree with you that neither absolute vacuum would be marked in your
approach as nothing, because it contains the (space), although these
parts, ultimately space-time points have zero weight (see above a
point as an example of an infinitely small part of line).
You cannot agree with me, because I did not say anything like that, I
have not spoken about the existence of such a space.
However, you should think about how in, by you considered model, you
ensure that points which have a mass they will move in space, what it
would actually mean to move (to exchange place with other points which
have mass?) Remember please note, that in the geometric space, points
cannot overlap, they are either the same or different.
quoted:
At the same
time I would like to point out, that we are not talking about points of
three-dimensional space, but about points of four-dimensional space
i.e. space-time, namely our material world (which, however, due to the
relativity of movement can represent light, virtually electromagnetic
waves and waves of lower velocity if the observer chooses the light as a frame of reference for its monitoring),
where in addition to the spatial dimensions the time dimension (i.e. the zero time interval in terms
of relative time) is too.
It is good, that you say it, but I feel, that you do not realize the
consequences, a point in time and space is not a particle, but rather
the event and to speak at event about a mass it is a bit strange, do
not you think?
quoted:
This point of
space-time moves then in relative time.
Points in the space-time do not move.
The particle moves in a
normal space and thus they enable their trajectory in space, which is a
curve.
quoted:
At the same
time, I think, that no point of space-time is stable, i.e., by the
ancient philosopher Heraclitus everything goes (i.e., everything is in
motion), you will not come into the same river twice.
In
the space-time nothing is moving, the time does not run here, it is
just one of the dimensions of this space. In the course of time in
space-time it can be viewed in terms of different coordinate systems,
or in relation to the particle, it makes the passage of time relative. But the
passage of time is expressed in space-time just because we do not draw
a particle as a point, but as a curve!
My answer
Let's leave aside my and your speculations
about the point of space-time as a particle of zero mass.
Only note:
In the case of points of dimension 0 cm of line
of dimension 1 cm, therefore I am referring to an uncountable infinity
division, i.e. division, which took place in the infinite time, or at
every moment in time (zero time interval) one division of matter was
carried out.
The points are called space-time events and we treat with them
mathematically as Four-vectors. Orbits of point particles in
space-time then we call them as worldlines. Multidimensional
object draws in the space-time so-called worldflat.
Therefore, I give
to consideration
the following fact, that is not nearly speculation, in my opinion,
"exact science":
All development of nature, virtually to certain extant random (i.e.,
only more or less probable under Heisenberg´s uncertainty
principle) all self-regulating movement of it forming microparticles
it determines completely the behavior
and movement by them made up all living organisms and all inanimate
nature. I understand as microparticles the particles visible only after
magnification of microscope. Since from this defined microparticles of
non-zero mass all the matter is formed, it must be determined the
movement of the mass
by
the movement of such microparticles.
Adding my answers:
If a God who created nature, then he should be
primarily explored by the scientific investigation of nature itself,
not from the holy or sacred texts, such as the Bible, etc. This is
because, with regard to the nature from any immediate work of God and
in any such immediate work it can be recognized immediately its
creator, his properties, thinking or power.
As to the holy or sacred texts, so these are, contrary to nature,
always work of people, mostly priests and God in them is much more
indirect, as between God and the sacred or holy text the interpretation
of a writer-priest is always. Naturally, the priests understood the
sacred scripture as a commercial commodity and they want to
sell it as many people as possible and to get for their church as
much wealth and power as possible. These human motives do not exist for learning
about nature as a potential direct God's work.
Therefore, in my view, to reject religious position such as a
Christian, presented by priests: what is from God, it's in the holy
book, for example in the Bible, and it is also useful for humans (which
often leads to religious fanaticism based on a complete reliance on the
wording of the text as a priest holy work). It is important to stay on
the position: What is useful to humans that is from God, and it is also
in accordance with a particular sacred text, such as the Bible (which
leads to reliance on exact knowledge of the nature as a
possible immediate work of God).
g) How I see the blame, punishment and
forgiveness for criminalshttp://forum.filosofie.cz/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=644 : Jak vidím vinu a trest pro zločince
At first the reasons for committing crimes.
Command to all the action that is also conduct which meets the facts of
a crime, it is given to man by a brain, virtually psyche (soul). If a
man wants through his or her will, mind or emotions to prevent him or her
from committing the crime, this is done again, through the order of the
brain, virtually psyche (soul). If one has a wrong idea about the
reality it is again contained in the brain, virtually psyche (soul).
Man alone cannot influence the content or orders inside of his or her
brain, virtually psyche (soul), without giving the idea or the command
through his or her brain
again,
virtually psyche (soul). Imperfection of the brain, virtually psyche
(soul), which itself is either bad (sick), or which has bad input data
and which cannot recognize them by their conflict with the right data,
it is the sole cause of any crime. Imperfection of the brain, virtually
psyche (soul) can be corrected, in my view, by the right education,
experience, i.e., when through the logical connection of ever expanding
amount of input data, experiences stored in an imperfect brain,
virtually psyche (soul) this man is able to detect faulty data
and faulty brain activity, virtually of psyche (soul). The only guilt
of living creatures is so in my opinion, that they are born with more
or less perfect brain, virtually psyche (soul), of which
activities without command of the brain, virtually psyche
(soul) he or she cannot control, only the opportunity to remedy
imperfect brain, virtually psyche (soul) is possible with increasing
experience (educated by other individuals or nature) or other outside
interference.
From the above perspective, it should be criminal law virtually by
it imposed sanctions understood primarily as a means of
prevention, of which primary task is to train individuals not to commit
evil deeds and to protect society against crime, thus preventing their
commission. In the above terms it cannot be the goal of the punishment
the retribution against the perpetrators of crime that are not means of
educational activities, or a means of defense against the commission of
crimes. Offenders who are governed by imperfect command of his or her
brain, virtually psyche (soul), are not for his or her crime, in my
view, to attribute the blame other than, that one has an imperfect
brain, virtually psyche (soul). Therefore such offenders should be
rehabilitated in particular by allowing him or her to gain experience
on the basis, on which the second he or she will not commit the same or
similar crime. Corporal punishment except the death penalty should be
applied only in the case of legitimate self-defense or extreme
emergency in the society, when the need to protect society
against the perpetrators of crimes, which cannot be achieved otherwise, it outweighs
the possibility of re-education.
In the case of educational punishment, which will aim at the good of
perpetrators, it will not be aimed just at the retribution, it
will re-educate them to become a better person, the punishing need not
fear that others will retaliate against him or her for his or her fault
on the other hand, since then they will try to re-educate them to the
better, they will not seek to destroy them. That concept of the criminal justice system is possible to enforce at any
cost, not just a criminal justice, which is not against me.
As to the forgiveness of the blame for bad
performance, so in terms of Philosophy of Balance it is necessary to
distinguish evil acts which have resulted in the death of a living
creature (humans, animal, insects, plants, fungi, living cells,
bacteria or viruses, etc.) and other evil acts which do not have such
an effect, that focuses on property crimes, which will not plunge the
victim or any other living creature in danger of death. I will
paraphrase a vulgar Czech proverb that says if it is not life, it's
nothing. Other Czech proverb says, who dealt with the death, he or she
will die. Bible, 2nd Moses´ again states: And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. (Ex 21,
23-25) Therefore, it is possible by the State to expropriate property,
to nationalize and then to restitute, a state can forgiven the debts,
as it is now happening in Czech republic for example in
insolvency proceedings under Act. No. 182/2006 Coll. insolvency law in
the case of non-entrepreneurs relief for debtor insolvency in
particular, because of excessive consumer credits, but the state should
not approve in any way any unnecessary killing of living creatures. The
forgiveness of the death of a living creature is a question of emotions
it will not be required. The emotion for the forgiveness of any living
creature's death takes place primarily in the unconscious of
individuals, in the level of individual living cells and other
microorganisms of nature. Killing a living creature, virtually
living cells of the body it creates hatred of killed and the related
microorganisms of killed microorganisms, which seeks to prevent further
killings and to punish the killing by the murderer, as his or her
killing, mental, etc. illness, alcoholism, etc. In our world of living
creatures the actions dominate, which happen on the level of
living cells, bacteria and viruses. Living microorganisms will forgive
the individuals who over time do not kill any living creature
needlessly, in other words, they cause the least possible death and pain of living creatures, to
kill a living creature he or she can only protect the lives of other
living creature. This forgiveness has the form of the smallest
possible killing and pain to the guilty, the death of the living
organisms of his or her body does not come immediately but it is spread
over the longest possible period of his or her life and, consequently,
it is accompanied by the minimum possible pain. One large collision is
thus replaced by a number of small collisions of micro particles of our
Universe.
Reaction by Miloslav Bažant:
Dalibor.
You're talking about criminals whose hazard to society is relatively
small. How would you punish the big criminals? I think now the VIPs
committing the worst crimes. Such crime is exemplary financial reform,
which established three-party coalition. The cause of crime is a
limitation of fundamental human rights of certain groups of people, or
people with low income, elderly and sick people. Imagine a situation in
an exemplary person who has diabetes and a pension about five thousand
crowns. In diabetes they need to eat regularly. But they give part of
their income for doctors; medicines and they must stay in the hospital.
They must pay gas, electricity and rent and the rest should already be
so small, that it is not enough
for
survival. Some have also various other diseases, they are exemplary of
a heart attack or they have neuropathy, which are the consequences of
diabetes (pollution of the vascular system). Such people pay
for medicines and treatments, then remains them nothing for living.
This threatens their basic human right and it is right to life. There
are many of these people and they are our parents or grandparents, so
we are concerned. (Me directly). And so it was filled with the cause of
the crime committed by the coalition. Who is punished? Perhaps only by
voters, the next chooses, but the people's life is
not returned. And now talk. The little dangerous criminals are
not as dangerous as these ones.
MB
My answer
I think, that for every action a brain
gives a command virtually a soul of man it is the ego, one cannot be
blamed what is his or her ego-I, virtually brain and soul. Although his
or her brain, virtually soul or ego gives orders, which his or her brain,
virtually soul or ego recognizes too, that there is or it is probably
to result in the widening of conflicts in society, that man cannot
control it. If this command of his or her brain,
virtually soul or ego is so strong, that it will force
the people to act badly thus so man conducts.
In other words, every man and politician acting under instructions from
his or her brain,
virtually soul, if so he or she got another command, it would
be otherwise.
One cannot be guilty for the orders of his or her brain,
virtually soul or ego, but they must for them to bear the
responsibility, which is a condition, that they improve their brain,
soul or ego. This responsibility, in my opinion, is still perfectly
enforced by the society and this improvement of society is still
better, in my opinion, determined by this natural evolution.
The evolution of nature, in my opinion, is still perfecting nature. It
is more probably headed for its full harmony, apparently in an endless
time. The evolution, virtually improvement of nature also means
punishing the evil acts by nature itself in the case of human,
if there is no remedy within the society. The evolution of nature
progresses towards the perfection through trial and error (see blind
developmental path of the extinction of dinosaurs in the past), each
species of living organisms is so gradually increasing the
choice between improved harmony and self-destruction. An example might
be the invention of atomic energy in a certain degree of human
development, which can lead to prosperity but also to destroy the human
species.
Human behavior is so always determined by these natural evolution
(movement of micro particles in the micro world), that always leads
more probably through trial and error (which follows from
Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle-only the probability of
movement of micro particles in the micro world) to the harmonic
society, but one should never act with the knowledge, that his or her
actions ultimately increases certainly or probably conflicts within
society, as it was evident in the case of some politicians in the case
you mention.
But forcing people to act correctly it is possible only from the
outside, not inside of his or her brain, virtually soul, in my opinion
by the growing experience or through other interference from the
outside (medicine for mental illness etc.). The punishment should
re-educate therefore mainly people. Since no one is innocent, in my
opinion everyone has made a mistake and even vindictive person (judge,
the prison serviceman, the bailiff), who in the case of educational
punishment need not fear, that others will retaliate against
him or her for his or her fault on the
other hand, since then they will try to re-educate them to the better,
they will not seek to destroy them.
Reaction by Skidz:
I would like to
respond to many mistakes and add to your views my thoughts.
Regarding the
view, that a man is controled by a brain, but it is also by the soul,
I'd not say it so clearly. Since in some cultures they believe that the
soul is in the body and not in the brain, again in other cultures they
believe that the brain is only a decoder of the soul etc.
My answer
Reason, emotion and will, according to the
exact sciences exist in the material brain, according to idealists in
the intangible soul of man. The basic question is whether the attacking
ideas and the choice between them by a human is the subjective
or objective process. I think, that one cannot subjectively
influence or what the idea he or she has, nor that the
idea impresses
so
strongly to
him or
her to act according to it. In both cases it is, in my
opinion, an objective not a subjective process. I think, that a brain
or a soul cannot be rectified in the case of its imperfections or
illness by itself without accepting incentives from outside
of the brain or the soul (these incentives I characterize as
experience).
Reaction by Miloslav Bažant:
Dalibor.
I do not know how to describe how I shrug my shoulders, even though I
would need it right now. It is hard to answer you, if there is
something correctly, then in the same sentence there is something, I
say wrong. We will not talk about any movement of microparticles in the
microworld, even if such something,
maybe, happens. Exemplary the memory is based on the
fact, that the atoms in the neuron regroup and they stabilize the new
position. With the freedom of human affairs but it has nothing
together. It goes without saying that none of the people thinks
absolutely free and it is not due to a society in which they are formed
and adapted to its image. It is mainly due to the fact, that there is
no single block of information that would have in advance given
polarity and each can be stored in any polarity, and even both. This is
also given by what information and in what system are stored the blocks
of words, because according to it the peculiar logic forms and these
may vary for each individual, and in fact it is different. That is what
determines the boundaries within which the thinking of individual
moves. You will live in the environment that leads to the anomalous
connection of information in an exemplary crime, then also at you will
rise the information system, that considers this criminal situation
considered correct, and you're not able to think otherwise. For the
society it is essencial to repair these anomalies and exemplary to
punish or to reward for a positive attitude, or as they say honey and
whip. The question is style of punishment that should lead to the
realization, that this lifestyle is not right and it is preferable to
live differently. These people unfortunately think, that way, it is
easier to steal something and even to kill than to work. This logic, or
the interconnection of information is difficult to change for them, and
if the penalty is for them something nice, so they do not worry about
accommodation, food and energy, in addition they have to its
entertainment all the conveniences, including the library, video,
computers, etc., then the penalty is no threat. I would be for forced
works, and in case of recurrence of the murderers I would advocate the
death penalty and, therefore, that there was a real threat, which would
hinder the thoughts of murder. Today, inmates are much better than many
pensioners, not to mention the homeless. Such a penalty is then utterly
ineffective, and often it is directly sought (by homeless hiding from
the cold). To be a philanthropist, and therefore to reject harsh
punishment, while it looks nice, but in terms of education access to
criminals it is absolutely absurd. It should be noted, that they
endanger other people in the community and by the degree of risk there
should be a punishment, which is not in the case of sentencing to death
nothing educational, but it is an example for his successor. I think,
that if you loose with such crimes your small children who anyone would
kill just to get satisfied, you should probably view the same.
MB
My answer
I would like to correct my ideas, because one
thing is the assumption, that the motion of the
microparticles determines the motion of all matter and in my
opinion also of a soul when we look at the soul from an objective point
of view, and another thing is, that I translate this assumption correctly psychologically,
and thus from a subjective point of view of man. Thus:
I think, that the free will of man is limited by the following facts.
In my opinion, one should not affect it as extrasensory idea,
which they have, they have no effect on what they feel in
certain cases, or which feelings the senses
convey to him or her in certain cases, or what is reasonable
and what unreasonable (all these things are objectively given).
In the case of a human behavior he or she gives a mental command to his or her body to some
behavior. In my view, a person issues such mental
command to act in two cases:
1) If they act on the basis of psychological complexes and
instincts causally, it is highly probably.
2) If they act freely perceiving the whole reality in all its
contexts, i.e. without mental complexes and instincts as animals.
At the same time, I think, that in the case of the voluntary conduct it
is not a question what one wants voluntarily, but what his or her soul,
virtually brain offers to him or her, which idea he or she has,
what he or she feels and if he or she has sufficient reason,
which I believe are the objective facts (see above).
A similar conclusion also reached the German philosopher Arthur
Schopenhauer in his major work "The World as will and idea" of the
1819th He said: "Our judgements do not produce concatenation of clear
ideas by logical laws-as we shall persuade ourselves and others. They
arise in the dark depths, but it's almost unconscious action, such as
digesting. To his or her own surprise, we get ideas and decide, but
to the deepest thoughts we cannot give any evidence.
The will creates them, which drives in our mysterious heart its
servant, intellect. Will is like a burly blind man, who carries on his shoulders
seeing, but the lame man. Only the people are apparently attracted to
something that is before them in fact, they are powered from the rear.
Unconscious will towards the life moves them on. Only the will is
unchanging and it is the foundation of all our ideas as a continuous
general bass. Even memory is only a servant of our will. Is the will
free? World will is free as a whole, because in addition to, there is
nothing that would restrict it. Will of the individual is non-free
because it will always be determined by the will of the whole. The
world is neither logical nor illogical, but alogic. Reason is only a
tool of unwise choice."
The above information is true, in my opinion, both in terms of idealism
(idea of intangible soul), and in terms of materialism (idea of
material soul). In my opinion, however, this blind will is the movement
of micro particles, which determines the movement of both the body and
material soul of man, but also other living creatures and
inanimate nature.
In view of the above determinism (predestination), of sensory feelings,
emotions and thoughts we find ourselves before the basic controversial
issue of this concept, whether the bad guy has duty to do something for
their correction. Man is, in my opinion, destined to act in the future
entirely reasonably, therefore, that in the future he or she reaches
the full harmony of a model of the world contained in his or her soul (or
brain). This aims also forced, virtually more
probable movement of their soul (or brain) as described above
in particular the struggle of ideas and sensual feelings, thoughts and
emotions. This forced, virtually more probable direction of his or her soul, that a man
perceives as their duty, as their willingness to improve the
consistency of a contradictory model of the world contained in his or her soul (or
brain). It causes to identify objective more probable,
virtually forced movement of his or her soul (or brain) and the subjective
will and the obligation of this movement.
In this sense fundamental duty of all living
organisms is, in my view, in every moment in maximum to restrain
overall strength of collisions, virtually of disputes in society (which
corresponds in my opinion to the law of development of
nature), virtually in the model of the world in mind (soul) of full
rights enjoying living organisms.
Adding my answers:
If we accept the assumption from experience
that a person has no influence on what the idea they have, on what
sensory input they are feeling or what they feel or how perfect reason
they have or what is reasonable. This is soul objective givens,
virtually of human brain and in the case of reasonability the objective
givens of nature, which in my opinion is predetermined by the movement
of micro particles in the micro world.
We have so the question of free wills as a
man’s command to certain acts, that his or her soul, virtually
brain had offered to them by the aforementioned objective way. This
question is in my view to be seen from two angles:
1.) Objectively, as the movement of micro particles, i.e.
particles visible only microscopically.
1) The movement of the micro particles is either part of a system of
micro particles using the binding forces between the micro particles,
it is the movement of a single micro-particles of this system spread on
other micro particles of a system. In this case, the apparent causation
in the physical macro world, as the movement of micro particles by the Heisenberg’s uncertainty
principle it happens with high probability. An example may be game of
skittles, where I catch in my fingers, only certain atoms of a billiard
ball, by binding forces the movement given to these caught
atoms it transfers to other atoms of the sphere, so
when throwing a ball, the ball moves, not only
by our fingers caught atoms.
1b) Secondy it can be independent micro-particles, in accordance with
the Heisenberg’s
uncertainty principle it is
concerned the apparent unpredictability of the movement in the physical
macro world, because the motion of micro particles by
Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle has been happening with a
low probability. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle has been verified
by experiment, in which photons were launched under the same external
conditions against the screen, where the greatest probability of their
impact, their impact was densest, but these photons fell also to other
places of the screen.
1c) The micro particles motion system with a high probability
predetermined by motion of individual micro
particles of this system, which precedes the movement of the
entire system, which is transferred by binding
forces in these micro particles to the whole micro particles
system (see 1a)), it is probably, where micro particles,
virtually brain cells are bound by rigid ties, as in the case of
complexes, of animal instincts, created, in my opinion, mainly by the
killing of living creatures as a means of compensation and redress for
the killing of living creatures.
1d) To a high degree random motion of micro particles not
predetermined by a high probability of their ties (see 1b)) it is
concerned probably in case of free links of
micro particles, virtually brain cells, which are not complexes mainly
due to the killing of living creatures when a living creature
exploits the freedom to kill living beings, it creates complex,
virtually animal instinct, or strong links between micro particles,
virtually brain cells, that exclude subsequently freedom. (see
1c)
2.) Subjectively, as a free command (will) of people to some
doing, for which man bears full responsibility. Yet
even here we feel, that if a man cannot control when he or she has the
idea to give their body the command to a particular act or what they
feel or how perfect reason they have (as the objective factors), then
it is concerned in the event of a conflict of the objective
factors heavily the coincidence, consisting of the joint
operation of these objective factors. Man or other
living creature, which kills other living creature on the basis of an
objective possibility of random movement, i.e. free links of their
brain cells-neurons forming the brain and them forming micro particles
(objective nature of subjective freedom), they are then in captivity of
strong links of micro particles or of brain cells, of which
purpose is to punish sin (objective nature of subjective
bondage). These sinful strong links of brain cells appear to be the
fear of revenge and vengeance of related micro-organisms for caused
death of living cells of the body of killed living organism, for which
the offender brain cells can respond with the creation of fat reserves,
avarice, psychical, etc. diseases, escalation of killings, alcoholism,
etc.
Reaction by Skidz:
Dalibor,
To clear it up a bit and let me
recapitulate your view:
Everything you
do and what is happening around you is given and pre-written
and it makes you to act, that you would be in a different reality
against it, and if it depended purely on you (soul or brain) you'd act
probably otherwise.
It takes me to the idea that
what you wrote, or you cannot defend, because you were forced to do and
all your thought processes are in conflict with your real conviction.
Your development depends solely on others and not on you, which would
mean that others cannot develop, because without the impulse of the
individual their paths do not meet again. If I take into account,
because we have lost free will, thus it would be offered a question
"how we can get it back?"
And if we get
it back, it would be real freedom of our thinking?
In the inherent nature of mind we do not find any confusion. The
confusion is only the way we experience things, things, that we
identified in the mind as confused. (Topga Julgjal Rinpoche)
My answer
Skidzi,
to achieve a completely free will, virtually completely free links of
brain cells and micro particles forming an individual it would require
only that an individual will be able to give their command to: that an
idea occurred to them, to have a sensory perception mediated by the
senses and to perfect their reason (e.g. the value of IQ). In terms of
spirit it implies individual’s complete understanding and
mastery of his or her subconscious and unconscious in his or her
psyche. It is therefore possible that the subconscious and unconscious
of psyche, virtually soul of the individual are the objective spirit of
all individuals.
In terms of mass (here I use the former terms of navi), in my view, the
soul, virtually psyche (i.e., consciousness, subconscious and
unconscious of individuals) and matter are only one and everything is
ultimately determined by more or less objective random motion of micro
particles from a point of view of microscopic physics.
h) Do you think, that one can prove the
existence of God http://forum.filosofie.cz/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=648 :
Mýslíte, že jde dokázat existence Boha?
Rather I believe in God, because that way I
feel. Therefore I have no evidence for it. Existence of God
is only suggested
by forced, virtually more probable movement of nature to improve
the subjects (evolution) and the forced movement of the soul,
virtually of the brain to resolve the conflicts of a model of
the world contained in it, therefore to the harmony of this model of
the world according to me given for each individual. Both are good and
they could therefore be from God. Any direct or indirect evidence of
the existence of God I have not.
So I think, that the adoption of the existence of God is primarily a
matter of feeling of a man.
Reaction by Gato:
God is also
superinteligence. Faultless sense. Imagine a chess player who never
makes a mistake and who always wins their game. No champion has even 85
procent of victory in his lots. But God is 100 procent successful.
Believers worship the perfect logos, and they know why they do it, and
therefore they are not subject to any nonsense!
My answer
Nature is not 100% reasonable, see blind
development branch as the extinction of the dinosaurs etc. Thus, also
the creation of nature is not characterized by 100% reason, but rather,
in my view, it is the improvement through a way of trial and
error of more or less free, virtually random processes of nature.
Reaction by noemus:
To prove the
existence of X, you can only if X is well defined. Even then, however,
it must be based on certain premises, which you cannot prove.
Not everything, what we know, we need to prove when I see, that my desk
lamp is lighting, so I do not prove, that it lights, to see the book.
Even I'm indifferent to it whether someone will claim it is the
illusion of light and lamp, as long as I can read the book, so I have
an "enough" certainty, that it is light enough. In any case, the chain
of assumptions must be stopped somewhere, and some things I cannot
continue to question, not because it would not work, but because I
would gain nothing new and I would have rather everything
more mixed.
As you noticed, I did not talk about God. I have talked about X and the
light, but God does the same.
Give me the exact definition of God, and I'll tell you from what
premises you have to
build to prove his existence or his existence I pluck, if possible.
But this way we can continue indefinitely, it is always possible to
come up with a new definition and another new etc.
Definitive
proof will be possible only if the believers, who are yearning for some
authentic evidence, agree to the same definition, and it is highly
unlikely to me, so there will always be enough place for faith.
I must note
that to prove the absence of God it
is much easier in my opinion, the problem is precisely, that it is
possible to come up with ever new yet not falsified definitions. A
further problem is that the premises belonging to these definitions are
usually silent.
My answer
Suppose I see God as omnipotent, omniscient and
eternal being.
Reaction by noemus:
This is not
enough to refute the
evidence. Why?
1. It is not entirely clear what it means, that something is being. Is
it only existing? Is it even alive? Is it breathing? Reproducing?
Thinking? Dreaming? etc.
2. It is necessary to clarify what is meant by omnipotence, a
physicist, for example, would say, that everything is possible, what
does not contradict the laws and omnipotent, then, what or who can do
whatever that is possible. This is just one of the possible definitions
of omnipotence, and even that is not explicit, it would have to be said
the laws of nature.
3. It is also not clear what it means to know everything. The problem
is it-all. In what language? And what does it mean to know? What if a
question has more answers?
4. In order to talk about eternity, it is necessary to define it
somehow. This means that no precise beginning or end? Or there is the
timeline from minus infinity to plus infinity? And when the time really
cannot be expressed on the time axis?
You see, the definition of God is not so easy. All of what I said, they
are concealed assumptions, on which it is necessary at first to agree
otherwise, no evidence of whatever has sense, because we will not
understand.
My answer
With God I have not met, that I perceived him
immediately as present in my soul or in the material world, virtually
in the model of the material world contained in my soul. Therefore I
cannot define him. But I feel, that he could be rather at the
heart of nature, either same with nature (pantheism) or as the
creator of nature, which would then act as his means (God's
instrument). Based on the properties of nature as his possible
expression then I can say, that he should be omnipotent, omniscient and
eternal, as it is probably the nature.
Emotional existence of God as the creator of nature is suggested then
only by intellectually forced, virtually more probable movement of
nature to improve subjects (evolution) and by the forced, virtually
more probable movement of the soul, virtually of the brain to resolve
the conflicts of the model of the world contained in the soul,
virtually brain, namely to the harmony of that more or
less perfect model of the world according to me given
especially in humans, but probably in any other living individual. Both
are good and they could therefore be from God. Any other direct or
indirect evidence of the existence of God I have not.
Therefore, the question of the existence of God is, in my view,
essentially only a matter of emotion rather than reason of humans.
Reaction by Gato:
Nature
unfortunately is not 100 procent reasonable, because it is undivine.
This definition therefore defines nature as part of divine and partly
undivine, and therefore it is not a deity, which I have in mind. This
is just human nature.
My answer
Still, I wanted to say, that I feel that God
should be perfectly good, both for the good and evil, and in both cases
they should be subjects to his power. This corresponds to the
characteristics of nature, so I think, that it may be rather a God.
Reaction by Miloslav Bažant:
Dalibor.
So with that I agree wholeheartedly. God should be really good if he is
wise, because wisdom and goodness go together. Believers argue that God
manages and maintains everything, what is happening in the world, that
God's ways are inscrutable. And so in the name of God they committed
evil, violence, divisions, wars, genocide, and so on. According to
believers it is right, because God's ways are inscrutable providence,
and one may not know, where it leads. Today, people have guns in the
hands of which abuse would mean the end of life on the planet.
If they are abused, and life is extinguished, it's good,
because no man knows God's intention. But the issue is, if God is truly
wise and good as all believers confirm, if he manages all and thus the
evil? People are fighting and killing in the name of a single god just
because they recognize the truth of their messiah. Does a Muslim
recognize a different god than the Christian or Jew? Is it wise? It is
not, if all this the God manages, then he is not wise or good. But I
agree, that he should be good.
MB
My answer
Good to good and evil, he rewards good and
punishes evil, and he thinks well even with evil in their punishment,
the penalty then it is not devastating, but educational, that the evil
became good. Thus, in my opinion the evolution of nature is
upbringing too, while the development of the soul, which
forces people to remove through the reason its contradictions
and so psychologically (based on logic of the subjective soul) or
psychiatrically (based on the material exact processes of the brain).
So I think, that the nature is God, rather, the nature can then be
understood, in my view, as the God (pantheism, such as Baruch Spinoza's
philosophy), or as an means of God (God's instrument).
The risk of destruction of man is similar to the risk of destroying the
God, who is the omnipotent, omniscient, eternal and perfectly good
(similar to properties of nature, but rather as his expression,
virtually as his act) he could also use his omnipotence to destroy
himself, then he would have to reverse himself as a perfectly
good and eternal God. A human face to the dilemma of increasing power if the evil prevails with
him or her, he or she can also destroy them.
However, there is indestructible nature, which rather
represents God, virtually its evolution, to try new way of trial and
error, to continue to develop reasonable free, virtually more or less
unlimited being more similar to that existing God.
In my opinion, it is useful to accept the existence of nature, because
it is allowing us to improve (apparently independently of whether we
want it or not) that more people lived in better conditions, and even
if we risk with our superior capabilities our own destruction.
Reaction by mireke:
My opinion is, that you cannot prove the existence of God. Let me
explain why. The world has not be created by any higher being "God".
But it was Big Bang. To generalize: World, The Universe as a infinite
whole is indestructible and uncreatable because it is composed of atoms
and smaller particles and it applies that the energy cannot be
destroyed. Science disproves the existence of
God. Inability of influence of the higher beings in the world
it proves mathematics and reason. I'll be back even to the formation of
the Universe: Space commences and ceases after the periods, this means
that the Big Bang created the Universe, the expanding, stagnating and
shrinking until finally a large ruin that is squeezing material into
extremely small dimensions, the moment of the Great Crash and the Great
Bang could be described as one point on the curve sinusoid.
These
findings of the cosmology point to the impossibility of the
existence of God. This you can deny or refute, but who would dare to
deny knowledge of mathematical calculations and research?
Reactions by Ace Rimmer:
With this I
cannot agree, science cannot disprove or examine the existence or
attributes of God. As already repeatedly Noemus wrote (and in this I
fully agree with him) it is very problematic definition of God. In my view, science does not need a god even it
exists independently of him and it is doing as well as "God" whether
there is or not.
In addition, you omitted several important facts:
1) The world
does not work, depending on how it describes the science (often using
mathematics), but science has tried best to describe how the world
works. The results are worth but not absolutely accurate.
2) The evolution of the Universe as it you describe, it is not too
sure. There are still a number of different scenarios. Since the large
collapse as you mentioned, eg the expansion of the Universe will never
stop, I've read something about "change of state of vacuum" ( "to go to
another energy state" in quotes because I do not know the exact name)
....
On your question: Who would be allowed to deny knowledge of
mathematical calculations and research?
I will say: Certainly also I, but not, that I would say it is nonsense.
I just want to say, that science has its limits, and especially in such
extreme conditions, such as the big bang, I cannot help but I doubt,
that this place is based on water and this theory will be further
adapted countless times.
Motto: Everything is different
My answer
If the God should be just as nature omnipotent,
omniscient, eternal, and also perfectly good, then you can imagine for
example that the bearer of God's power is all natural energy,
which is also omnipotent, omniscient, because omnipresent, the eternal
and perfectly good for evil and good (it is a pantheism). Therefore I
think, that the nature is rather God.
But I agree with you, that from our simple model of the world contained
in the human soul we cannot prove God, or deny him, because
his alleged existence rests solely on circumstantial evidence. God I
have neither saw nor heard by my own eyes and ears.
Still I want to point out that the Albert Einstein the
discoverer of General Theory of Relativity, from which current
cosmological theories are derived, was a believer in God.
Reaction by noemus:
A. Einstein,
however, also said, that his God is a God of Spinoza - he believed
then, that God has created the world and himself he has become the
world and he has not intervened more - it is a pantheism. It is quite
important as to me to know.
Reaction by Fallout:
If someone
believes in God, they should also give a clear argument why this is so.
I can also say, that on Mars there are invisible
pajčvajlícs, because I feel their presence there, and nobody
does not disprove it, because nobody sees both invisible and second
pagečvajlícs are not defined, so you should recognize the
possibility, that it actually can be (to whom it sounds absurdly, let
them throw a stone).
Regarding science and God, so about this. Science of course may examine
God, or his manifestations in different religions, because it examines
the religious mythology it can examine the idea of God in people's
minds, it examines the human psyche.
Science has developed a methodology to distinguish the credibility of
documentation for the claim. Eg. logic as a science has revealed errors
in the proof of God, presented by philosophers. Moreover, the origin of
religion is already quite convincingly explained, as well as its
gradual transformation (one nation found, that this God does not work,
so they began to worship other etc..).
Existence of God lies in the fact, that believers have a sense, that
they saw / experienced / felt God, which is not difficult to interpret
from a psychological standpoint, it can easily be even delusion. On the
other hand, it is science that has found much of substance to the idea
that God does not exist.
To rely on undefinability of God, it is not a good approach you try to
refute, someone, any nonsense to think of something. Although it will
be very improbable, no one can say with definite certainty, that my
nonsense really does not
exist. Similarly, it is with God, he has tens of thousands of years,
changing shape, adapting to this or that historical period, there is no
such thing as a common core of ideas of the gods (there are more gods
then? What? 1, 5 million?), But for Noemus and Ace Rimmer it seems to
be insufficient, there is always the chance, that he actually exists,
although it is desperately improbable, the probability is even almost
the same as my claim, that they are living on Mars invisible
pajčvajlícs.
Essentially, this is no significant difference and the argument that
there are hundreds of millions of people who believe, is not relevant.
That the Earth is flat, it
knew every idiot before.
Moreover, it is not true, that I consider just what is already well
defined in advance. Does somebody define EXACTLY
Universe and human consciousness. No precise definition exists, but
still we can explore.
Claims of believer rely only on the purported experience of God
– there is nothing more behind it, which as for me means that
there is nothing to suggest the existence of God. I admit the
possibility just because of some correctness to the believers, but
that's all about it.
In addition to all - GOD IS ONE OF MOST UNNECESSARY HYPOTHESES OF ALL
TIME, that here exists only because it cannot be completely refuted, as
well as my invisible pačjvajlícs, who will also be there
until the end of time.
Ace Rimmer -
the definition of God is already very problematic. "That's so often
with the definitions, they are usually problematic.
My answer
Studies typically find, that in God
about 40% of scientists
believe, so
believers are also among scientists. (The latest survey carried out by
Edward J. Larson and Larry Witham, in 1996, and the report about it was
in the journal "Nature"). If the existence of God would be
rebutable or cofimatable by the reason, surely, this ratio would be far
more unanimous. The existence or absence of God remains, in my
opinion, substantially beyond rational understanding and it is
mostly a matter of emotion.
There is, in my opinion the only rational argument for the existence of
God brought by earlier Catholic theology namely, that nature is the
first stage of God's revelation. According to me the nature is composed
of only the kinetic and potential (kinetic) energy (i.e. potential
kinetic energy as other energy convertible into kinetic energy), and
this is all the energy of nature as possible God (in my opinion, its
creator), eternal, omniscient and omnipotent (because omnipresent),
good for good and evil and reasonable. In other words, in every part it
reflects the characteristics of potential creator.
Reaction by Gato:
Science has no
evidence of the absence of God. Science examines only matter.
Psychology could be closer to the knowledge of God, because it is
exploring the human soul.
The claim of some believers is based on actual experience of God or
Atman.
Purported it is suggested, invented, uncertain.
Real it is
confident, unthought, experienced.
I see, that we form God into an illusion that is thought formation. You
are right that at this level it is not possible to find God.
Your post it is full of assumptions, lack of facts.
I see the
problem in the level of reason, intellect or emotion it is not possible
to prove God.
God is spirit.
I believe that material nature is farthest from God. Mental nature is
closer to God. Platonic world of ideas is closer to God.
Reaction by Fallout:
Not based on
facts? On the contrary. Anthropology put the real existence of
God on the head because it shows how a man gradually devised God, and pretty
accurately. It shows, where this religion comes from and why.
Will you believe me my pajžvajlícs from Mars when I tell
you, that I actually lived with them?
Moreover, the experience of God and God alone is nonsense to identify.
I also once lived with pink spiders, but then I realized, that it was
folly. I also once heard the voice of wisdom, which said sensible
things. Then I realized, that it's me.
What is the real experience of God? Describe it to me. Is your God only
one, or are there more? What about Allah? This is no longer true God?
And what about Buddhists, who claim that God is not a supreme being?
My answer
Your experience of pajžvajlícs on
Mars is only subjective. However, if 40% of scientists and at least as
many people who have other occupations in his or her heart they feel
and with indirect evidence through the reason they think (such
evidence, however, does not create, in my view, a closed circle, in
order to prove the existence of God or to disprove it) that God rather
is, without, that they saw, heard or otherwise immediately felt him,
then it is something objectively given. Yet it may be a mass delusion,
as well as a true collective sentiment that penetrates beyond reason.
In my opinion, it cannot be over stated the role of reason against
emotion, because, whether people think the rational thought, this man
cannot control. Therefore, it is often more important in my opinion the
emotion for a proper solution of the intellectual problem (as in this
case, evidence of the existence or absence of God), which we are then
trying to prove through the reason. But even what we feel, in my
opinion, we cannot control. Emotion, perfection of reason of a man,
having ideas and sensorial impressions they are to us, in my opinion,
objectively given.
Answer by Gato:
I follow the
truth Atma is Brahma. The soul is consubstantial with God (Brahma).
This is not identity, but unity. Known drop in the ocean analogy it
explains.
Masters of all major religions know this truth and you can find it in
any such a true religion. Not the satanic church! It worships ego.
Answer by Ace Rimmer:
quoted:
Post of Fallout
Science of course may examine God, or his manifestations in different
religions. It examines the religious mythology. It can examine the idea
of God in people's minds. It examines the human psyche.
That's not what
I had in mind, plus it does not study God, but man (their psyche,
culture...).
quoted:
Post of Fallout
Science has developed a methodology to distinguish the credibility of
documentation for the claim. E.g. logic as a science has revealed
errors in the proof of God, presented by philosophers. Moreover, the
origin of religion is already quite convincingly explained, as well as
its gradual transformation (one nation lost the God that did
not work, so they began to worship other etc..).
Evidence is
evolving as science. That is to say, that a man finds a new issues with
the way they increase knowledge. There were times when the theory that
the Earth is flat was quite sufficient, until someone thought to ask
why ships disappear over the horizon.
That the description of an institution of God (Church) does not match
reality and it contradicts newfound knowledge, it has for the
question whether God exists, no effect. It simply reduces the
reputation of the institution (or their members).
quoted:
Post of Fallout
Existence of God lies in the fact, that believers have a sense, that
they saw / experienced / felt God, which is not difficult to interpret
from a psychological standpoint, it can easily be even delusion.
I do not think,
that the vast majority of people suffer from this delusion.
quoted:
Post of Fallout
On the other hand it is science, that has found much of substance to
the idea that God does not exist.
I
know no research that would be directly or indirectly
connected with the existence of God. It was only
questioned what the society thought about God.
quoted:
Post of Fallout
To rely on undefinability of God, it is not a
good approach you try to refute, someone, any nonsense to think of
something. Although it will be very improbable, no one can say with
definite certainty, that my nonsense really does not
exist. Similarly, it is with God, he has tens of thousands of years,
changing shape, adapting to this or that historical period, there is no
such thing as a common core of ideas of the gods (there are more gods
then? What? 1, 5 million?), But for Noemus and Ace Rimmer it seems to
be insufficient, there is always the chance, that he actually exists,
although it is desperately improbable, the probability is even almost
the same as my claim, that they are living on Mars invisible pajčvajlícs.
Essentially, this is no significant difference and the argument that
there are hundreds of millions of people who believe, is not relevant.
That the Earth is flat, before every idiot knew
it.
If God
was defined exactly as you would like to see him, it would not
be God, but a living being or a natural phenomenon. If you imagine God
as a bearded old man, so I am not surprised by your skepticism at all.
I imagine the God
rather something like "creative power of the Universe",
something that makes sense of the existence of the Universe ...
quoted:
Post of Fallout
Moreover, it is not true, that I consider just what is already well
defined in advance. Does somebody define EXACTLY the Universe and human consciousness? No
precise definition exists, but still we can explore.
As to
consciousness, so I cannot think any method to prove the
existence of another person than me.
We examine the entire Universe, or just what from it we are able to
observe?
Also there were the discussions, which questioned the existence of the
Universe.
quoted:
Post of Fallout
Claims of believer rely only on the purported experience of God
– there is nothing more behind it, which for me means that
there is NOTHING that would indicate the existence of God. I admit the
possibility just because of some correctness to the believers, but
that's all about it.
In my opinion,
nor there is anything that excludes the existence of God
quoted:
Post of Fallout
In addition to all - GOD IS ONE OF MOST UNNECESSARY HYPOTHESES of all
time, that here exists only because it cannot be completely refuted, as
well as my invisible pajčvajlícs, who will also be there
until the end of time.
Hard to say,
but many people live with this hypothesis much easier to live on the other hand, to many
others it took them their life and is taking up till now.
[/ quote]
Motto: Everything is different
My answer
In my opinion, Gato believes, therefore, feels
that God exists, and Ace Rimmer feels that God does not exist, neither
of them cannot, in my opinion, affect subjectively how they feel (it is
an objective givens). Both, however, try his or her feelings on the
existence or non-existence of God intellectually to prove, which I
think is not possible because the only thing that can be used as
evidence it is their model of the world contained in their soul,
virtually brain.
Answer by Ace Rimmer:
quoted:
Post of Dalibor Grůza
In my opinion, Gato believes, therefore, feels that God exists, and Ace
Rimmer feels that God does not exist.
I would have
claimed, I rather think, that I know, that I
know nothing. I'm not sure which philosopher said
it, but it is partially the truth.
Motto: Everything is different
My answer
Ace-Rimmer partly I agree with you, that I
know, that I do not know nothing certainly because the
only way to know the real world is the model of a world contained in my
soul, virtually brain. Yet I allow to speculate and to
paraphrase the idea of the German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich
Hegel, that "what is reasonable, that rather exists and, what rather
exists, it is reasonable.” In other words, the only evidence
of the reality of a thought in my soul (which I have according to me
independently of my will) is, that this idea is logical, in harmony
with other ideas, which form a model of the world contained in my soul,
virtually brain.
The more (logically) harmonic world model contained in the human soul,
virtually brain is, the happier, I think, the
people are and this man is, in my view, closer to a full
understanding of the real world. So if the affected people
agree in an idea, because it is an exact knowledge of nature and it is
really such an exact knowledge of nature (it is in harmony with the
imaginary nature), it is in my opinion, highly probably to be a reality
existing in the real world.
Actually, I wanted tosay:
In my opinion, Gato believes, therefore, feels that God exists, and
Fallout feels that God does not exist, neither of them cannot, in my
opinion, affect subjectively how they feel (it is an
objective givens). Both, however, try to prove his or her feelings
about the existence or absence of God intellectually to 100%, in my
opinion, it is not possible because the only thing that can be used as
evidence it is their model of the world contained in their soul,
virtually brain.
Reaction by Fallout:
I do not feel
that God does not exist. Only there is no evidence, that he exists. And
anything, that tries to look as evidence, it was disproved
long
ago. The only thing left is a sort of "mystical" experience, the last
bastion of resistance of proponents of God, which is equivalent to my
invisible monsters on Mars.
I examine the manifestations of God, as given religions
to
define. This can be called examinations of God. Otherwise it would be
like with these my products on Mars.
Remember that the absence is virtually impossible to prove, so to refer
to the arguments of some type - nothing is to exclude him, it is
through the vicious circle
again.
Reaction by Petr 1234:
To prove God it
is absolute nonsense, which already follows from the nature of God. God
is the object of faith - at least God of Christians, Jews and Muslims,
virtually others. God of philosophers and mathematicians we can prove
endlessly, hardly anybody is satisfied. However, at least it shows good
reasons for why the belief might not be quite so irrational. However,
faith - it is a step in the absurd. All the "rational" arguments for
belief in God find their reflection in similar
„reasonable“ grounds for atheism.
But those reasons do not discourage really hard believer. Those only
again refute the construction of the human mind and desires.
Let us God to
faith.
My answer
I agree that the belief in God is a matter of
emotion rather than reason, that the facts, which rationally prove the
existence of God, they are only indirect evidence, which does not form
a logical circle, and therefore certainly it does not prove anything.
Equally, however, we cannot prove the non-existence of God in my
opinion, and the atheism is thus also a matter of emotion rather than
reason.
I just wanted to point out, that I wanted to be there when the mankind
finds the truth, if God really exists or does not.
Reaction by Fallout:
Why do you
think, that atheism is a matter of emotion rather than reason?
My answer
Fallout,
because the question of the existence but also of the absence of God,
although it is only one true answer either positively or negatively, it
is beyond the current level of human exact (scientific) knowledge.
Intellectually, to answer it will be probably possible only with a
deepening of knowledge, virtually the achievement of omniscience of
humanity. Until then, it is only a hypothesis, we specify it on the
basis of the particular emotion and then we try to rely on rational
arguments, virtually evidence, but in neither of both cases it does not
form a closed circle, and therefore the existence or absence of God
cannot prove unequivocally.
Reaction by Miloslav Bažant:
Fallout.
I have the same opinion. The more the mankind recognizes principles and
elements of phenomena, the less it is what is from God "and once people
do not even know what such a god was. So we do not miss and we look for
the natures and patterns until the disputes between religious truths
destroyed the life. As
laughter is not possible to write so I point out, that I am laughing.
You know why?
MB
Reaction by Gato:
Slávo,
You express naive faith in science. Do you think, that the
materialistic scientist comes to the same conclusions and the facts as
idealistic?
I do not. This science is a kind of mythical monster that exists only
in your head.
My answer
Gato
any philosophy materialistic, idealistic, atheism and faith
are always subjective (especially emotional) issues, which ultimately
is neither to confirm or to deny, because the model of world
(phenomena), we have included in our soul, virtually brain, it can
never be clearly (100%) said, what the world really is (what is the
real world by I. Kant).
In terms of philosophy, there is only one possibility, namely that the
(phenomenal) world model, which presents the philosophy, it was the
least logically contradictory, logically most harmonic. This should be
used to solve any philosophical problems the knowledge of modern exact
sciences, first of mathematics and physics, which are the most
general, but also other exact sciences (chemistry, biology, etc.).
Philosophical (phenomenal) world model, which would be contrary to the
exact sciences, it would be contradictory, disharmonic. With the change
of exact scientific knowledge it should also be amended so
based philosophy.
Therefore my philosophy is an attempt to have the physical
(i.e. exact) philosophy with using the most general physical laws to
solve the general philosophical issues. Yet even it cannot
give 100% guarantee of the reality of that philosophy. If I
correct the words of German philosopher Hegel: What is
reasonable, it is more real and, what is real, it is more reasonable.
In other words, it is probable, not 100% real fact and some
other philosophies, which are in conflict with modern science, they are
also possible but improbable model of the real world contained in the
human soul.
Reaction by Miloslav Bažant:
Usually I do
not answer to your posts, because it's damn hard. Your thought jumps
are so big, that it is not almost possible to answer in a single
sentence. At the beginning of a sentence you give problem and the
second part of it is without notice about something else. Sometimes
ahead you mix the movement of micro particles and I have not
read much further. But here I find something that prompted me to
respond. It's mention about understanding. Probably you think, that
everyone knows what rationality is, but you imagine, that I do not
know. Try to somehow define rationality
to me, to explain me stupid what rationality is, or if you
want, then I tell you what under this word I imagine and you
can correct me.
As a basic variable, we can identify the base of reason and we mark
this word to the letter R. The variable value is equal to the maximum
and therefore it cannot be
added
to anything. You
cannot have more reason than you actually have. There we will certainly
agree. Then from R you can only subtract, or to limit Reason by
something. So there is an environment, which
recognizes certain values, to which the view created by reason
may be in opposition wholly or partially. So you do not want to provoke
resistance, you limit your reason. This restriction, we can identify
the letter S. The society has certain defense mechanisms that will
threaten you if you preach what your reason says. So due
to fear you limit the reason. This limitation can designate as
St. When you limit your mind and you get into line with the society,
you can advance your position and this motivation we mark the letter M.
And so we offer almost the entire pattern of rationality, when
rationality designate as Ro.
RO = R- (S + St) M (M is the exponent and it should be written in small
letters above the bracket).
From this formula it shows that a rationality is the value always lower
than the intellect and if values in parentheses or exponent are
high then rationality can be a negative
number opposing to reason. And the reason led Galiea Galilee
to an opinion, but he denied it reasonably and reason led him
to the statement "It still turns". Jan Hus refused reasonableness and
he died at the stake. Those who refused during the
Communists their views he or she refused reasonableness and it
had consequences.
Be reasonable
it
nice sounds, but it is always a value less than reason.
MB
My answer
Slávo,
Sorry for responding to your post so late, but I want to tell you what
is in my view, reasonable. Reasonable to have as little contradictory
(as much integral) as possible soul, virtually least contradictory
world model contained in the human soul. To reconcile the conflicting
ideas, which make up the image of the world in my soul. It's about
finding the greatest consistency between rational knowledge (i.e.,
current scientific knowledge about the world order), my sensorial
perception of the world and ideas provided to me by my emotions, and in
the event of the conflict I prefer a reasonable solution, i.e. a
solution that is consistent with actual order of the world (i.e.
through an always rationally reviewable philosophy).
Rational philosophy, in my opinion, is built on the exact sciences such
as physics, mathematics, chemistry, biology, and their terms, not on
the basis of general philosophical terms. Their precise definition of
reality is unclear (see e.g., theology). I also heard the view that the
philosophy using only general terms is not able to solve
anything because the real, really precise (exact) expressive value
of these general terms is very small. The exact terms of exact
sciences differ from general, i.e. multi-meaning philosophical terms,
that the exact terms have a single, specific, phenomenal, measurable
(in terms of sensorial) meaning.
Reaction by Miloslav Bažant:
Dalibor.
I would say, that this better reflects the wisdom than reasonableness.
With a bit of fun I can say. "Be reasonable and recognize it." But if
you are wise, then explore it.
i) Can it make all people happy? http://forum.filosofie.cz/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=649 :
Lze učinit všechny lidi šťastnými?
My answer
Complete happiness is, in my opinion to
experience in a perfectly harmonic society, where they will be in
accordance everyone and everything, that all people and other
living organisms and inanimate nature. Such a harmonic society, in my
view, supposes a free and genuine agreement of all the living and the
dead (animated by the preserved genetic code of any individual living)
organisms on all issues that dominate also completely the nature. To
such perfection, in my opinion, the evolution of nature is
directed more probably
in an endless
time.
Still more to complete domination of nature it is always associated
with the risk of their own self-destruction, so the more power on the
basis of scientific knowledge of the society of all living organisms is
reached, the more harmonic
society should
not destroy themselves, but it applies both ways, the more harmonic is the society
of all living organisms, the more power on the basis
of scientific knowledge (cooperation) is reached, both are in my
opinion natural consequences of the law of evolution.
The more (logically) harmonic is the world
model contained in the human soul, virtually brain, the happier in my opinion,
a man is, and this man is, in my view, closer to a
full understanding of the real world. So if the vast majority of the
people agree on some idea, because it is an exact knowledge of nature,
and truly it is such an exact knowledge of nature (in harmony with the
imaginary nature), it is in my opinion, highly probably the fact
existing in real world, and man becomes happier.
In my opinion, the subjective development of every human soul makes a
man with a greater probability to improve (logical) consistency of his
or her model of the world contained in his or her soul, virtually
brain, in other words to improve his or her mind. Objectively, one can
speak about the impact of evolution of nature and its forced, virtually
more probable improvement through the compliance of a human society
based on the above described improvement of human reason. If the man
developed exact knowledge of nature within the above described
improvement of his or her reason and he or she does not
improve their social intelligence, a harmony of society, they would
probably be destroyed in their subsequent wars using their
power.
Therefore, each person should, in my view, seek to improve the
compliance of the model of the world contained in his or her soul,
doing their best to eliminate as much as possible contradictions in
this model of the world in their soul. It probably
assumes doing good to their fellowmen, but also to other
people and living creatures, both to good people and
bad individuals who they would try to bring to the good by
using reasonable punishments.
j) How to objectively express the price of
certain things http://forum.filosofie.cz/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=651 :
Jde objektivně vyjádřit cenu určité věci?
In my view, the objective price is either a
subjective matter, depending on how much it reduces the overall power
of collisions, virtually conflicts of certain individual (the price of
popularity), or objective, depending on how much it reduces the overall
power of collisions, virtually conflicts throughout
the society
(the "market
price).
Reaction by Miroslav Bažant:
Dalibor.
Price of anything cannot be objectively determined. What price
has now for you, an ordinary cigarette lighter? Established market
price? When you however found yourself on a deserted island and you
would need fire, then the same lighter would be worth more than gold,
which would be useless to you on that island, and therefore its price
would be zero. Price of everything is determined by need. This applies
also to the price of human cognition. When you need words to avert the
threat of extinction of life, this word has more value than anything
else. However if you say the same when there is no threat to life, the same
is
sounding as unnecessary and useless phrases. The price is anything from
zero to the absolute and critical is
a
need of this thing. In the business they say, that the price is
determined by the offer and demand.
Reaction by
Noemus:
quoted:
How to objectively express the price of a
certain thing?
Yes, so that you buy it.
Or look into the price list, and if you find a price, voila, it has an
objective price. Another question is whether it is "correct" price.
But the price of things, which are in the price list, you have not in
mind, huh? ...
My answer is this.
If it is not in any price list or price offer, so it may not make much
sense to talk about price at all.
Price is not something that's own to
thing, but it is a figure that is used in the offer or demand for the
case. The price list is the type of offer.
If I would therefore like to talk about the subjective price for me,
then I talked about my idea of either supply (how much I appreciate it)
if I sell something, or my idea of demand, if I want anything.
Objective, the market price, which would be the case, expressing the
price for the society, I do not believe it. Market price is rather a
kind of average between the actual
carried
out transactions.
If there is no trade, then it is always a hypothetical price and not
market value.
My answer:
In my opinion, one is happy, if one is not
exposed to the outside (of his or her surroundings) or internal (mental
and physical) conflicts, disputes, clashes, in which case one is
satisfied and has no need to buy. If one wants to buy something, then
it should serve to eliminate these internal and external conflicts.
Therefore we can say, that with any particular matter it is involved a
reduction in the total force of his or her internal and external
conflicts. Therefore, in my view we can say, that the cost of
the item in relation to a particular individual (the popular price of
individual) can be objectively measured as a force by which the total
force of their internal and external conflicts (i.e. needs) drops
through the purchase of thing by this individual. In the event, that
the strength of his or her internal and external conflicts in case of
acquisition typically rises rather than falls the purchase causes
over-indebtedness of individual.
Miroslav,
I agree with you that the price of popularity is given by the need of
the individual. My definition given above can be demonstrated by the
price of the lighters. Man who does not need to smoke and fire, he or
she does not buy a lighter, because the power of his or her internal
and external conflicts does not drop. The man who smokes, is willing to
pay for lighter, which is commonly available, the current price,
because it will decrease the power of his or her internal conflicts
caused by the addiction to nicotine and nicotine short term absence
since the last he or she has smoked. A person who is a castaway on a
deserted island, and he or she is cold, he or she is willing to pay for
lighter with gold, because it significantly decreases the power of his
or her internal and external conflicts triggered by fear of death of
cold.
Likewise, in my opinion, in the case of an ideal market price, a
society that is not exposed to any internal (by its members) or
external (from the surroundings) conflicts, disputes,
collisions it is the ideal society, where everyone and everything is
consistent and no need to buy or sell anything. Therefore, in my view
we can say, that ideal market price of certain goods in terms
of a society (the ideal market price virtually the popular
price in the society) can be objectively measured as maximum
force, which falls the total force of internal and external
conflicts within the society's through the purchase of goods from the
society, thus from any solvent individual or groups of
individuals in this society (i.e. the popularity price is
determined by the maximum price of popularity of certain individual or
groups of individuals within that society.)
Noemus,
an increase in the economic product of the society without external
costs (e.g. pollution) it will serve to reduce conflicts within the
society, because there is higher meeting of the needs of members of the
society. The society is willing to pay for such a thing the other
values, when such a thing needs more than the other values. In other
words, the society is willing to pay for such a thing other goods, if
the maximum price of the society popularity of other goods is equal to
or less than the maximum price of the society popularity of certain
thing.
E.g. to offer a loaf of bread in one day to society of a thousand
members, the society popularity price is very
high within the society, when we offer one thousand loaves of bread in
one day to society of thousand members the total price of
society popularity is approximately the same as the one thousand bread
rolls instead of bread, when we are offering 10 000 loaves of bread in
one day to a society of a thousand of members, the total price of
society popularity is slightly higher than the bid one thousand loaves
of bread. Which means that the rarity of a loaf of bread, which some
the richest family
gets while
other families have nothing to eat, means a large decrease in conflicts
inside the family and the price of a loaf of bread is extremely high.
If every family in the society gets a loaf of bread for one day, a
large decrease in conflicts is inside of the society and the price of
the first loaf of bread is normal. If each family receives four loaves
of bread per day, the decline in conflicts inside the society is not
much greater than when each family gets a loaf of bread for one day,
price of second, third and fourth loaf of bread in each family is
extremely low.
While in the case of market price we must take into
account the maximum decrease in conflicts of the current
and also future society, we
must also take into account the need for investments.
Miroslav,
the same result we would reach, if we used the concept of the
needs, unlike in my opinion, the overall strength of disputes,
conflicts, virtually collisions within a society it is more
scientifically measurable.
k) My philosophy and metaphysics of conceptual
language http://forum.filosofie.cz/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=653 :
Má filosofie a metafyzika pojmového jazyka
From the more
or less perfect model of the world contained in our soul, virtually
brain consisting of subjective sensorial, conceptual and emotional
images of events, people, things, etc., in my opinion, it can be
constructed conceptual language on the
following basic general concepts. This is sameness, full diversity,
similarity (or partial diversity and partial sameness) and the general
concept. Thus a small child is learning the
language, who learns individual words, he or she must
know first what (the term) it is, his or her knowledge is associated with it, what (the term) it is
not and also what may be subordinated under the concept, and what is
not already within this concept not to subordinate even if it is
concerned a similar phenomenon. These concepts can be expressed by
following equations
1.) a≠b
are completely different concepts a and b
of events, things, persons, etc.
example, a dog
and a table
2.) a, a + c
(and c is negligible in relation to a)
are the same two terms a
and negligible term c of events,
things, persons, etc.
as the same
term dachshund for two
dogs
of a certain type
3.) a, a + c
(and c is not negligible in relation to a)
are two similar concepts a
and a + c and significant term c of events, things, persons, etc.
for example,
two similar dogs of various types as a Wolfdog and Dachshund
4.) a + b
is the general concept of two different concept
a, b
as the general
concepts comprising only
dog and table
If we accept the material world as a fact, which is
reflected in our soul, virtually brain as more or less perfect picture
of the world, it is possible to say, that the material world is determined by the movement of micro particles
with ultimately a zero-weight such as space-time points. Matter in my opinion, represents an
infinite number of points of space-time of zero mass and non-zero
velocity, which is less than the speed of light c, light,
virtually electromagnetic waves in our Universe is probably
finite number of points of space-time of zero mass and velocity of
light c, absolute vacuum then only
one inert particle (space-time point) of zero speed and zero
relativistic mass, possibly spread out the space-time as nonabsolute
vacuum d. Every act, person, thing, etc. as a
whole can then be characterized by physical equations for momentum
p= mv,
where p is the vector of momentum,
m mass and v the velocity vector,
and while the value of vector p is given by
the sum of momentums of parts making up the (i.e.
momentum of a man as the sum of the momentum of human body parts,
organs, living cells, atoms, etc.), ultimately as the momentum of p=p1+
p2+p3+
.........+p∞,
a momentum of all
making
them points of
space-time.
From the above
perspective, the sub-characteristics of each agency,
things, person, etc. are
made
entirely by the number, weight, speed, and layout (organization such as
within the atoms, living cells, organs, etc.) of them forming
space-time points as particles with zero mass. Since under Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle
we cannot determine the precise position and momentum of a micro
particles, as this is to some extent of the probability a coincidence, we can say, that it is also the emergence of
concepts that characterize all the characteristics of each act, thing,
person, etc. according to the relationships of weight, speed, number
and arrangement of the them forming points of space-time it is to some
extent of probability the random matter. This coincidence may
be subject to the law of probability, it is
to justify diversity but also a
similarity of languages, regardless of if they are created in
isolation, or they are in an intense relationship. Intense relationship
with languages in nowadays powerful development of communication means
it contributes to forming new concepts for
balancing the vocabulary, while it often happens by engaging
foreign words into our own language and hence cosmopolitanization
of these different languages.
These terms in fact,
created as description of the relationships of weight, speed, number
and arrangement of a micro particles of certain existing agency, thing,
person, etc., they can be subsequently used both
for the description of existing reality and metaphorically to describe
the only thought phenomena as a means of revealing of reality
or as a means of creating a model of purely fictional world.
Crossing the phenomenon of conceptual language
in human thought is in my opinion only possible by the
mathematical description of each term of act, thing, person, etc. using
the values and the mathematical relationships depicting the reality by
the number, weight, speed and organization (organizations such as
within atoms, live cells, organs, etc.) of them forming space-time
points as particles of zero mass. Based on the above relationships we
can override the above conceptual equation of sameness, full
diversity, similarity (or partial diversity and partial sameness) and
summary terms using the above formula for momentum p= mv,
where p is the vector of momentum,
m mass and v velocity
vector, as follows:
ad.1) m1v1≠
m2v2for
diversity
ad.2.) m1v1,
m1v1+
m3v3(and
also m3v3 is negligible in relation to m1v1)
for uniformity
ad.3) m1v1,
m1v1+
m3v3(and
also m3v3 is not negligible
in relation to the m1v1)
for similarity
ad. 4) m1v1+
m2v2 the
general concept
Comparing the
above-mentioned philosophy of language with
the Aristotle’s philosophy of language, we can say,
that in the case of the weight it is concerned substance,
in the case of the speed and particularly its direction it is
concerned form, in the case of
letter a = m1v1 it
is concerned the essence, therefore Being, displayed in
the concept, in the case of a + c = m1v1 +
m3v3 (and also m3v3 is negligible in relation to m1v1) it
is concerned the individual, casual, accidental thing and in the
case of a + b = m1v1+
m2v2 if
it is concerned the most
general notion of all generic essences, this is a whole
Being - according to the concept of Aristotle.
If we understand God as a pure form without substance,
virtually first mover, it is necessary to split reality on purely
kinetic energy-free of mass as it is the case of light virtually
electromagnetic waves, of which energy under Einstein Special Theory of
Relativity consists only of kinetic energy, which in turn represents
the pure form, the first mover, i.e. God, and the
substance without form, pure potential energy, which can no longer be
converted into kinetic energy. In this case, it
will be the absolute vacuum, motionless points of the
space-time of zero mass and velocity, which therefore have no kinetic
energy. Kinetic energy, whether in
the form of pure kinetic energy i.e. light or in the form of potential
(kinetic) energy, i.e. in the form of another form of energy
convertible into kinetic energy, it is eternal
according to the law of conservation of energy.
The emergence of the world can be imagined as a
collision of the light, virtually electromagnetic waves with an
absolute vacuum, The space-time points of zero velocity and
zero mass, which are the absolute vacuum, they would be given by this
light, virtually electromagnetic waves nonzero speed up to the speed of
light.
* This concept of the Universe corresponds to
the biblical act of God's creation of heaven and Earth from nothing, it
also meets the Aristotelian theology, and also the first reasonable
evidence of the existence of God by St. Thomas in his work The Sum of
Theology on the first agent, which requires everything,
what is moving, it is moved by something else.
Adding my answers:
Being in my view, is only the most general
term, which includes all other terms except perhaps those concepts,
which are not, and therefore they belong to the concept of non-being.
Although the concept of non-being can be subordinated possibly also
to the concept of Being, because the conceptual language can also say,
that nothing is (nothing).
Fact of the most general concept of Being, or by it
included concepts in my opinion, it means a movement of all
points of space-time as particles of zero mass, it is actually a
movement of nothing, at a conceptual language we can speak in my
opinion about being (from) not-Being.
(see http://www.filosofie.cz/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=660&whichpage=2 : Jak používat dialektiku k řešení problémů? )
Reaction by IPC:
For Dalibor
Grůza.
I do not understand your expression of all points of space-time
movement as the particles with zero mass.
Because if the particle is particle it must have mass, the mass has a
certain weight, so I do not know what you meant.
My answer
The points are called space-time events and we
treat with them mathematically as Four-vectors. Orbits of point
particles in space-time then we call as worldlines.
Multidimensional object draws in the space-time so-called
worldflat.
Source Internet encyclopedia Wikipedia, see: http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/%
C4% 8Casoprostor
Description of space-time points as point
particles has been formulated by the theory of space-time before me
(see above).
Reaction by Fallout:
Could you
somehow simply interpret what it is that conceptual language?
You mean just our common language? It can be crossed quite easy (see
logic).
My answer
By conceptual language I mean all the languages current and
professional.
Here I refer to the account of Ludwig Wittgenstein from Tractatus
Logico-Philosophicus, which states: 6.54 My statements explaining the
following: who will understand me, he or she eventually finds, that
once through and after them one gets over it, they are absurd
(Figuratively speaking, he or she must leave the ladder as
soon as after it he or she came up). In later work, then Wittgestein is
looming challenge: relieve our minds of still leads, mistakes
and fascination with language, which is an endless task, because we are
trapped in the medium of language and we never can come out of it.
Mathematical philosophy Bernard Russell and A.Whitehead also used in their work
Principia Matematica, who have laid here the foundations of symbolic
logic. An example is the relationship: if A corresponds to B and X
corresponds to A, then X is equal to B. This can be called a skeleton
of logistical or schema language, the specific content we fill the
letters just in the field of applied logic.
In my opinion we can go in applied mathematics philosophy even further
by using a physical relationship for the momentum p = mv, where p is
the vector of momentum, m the mass and v velocity vector. In my
opinion, this is a basic physical relationship (including a physical
relationship for energy, where the law of conservation of energy is, in
my opinion, ultimately derived from the law of conservation of
momentum), because all the physics is in my opinion the micro particles
movement mechanics in the final result of zero weight, which
we acquire through an infinite division of matter, light and absolute
vacuum (see * Note at the end of text). All facts in our world are so
given by the mass and velocity vector (i.e. as well as the
organization), i.e. the momentum vector of the micro particles of zero
mass, i.e. the points of space-time. It is concerned therefore in the
case of objects in macro world the math and physics calculations with
infinities (space-time points), zeros (the weights of the space-time
points) and the velocity vector of the maximum value of the speed of
light c of the points of space-time. The movement of the whole is
always determined by the sum of momentum vectors of its parts. E.g.
momentum of particles formed by two points in space-time is the sum of
momentum vectors of two points of space-time and thus it appears to me
mathematically to characterize gradually the movement also of most
complex organisms such as man etc.
In my opinion the mathematical description of such a reality is more
accurate and it goes further in the phenomenon of language than the
above symbolic logic.
The terms of professional and everyday language are the audio, written
or other symbols, in which one shows the above-mentioned facts, which
are, in my opinion, given by the above movement of them forming points
of space-time. These symbols of reality occur to a certain degree of
probability in various languages at random, but this probability, which
to some extent determines this accident, it has resulted also in the
similarity of different languages, although they arise in
isolation.
* Note
The points are
called space-time events and we treat with them mathematically as
Four-vectors. Orbits of point particles in space-time then we
call as worldlines. Source Internet encyclopedia Wikipedia,
see: http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/%
C4% 8Casoprostor) The term space-time points as point particles
has been formulated by the theory of space-time before me.
Adding my answers:
For IPC
Precise definition of God is in my view a contradiction in terms. Since
the definition as the concept, virtually consisting of concepts,
represents ever only
the model of
the facts, their image, not reality itself. If we wanted the absolutely
precise definition of God or any other specific term, then it
was no longer the model of reality, but the fact itself. E.g. accurate
model of Karlstejn Castle is Karlstejn Castle itself; all other models
(eg the idea of Karlstejn Castle) are inaccurate.
According to my philosophy of language, therefore, the conceptual
notion of God is a fact, which is determined by its main
characters-concepts such as omnipotence, eternity, omniscience,
justice, the other characters-terms, that he holds, I do not know
because I have never been directly encountered with a God, they must be
negligible to the above-mentioned features-the concepts, that it was
not a different or similar concept to the concept of God.
(see http://www.filosofie.cz/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=662 : Je li bůh, je moudrý?)
Literature:
1) The
Philosophy of Balance, JUDr. Dalibor Grůza Ph.D., http://www.sweb.cz/filosofierovnovahy
2.) STORIG,
H.J.: Malé dějiny filosofie. Praha, Zvon, 1991.
3.) Durant, W.,
Příběh filosofie, Praha, Pragma
Reaction IPC:
For Dalibor
Grůza.
Is this symbol universal?
My answer
For IPC
If you mean by me produced symbol of God, as defined by my
terms (symbols) omnipotent, eternal, omniscient and perfectly good,
then as to me the symbol of the one God as opposed to the
symbols (terms) of polytheism it is universal.
According to my philosophy and metaphysics of conceptual language (see
separate chapter) the same conceptual terms were created in
different languages, characterized by it, that their different
characters are negligible compared with the same characters. These
terms may not be a completely identical, such as the concept of a
dog can be used for different kinds of dogs, and in terms of
this concept they will be considered the same characters and their
different characteristics (different breeds of dogs) are negligible to
these common features. A complete list of all such insignificant
characters of the concept of one God, in my view, it is in different
conceptual languages the affair of little probable coincidences, but a
complete list of my above non-negligible essential features of the one
God, according to me in different conceptual languages it is the matter
of highly probable chance (which follows from the fact,
that, in my view, the movement of both body and soul of living
organisms of different species, races and nations it is part of the
material world, which is predetermined by the motion of micro
particles under physics, and this movement is under
Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle more or less probable not
quite sure or causal).
(see http://www.filosofie.cz/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=662&whichpage=2 : Je li bůh, je moudrý?)
l) Is humanity directed to the salvation or the
destruction? http://forum.filosofie.cz/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=658 :
Směřuje lidstvo ke spáse nebo ke zkáze?
My question:
In my opinion, with a deepening knowledge and
the power of humanity, the humanity stands at a crossroads of
humanity's own self-destruction or the more rational humanity
and the world without wars. Since I believe rather in God, I
think, that this self-destruction will not rather happen. Do you
believe rather in the salvation of humanity (i.e., rational humanity
and the world without wars) or in its destruction (e.g. the nuclear
war, terrorist attacks using nuclear weapons)?
Reaction by Miloslav Bažant:
Dalibor.
Believe in God, but always rely on yourself. What humans will do, they
will have whether it will be a better world, or self-destruction and
destruction of all life on the planet. Look around, what it is in this
forum. What is for people the most divisive and what stands them
to the greatest resistance? They recognized the truth. We can
say, that we are all friends and despite our diversity in truths
opposes us and thus we challenge
unnecessary and one do not want to hear what others say not
to endanger their recognized right. Without a mutual agreement it is
not possible to reach a positive outcome. And now look into the world
and you see the same thing, only in bulk. As long as truths will split the people, then there is not possible peace in
the world and if people have in the hands capacities sufficient to
destroy all life, then they abuse them and the destruction of life is
real and possible. I would even say probable.
But such a state of emergency will surely lead many people to think
about and possibly to find the causes, that can be removed, so that
risk can lead the people to find their way to a world without wars and
disputes of truths. So there are, because of a danger, chances of rescue and the
entry into a new better world. One way is to understand the dividing
function of truths and as a solution the formation of the world
council, which brings together representatives of all truths and with
the help of rules to prevent the disputes, they will jointly seek
solutions to contentious issues and ways to life. This would be limited
or annulled dividing function of truths and the world would be closer
to eternal life and a better society.
Well, now you all turn against me and
prove how strong the defenses of recognized truths
are. You can show that the current situation bothers you, but you never
want to solve it, because the truths are more valuable for you than
life itself.
MB
My answer
Mirek
In my opinion intransigence of ideologies, which apparently
causes wars and a terrorism, has the objective causes. These objective
causes are poverty of some and wealth of others. In other words, people
in poor countries, where there is little economic growth, are causing
wars and vice versa sufficient economic growth increases the
satisfaction of those residents, who want peace then. This is
so because the energetic people can satisfy their desires for asset
growth from economic growth and to pursue their activity in favor of
economic growth instead of robberies, virtually thefts through the
criminal acts, civil, international or world wars, in relation to other people
or countries. An example is great poverty in Germany before Hitler and
the beginning of World War II and as the opposite example the emergence
of the European Union between the rich Western European countries.
In my opinion, it is therefore essential, that rich nations and
individuals start paying closer attention to low-income of developing
countries for greater economic growth, because otherwise they cannot be
ruled out war and international terrorism, which in time will certainly
be using nuclear weapons by these states. As in my view, in case of
producing nuclear weapons
question does not
sound whether but when, even those countries achieve
this (see North Korea and Iran).
Still, I'm an optimist, who believes, that what God governed,
well-governed. I believe therefore that the rich countries and their
inhabitants are increasingly interested in the problems of economic
growth in these poor countries.
Reaction by Miloslav Bažant:
Dalibor.
My name is Miloslav, I'm not
Mirek,
but you can call me Sláva, I'm used to it.
How I see it, we generally agree on the opinion, but for the Lord God
and his management. I'm not used to rely on anyone other than myself,
and by that I also act and I think as well. With that envy of the poor
and war causing you think a bit too far. Take note that wars usually
the richer nations cause, and then
if they think, that they can win. Did Vietnam begin war with America,
or was it the opposite and there was a U.S. invasion? Or was that
America poorer than Vietnam? Is it poorer than Iraq, or were poorer
than Korea? And see, a strong America has always lost and left with
shame. Poverty is a bad thing, especially when through diseases and
hunger thousands of people die. Now that poverty leads to search for
alternative resources of pleasure that costs nothing, it is a sexual
abuse resulting in population growth and poverty. Wealth and prosperity
leads to the opposite. Notice that the wealthiest people are often
childless or they have only one child, while the poor have possibly ten
children. So it is with us, so you do not have to go very far. The
belief that rich countries reach some miracle, that they will destroy
the misery of the poor it is unfortunately a utopia. Yet it would be
only way to reduce population growth and overpopulation, but also to
world peace. But they would have to understand the pattern of two
definitions, of which I spoke, and to apply this knowledge. Then they
would discover that it is advantageous for them and it would be a win.
But those who abuse their abilities, creating resistance and the
abilities re-abuse, thus it strengthens the case, that they cannot act
otherwise, because people are so bad. On the contrary, he or she who
uses his or her skills to others, creating in them
love that leads to the fact, that they give him or
her their skills. They must necessarily make the conclusion form that
people are so good, that he or she cannot act otherwise. A pattern
remains hidden to one and other. Only when these laws people have
become fully aware, the world will change for the better and then the
strong start helping the weak, because they know, that they will get
much more than through a war. Then will be resolved also your
overpopulation without violent actions, which would only produce
resistance.
MB
My answer
Slávo,
in my view, a typical example of war and
poverty are states of Africa, which, if they receive money from the
west, they often buy weapons. In African countries, there is
not usually a change of government in the elections but the coup, and
then dragging civil wars (e.g., Congo) are common. In other words,
energetic poor people realize their activity rather in the civil war,
it is contrary to the interests of society, instead, that they could,
or they would like to know how to realize it in the economic growth.
People in developing countries are in a situation like Biblical Job,
but he is altruistic only in the Bible, in fact the
inadequate meeting of needs with a high probability
they force people to act purely selfishly (see their own gain, or
thefts, robberies, wars). Contributing significantly to a charity they
are people who have satisfied their needs.
As regards America, so the same, as it is true of poverty and wealth
between the developed European countries and developing countries, it
is the social structure in the U.S. The U.S. has inadequate social
policy that would allow the application of energetic poor people (with
big needs). Therefore, the U.S. may also lead unjust war, to
allow the application of energetic poor people in the military (an
obvious example is Iraq), and it transmits the internal conflicts,
virtually small social peace in the U.S. (these conflicts are, for
example, in gang war of flooding New Orleans as the result of Hurricane
Katrina) out the U.S. borders.
Addressing the situation of poor developing countries
is, in my view, the matter not only of rich countries, but also of any
residents of rich countries, who can contribute to charity in the
developing countries. At the same time I rather think, that all the
people
themselves will
find it, before in the internecine wars they destroy themselves,
managed by the evolution, nature or God.
Reaction of Miloslav Bažant:
Dalibor.
Everybody faces at least two ways. One is easier and the second more
complex. It is easier to take guns into the hands to get something,
than to get the same thing through work. For the uneducated, often
illiterate it is often the way of arms and almost the only choice
between death with hunger and survival. But majority of these fights
take place within these nations, or between neighboring states, see
Africa. If you could open the other way to these people, or you give
them the basic living conditions and education, then the first one to
do is, they will leave. Something else is in Iraq. Before it was Iran.
Here there are two interests against each other. One is interested in
cheap oil (America) and on the other hand, a belief which says, that
those who die for the truth of Muhammad, they will live forever in
eternal bliss. Still, you notice that the jihad fighters usually kill
their own people. Again, it is appropriate to recall the degree of
illiteracy and primitive conditions of poor people in this area. And
again there is the choice, which is disadvantageous also because their
priests clean their brains. And suicidal attackers against the U.S. and
America they know, that something cannot be effective opposed, or to
prevent it. And so it has a wonderful reason to attack Iraq and form a
pro-American government there. And now America has access to oil. So
the second definition has paid off, what the correctness of
this path confirmed. But the Nation of Islam gathered strength and
ability to abuse and America would feel hard time when the second
sentence returns to its
own head. And true again win at the expense of life. If Americans spent
dollars instead of weapons on desert reclamation and education
in these areas and they did not ask for nothing in return, these
nations would love it, and America would gain much more, and no blood.
These people should get a new space for living and it would increase
welfare. By growth of education they would find themselves
the second path and their level would grow. And lo
they suddenly would not need ten children, but they would only need
two. Only the truth of Islam would be a bit weakened.
You're talking about charity, and that everyone should pay something to
those people. Unfortunately, I have with a charity a little
bad experience. I know a man who is very well live through the charity
and the Minister would probably envy his salary and where do you think
the money goes from to his salary and the salaries of other officials?
From the money that people send to these poor. And so the poor get only
a fraction of that sake. They should have nothing in their mouths and
they send them the toilet paper. Charity is not, therefore, to help the
needy, but to show how the Church is good. If it was so good, then it
gives for such purposes billion from their accounts, which are one of
the fattest in the world. The Church is not, though, so good.
MB
My answer
Slávo,
in my opinion, human behavior can be characterized by two highly
probable phases, the first stage, when he or she is acting
selfishly, he or she wants a revolution and he or she is not willing to
agree, if their material needs are not satisfied. A second
phase, in which their material needs are satisfied and
they act altruistically, promotes charity, favor evolution and the
agreement, she or he is conservative. In other words, biblical Job, who
is sick, poor, etc. and he or she is altruistic, it is actually very
improbable.
The same is true of the church, the rich and poor countries and rich
and poor citizens and inhabitants. It is as to me a law of human
thought, therefore it is not to blame the church that is not poor,
preaching Jesus possibly Christ and it seeks to ensure their
material needs and then it contributes to the poor, it is not to blame
the poor countries and people from the fact, that they want a
revolution and they do not want to agree. According to me about all
this it is to say, human too human.
Therefore, in my opinion, it must be first achieved the economic growth
in poor countries and then it can be expected to decrease the conflicts
due to the lack of conflicts between rich and poor people. Only then it
will be possible to progress in achieving a paradise for all
in our world, which is in our hands. In this paradise for all those,
whose material needs are met, we can expect a greater love of
neighbors, and according to me also to animals and other living
creatures.
According to my knowledge the humanity itself finds it in the future,
managed, virtually with higher probability given by the evolution,
nature and God, as one likes.
Adding my answers:
Slávo,
as to me the man which material needs are satisfied, can be as
poor grandmother, as well as a rich businessman, such a man needs for himself nothing more material and he
or she gives to charity. In the case of a rich man he realizes, that
the money collected he cannot spend by him or his family and even for
life, in the case of those poor grandmothers the grandmother has a
pension and she cannot spend it alone, because she is satisfied with
what she has. At the same time in some cases even a rich businessman
need not to have satisfied his material needs and he wants
other assets.
How much property we need to meet our material needs, in my view, it is
related to our vigor, vitality, energy, the energetic people need more
property, less energetic people in turn less property to be satisfied.
Generally, the older man is less energetic than younger people, from
which it follows also lower material needs of an old
grandmother than the needs of a young entrepreneur.
Therefore, in my opinion, human behavior can be characterized
by two highly probable phases, the first stage, when he or she is
acting selfishly, he or she wants a revolution and he or she is not
willing to agree, if their material needs are not satisfied.
In a second phase, when their material needs are satisfied, they
act altruistically, promote charity, favor evolution and the agreement,
she or he is conservative. In other words, biblical Job, who is sick,
poor, etc. and he or she is altruistic, it is actually very improbable.
In general, however, the average poor person does not meet their
material needs and the average wealthy person feels his or her material
needs to be met.
(see http://www.filosofie.cz/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=649&whichpage=2 : Lze učinit všechny lidi šťastnými?)
Reaction IPC:
For Dalibor
Grůza,
You are implying the whole issue of human knowledge; To what is a word
sent? And what is its significance due to the fact?
My answer
IPC
I understand the word as a symbol of phenomenon, while through the
knowledge we actually create a system of symbols, a picture of the
world contained in our soul, virtually brain. Basic principles of this
system are the same, similar, different and comprehensive concept, thus
a man puts these concepts into these categories. These principles I
derived from the way a child learns language. Small children identify
the particular object, it is a concept of dog (such as BAF, BAF), they
must determine which object also falls under this same concept (another
dog, BAF, BAF), as well as to determine which object is different (e.g.
cat, meow, meow), then they determine which object is similar, but it
is not the same concept (e.g. wolf and dog) and then they determine the
general notion (e.g. the concept of a dog, cat and wolf, which are
animals).
(see: http://www.filosofie.cz/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=662 : Je li bůh, je moudrý?)
Reaction by Skidz:
I
do not think it would all be easier to take into the hands a gun.
People are different and you must face the moral laws of this or that
group. If you are convinced, that if someone will kill or if
another person dies
as a result of their activities, and for them it is not just easier way
through the gun.
The main wedge is the diversity of views of each individual or group,
but the fact, that people are not able to tolerate this or that
opinion, and that no one wants to open up other ideas
and further to work on them.
In the inherent nature of mind we do not find any confusion, confusion
is only the way we experience things, things, that we identified in the
mind as confused. (Topga Julgjal Rinpoche).
My answer
Skidzi, Slávo,
In the future in my opinion an exact philosophy should be reached, a
philosophical truth. At present, the individual philosophies are just
approaching the truth, the more it approaches, and the greater they are
in terms of lasting effect. At the same time, in my view, any
philosophy, virtually each person is partly right and partly wrong; it
follows the requirement of tolerance towards other opinions. Therefore,
in my view, the main task of the philosopher should not be seeking the
greatest number of followers but effort to maximize the exact part of
his or her philosophy.
Therefore, in my opinion,
conflicting views on philosophical issues are not to resolve
by a simple agreement between the followers of this or that philosophy
or religion, but it is necessary to find an exact knowledge, or the
verifiable, scientific truth of these matters.
Reaction by Miloslav:
Dalibor.
Yes, this is one of the possible options. To make an exact science from
the philosophy, whose results are verifiable and demonstrable? All in
all, I am trying to do so, maybe because I was looking for constants
controlling the thinking process in order to go from nature to the
surface, so that there was exact approach. And look at that! I
described the nature of the human soul as a result of the function of
word in the process of thinking, which is demonstrable, and one could
say, that I brought the exactness to this part
of
philosophy. However, there are people of other truths and you can
convince yourself about what their reactions are. They regard it as
undermining of fundamental
pillars of idealism. So even, that your proposed path is not easy and
as you can see, it is already in the works. Perhaps you would like to
connect these ways together. Maybe it would be good to find a
completely different way. The ideal situation would be that the way
would not take from anyone what is holy for them and give everyone the
way to an agreement. I have not recognized such a way yet.
Skidz.
Imagine, that you are illiterate, you cannot do anything, plus you're
under the poverty line in the area, where they are fighting. What is
easier for you? To take up a machine gun and to go to fight, or to
start to learn and to try to improve society? For you is certainly
easier the second, but for the Palestinians, or for similar ones it is
easier and more feasible the first. As the soldiers they get to eat,
they have a place to sleep and their living conditions are much better
than of civilians in the same area. Moreover, the priests say they are
warriors of Allah and if they die they reach eternal bliss after his
side, then everything is clear. You are looking at it from your
perspective and it is a mistake. From their perspective, everything is
completely different.
MB
My answer
Slávo,
thanks for your suggestions, so I think, that avoiding the destruction
of mankind is possible only through their
improved concentration, virtually unification in global
international organizations, which will be democratic and which will
have a social market dimension, i.e. solidarity of the rich and poor
will be valid for them. Only way one is to ensure, that in these
countries politics was not a matter of chance, thus the enforcement of
at some time the most powerful dictator, who will not hesitate to use
nuclear weapons to attack another country (for example, currently, if
there was an Islamist coup in Pakistan). Countries represented in such
global organizations will be bound as well as their national politics
will be predetermined by their obligations under international law
stemming from their involvement in such a global international
democratic and social market organization. Such a path could be as
enlargement of the European Union for Asian and African
countries, currently like Israel, Turkey, etc.
m) Marxism http://www.filosofie.cz/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=655 : Materialismus
Money is something like a stock of state, if
the performance of the state economy grows, the money can
appreciate, when state economic performance is declining, the money may
depreciate.
The cause of economic cycles, such as crises, depression, recovery and
boom in the market economy it is, in my view, the failure of
redistributive investment and planning function of the market, then
market participants and the state expect big profits from the business,
with great economic growth, therefore they invest (lend) and spend,
when these gains are nothing, then it leads to bankruptcies and
economic crisis, when investors are overly cautious on the contrary,
they are not investing, not spending money, it is leading to economic
decline, then it will stabilize the situation, then again, investors
will begin to invest more in a situation of slow economic growth until
the excessive optimism of investors, entrepreneurs and state,
when the
exaggerated
irreversible investments
occurs again, and the whole
situation is repeated. The basic mistake there is incorrect planning of
economic development and redistribution of economic goods of investors
and entrepreneurs if they correctly estimated using the market
mechanism development of the economy and in my view, there
would be a continuous economic growth without inflation. Therefore, in
terms of investments (loans) they should apply maximum transparency,
maximum possible control by investors (creditors), not corruption
environment that distorts information, and creditors must also consider
the compulsory insurance of large investments, etc.
Communist slogan "each according to his or her ability, to each
according to his or her needs" has in my opinion, the following defect.
Economic goods should not be distributed only under terms of
satisfaction of current needs, but also according to terms of meeting
future societal needs. In this respect, the large unmet needs of
people, in my opinion, are a great driving force of economic goods
supply within an economy by this individual. Unmet needs are the
greatest guarantee of future economic growth. Therefore it is not
possible to meet to a large extent the people's needs, who do not
deserve it through their profits. It is therefore necessary in terms of
future needs of society always to combine the needs
satisfaction with a successful bid of economic assets of an individual
in the economic social supply curve, then by this
individual achieved profit.
The socialist economy was not able, virtually did not try it because it
divided economic goods in the spirit of the above password to each
according to his or her current needs, thus the performance of this
economy decreased and also the value of its currency, virtually money.
Slávo,
paper money emerged out of private bills, i.e. debentures, where the
beneficiary had to be sure, that it will be paid in gold for example.
Paper money is a promissory note issued by the State through which its owner can pay even in
the worst case, where one would not want to accept it, at least our
debts to the state (taxes, social insurance and other charges, etc.).
At the same time the bills of state should be covered by state
property, they were previously covered entirely in gold, now it can
also be other income or assets of the state. As paper money does not
sound to equivalent of gold, but the nominal price of gold in
paper currency of a country can grow or decrease according to the
actual value of the currency to gold, the paper money can be compared
to state shares, the actual price of the stock market also varies
according to property and management of the stock corporation,
it should be at any nominal value (i.e. they have large or
small nominal value). Paper money as the shares of the State are
therefore covered by property of the society, virtually economy of a
country or group of states, where it is valid, and its real value also
grows or decreases in the currency market according to the actual value
of the assets and state economic performance as well as the shares in
the stock market.
The state should then be the guarantee, that it issues only so much new
paper money, how much economy has grown, virtually property of the
State, or, that it withdraws from the economy so much paper money, how
much the economy has decreased, virtually property of the State to
avoid high inflation, which would certainly result in the
redistribution of unearned assets within the society and mistrust in a
currency.
n) Collective justice is more than individual http://www.filosofie.cz/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=661 : Kolektivní spravedlnost je více než individuální?
Collective justice or good, which is an
evolution, has in mind the good of all living, and only within
it the individual good,
in words of the Bible: That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. Matthew 5:45. Evolution, in my opinion is
directed to a final agreement of all individuals of good and bad, the
good of innocent is not so superior to the
good of perpetrators of crime. In an ideal society the property of each
individual will match his or her vigor, vitality (in my opinion, its
kinetic energy), which we would be approaching through the gradual
educational abandoning of the property in favor of energetic
individuals, who are, also due to this education, still more
perfectly able to use their energy in favor of the society.
Surrendering of property includes also debts and guilts forgiveness. At
the same time those, who continually forgives, they will be so continuously forgiven, and
finally forgiven due to multi-offset of credits and debts in an
ever-expanding society based on the agreement instead of coercion.
Reaction by Gato:
It is because
the team consists of several individuals and several of them are more
than one.
Reaction by IPC:
What is greater
the part or the whole?
After answering
the question it follows:
Is the team
composed of parts i.e. individuals?
Reaction by Miloslav:
Dalibor.
Your assumption, that evolution must be only positive is incorrect.
Evolution is subject to conditions that affect it and they may lead the
evolution to both pros and cons. If you were a dinosaur, and there was
a change in living conditions, you probably do not consider ensuing
course of evolution as positive because it would lead to the
extinction of your species. If people destroy on the Earth the
conditions for life, the result of the ensuing evolution is not very
positive. We can say, that you follow erroneous assumptions and the
result is according to it.
With justice it is similar. There is no universally
applicable kind of justice and it is always subject to
circumstances which the society directs. Monarch creates laws according
to their interests, in a democracy the majority does it, and so on.
They are only looking for justice from their side, and then it just
seem to be just what you consider just. Another man in the other
conditions, however, could see it as a colossal injustice.
MB
Reaction by Gato:
Dalibor.
Your
assumption, that evolution must be only positive is incorrect.
Evolution is subject to conditions that affect it and they may lead the
evolution to both pros and cons. If you were a dinosaur, and there was
a change in living conditions, you probably do not consider ensuing
course of evolution as positive because it would lead to the
extinction of your species. If people destroy on the Earth the
conditions for life, the result of the ensuing evolution is not very
positive. We can say, that you follow erroneous assumptions and the
result is according to it.
Slávo,
I am a believer, and therefore I believe that there is universal
righteousness based on merits and for people who do not seek it, I have
less respect than for those who are looking for it.
Buddha calls
this justice dharma.
Reaction by Miloslav Bažant:
With justice it is similar. There is no
universally applicable kind of justice and it is always
subject to circumstances which the society directs. Monarch creates
laws according to their interests, in a democracy the majority does it,
and so on. They are only looking for justice from their side, and then
it just seem to be just what you consider just. Another man in the
other conditions, however, could see it as a colossal injustice.
Gato.
We are talking here about human justice. I'll show you an example and
you tell me what as the judge you think about it.
The girl was born and lived in family, where the parents get drunk and
stealing was often a way of subsistence for them. The girl has grown
and her own father abused her. After, that it was very close to
prostitution, from prostitution to drugs and then this girl murdered man
for
the money for her drugs. She was convinced as guilty. If the same girl
grew up in a normal family, it might be possibly physician and
respected human. Is it fair to judge her for what was the result of the
situation for that she actually could not be responsible, for which
someone else should be blamed? Courts have the task of protecting
society and it is assessed according to crimes and social hazard. What
would be your judgement?
MB
My answer
Collective justice in contrast to individual
justice as to me it is that nature does not destroy instantly the
evil (unnecessarily conflicting) individual and it leaves them
time to rectify. Collective justice, in contrast to individual justice,
does not reward also immediately good (growing compliance) of the
individual, while the harmony increase in area of an individual due to
his or her good deeds it is often occurred at a slower time.
Collective justice is therefore good for good and for evil it is
educational and intended to harmonize good and bad individuals, to
their agreement, as opposed to the individual justice, which,
figuratively speaking at a crucial moment sorts the wheat from the
chaff.
Reaction by Miloslav Bažant:
Gato.
There are many such cases and they are all similar. People living in a
particular environment and they are shaped by it and it forms them to
its own image. For the acts which arise as a result, the
individual is responsible, even though
the environment that shaped them has thereal blame.
Where then is there any justice? People living in normal environments
such people despise them, but if they had lived in that environment,
they would be the same as them, because they were implied by customary
rules of this environment. If the court knew the history of the
offender life, most would be unable to judge and to condemn them,
because they know, that they are rather victims. I am not
saying that, like others I do not feel the antipathy to these
criminals. I say only that real justice is unrealistic. If God existed
and he had to judge these people as omniscient, he would be
unable to the judgement. Neither the judgement of God is real.
MB
Reaction by Gato:
True justice is
unreal? Contradictory sentence. God is omnipotent, and therefore he can
decide. The human justice is based on us people and it is so imperfect,
as imperfect we are.
Reaction by Miloslav Bažant:
Gato.
Justice is the final outcome, and unless they are not resolved earlier
issues, or the right to the same environmental and developmental
conditions, the resultant is always chaotic and senseless. I expected
you to realize and you begin to talk about how to ensure equal
conditions for development of all individuals, so we return to the very
top of row at its end there is the assessment of justice. It would be
the subject without end and without real results, I am aware of it, but
one could reach some partial results and even ideas. At the same time
it revealed how many of us belong through their mentality to
left or to the right, or even the radical left or right.
So how do you want to solve the starting conditions equal for all? That
is the question into a brawl.
MB
My answer
Slávo, Gato,
In my opinion, there is an evolutionary (or developmental) collective
justice and perfect (ideal) collective justice, or consistency of each
and everything, which
the collective
justice seeks through the gradual development of the
above evolutionary collective justice. Each given fact is a
manifestation of that evolutionary collective justice. In other words,
each individual acts during his or her development what his or
her mind and strength are enough.
The concept of the death of an individual (eg, Jesus Christ, but also
of other subjects) is evolutionarily collectively just right,
because the experience of their mistakes leads all living
organisms to the ideal collective justice through the punishment for
killing any living creature, after which serving each living creature
can be free again, then unlimited by the forced punishment. In other words,
even if the individual's death is an evolutionary (or
developmental) collective justice, this fact is in terms of the
ideal collective justice (i.e. the perfect harmony of each and
everything) as the destination of this evolution very unfair.
Reaction by Miloslav Bažant:
Dalibor.
The only thing what is fair in the death is that everyone dies, that no
one is here forever. Nothing more. Everything else is relative. For
Jews the death of Jesus on the cross was just as he opposed
the truth, which they recognized and regarded as the only right. In
terms of later Christians, this death on the cross was unjust, because he brought the right, that they
recognized. The collective justice always saves truths of the
team and everything that threatens the truths, it is fair to destroy or
neutralize. Is it fair that most of the Gypsys teams are ignorant and
jobless? Each Gypsy will tell you, that it is not fair, but I respect
other truths, I can say, that it is fair and that for this state they
are themselves responsible. Nobody forced them not to send their
children to school and not to guard their education, as the rest does. When they do not do it, then their
children are uneducated, and as such, they are hardly employable. Such
children grow up and they are acting the same way as their parents act
and it still goes around. If among them there are people who have
engaged responsibly they leave this team and they take part in
the majority society, which accepts them as equal. So justice and in
particular the collective justice is difficult and it is always
relative.
MB
My answer
Slávo,
in my opinion the death and pain of
man or other living organism is one of the means of evolution, which as
to me is designed to progressively deeper harmony of each and
everything, the full perfection, that perfect harmony of each and
everything (i.e. the ideal justice) will be probably achieved in
infinite time.
From this concept it implies that any death and pain
is just evolutionarily fair, but in terms of the above
ideal justice is very unfair. In perfect society with perfect
dominating of nature it should not be difficult to revive from the
genetic code of a single surviving organism all other
living organisms.
Adding my answers:
In my opinion good in nature is the
evolution of nature (which is actually according to the exact
scientific knowledge), which means that any past, present and
future act is a natural evolutionary improvement of life in nature, in
other words, each act is a natural evolutionary improvement of all
living organisms, only within its context it improves an individual
living organism. Thus it is to see in successes of a person
as well as his or her failures, his or her health and his or her
illness, but also in their birth, pain but also in their
death.
If the humanity becomes perfect, then it will probably remember also their dead ancestors, that it will try to
revive from the genetic code of living individuals. (see petition "And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom." Luke
23:42)
No live organism itself may affect what it thinks. In other words, in
case of man no person alone can improve his or her sick or
only imperfect brain. All improvements as well as treatment of the
brain must come from outside human experience. The extra
experience of man creates social ties and links with inanimate nature,
which more or less restrict a freedom of man. Where such strong bonds,
as a result of natural punishment for killing of living
creatures, do not exist, there one acts freely, virtually in
my opinion, randomly (which stems from knowledge of quantum
mechanics, namely the Heisenberg´s uncertainty principle
of microparticles movement, of which location can be
determined only with more or less probability, never quite surely,
these microparticles create also things and people in our macroworld)
Evolution of nature, in my view, seeks more probably the
ultimate goal of perfect harmony of each and all that should be the
basis for voluntary bond in which all living organisms are attached,
especially man. Therefore, the
human is under this link more probably (objectively), and he or she
wants (subjective obligation) also to restrain the overall
summary power of collisions in our world, especially in case
of their knowledge of the final goal of evolution. It is an
objective and subjective nature of freedom.
(see: http://www.filosofie.cz/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=673: Dobro a zlo.)
o) Live and dead http://www.filosofie.cz/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1375 : Ráj začíná vědeckým pokusem na mé zahradě
I think, that all living organisms,
if they are human, animal, plant, fungus, cell or virus, they have a
soul, in the sense, that they have more or less perfect model
of the world. For the man it is the world model in terms of
thinking and emotions, for animals it is rather the emotional world
model, which allows them to be conscious of themselves as an individual
(see Descartes: I think, therefore I am.), to receive sensory input, to
remember at least in the form of feeling, to perceive sensations such
as pain and to learn from experience, in case of plants, fungi, living
cells and viruses it is concerned particularly
the feeling model of the world, enabling them to future
behaviors on the basis of past experience.
This soul, virtually model of the world differs the living organisms
from inanimate things. Robot, which would have such a soul, virtually
world model would be, in my opinion, a living creature.
p) In an ideal society there is not private
property http://www.filosofie.cz/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=663 : V ideální společnosti nebude soukromý majetek?
One should realize, that all property which
has, things, rights and life, etc., it was only entrusted to them by
nature or God and when they die, everything will leave again, possibly
they will have to give account of their management (disposition) of
this property during their life to God.
Therefore people should strive to achieve the ideal society
(Utopia), where the property is owned by the individual,
who will be able for it to achieve the maximum fair profit
(no external costs like environmental damage associated with the profit
and other damages, etc.). In my opinion the ability to achieve the
maximum profit is related to energy, vitality, vigor of
someone, who must be able to use this power in favor of their society.
In an ideal society based on genuine and lasting free agreement of all
concerned individuals, man will have such property only entrusted by
the society and if another
individual will be with it able to achieve a fair bigger profit, this
man gives the property to another individual, who once again will be
entrusted only by society. So there will be a private
property. Still, there should be ownership of that property,
in some form of latent (sleeping) written ownership, which shall live
when the collapse of the ideal society at the moment, differences of
its members will change a lasting and
free agreement of all members of this ideal society. Individual
property rights will then form only an guaranty for each of
its members in the ideal
society.
An example of this approach, the ideal society today it may be the
European Union, as agreed form of one whole, in that there are
individual Member States, which in the case of the collapse of the
European Union or in the event of termination of membership of a state
in the European Union re-take all sovereign rights assigned to the
trans-national unit.
Reaction by Fallout:
People should
just NOT attempt to utopia. The absence of private ownership is the
suppression of natural human nature.
And you are
talking about a fair profit, but in fact you do not almost describe it in details.
My answer
In my opinion there are two types of economic
communities one is a family economy and the other market
economy. As far as I am concerned, I would like to see in the economy
the several elements of the family, more love to neighbors. At the same
time I realize, that this can be easily abused, so I suggest above
guaranty of sleeping latent property, of which relations shall live in
the event, that a member of the ideal (or family) society abused their
membership in this great family.
A fair profit is the product of economic growth without external
damages (such as in the environment, in the life of living creatures),
which would be paid in the future. Economic product growth
is the opposite to a simple reallocation of assets within the society
based on various forms of theft of property.
Reaction by Miloslav Bažant:
Dalibor.
Above this topic I only turn my head. You're not at all orginal with
this view. It was an exemplary idea of Hussites and all could be said,
that it was thought of the Communists. Please start thinking a bit. If
everything will be common, then nobody will have the need to create
values and they will rely on, that someone else creates and the result
will be as common. It's sounding to the people nice and the thought can
lead people to try to realize this, as it already happened several
times, but this is only populism, nothing more. I would not want to live
in
such a society for anything, the right of fist would eventually win and
people would have fought for the remnants of what was created by the
society, in which an incentive
operated.
If you want to argue with the fact, that such companies need to educate
people, do not do it because I had heard it from childhood about the
system called communism.
My answer
Slávo,
you believe in heaven or paradise? Do you think, that in heaven or paradise is private
property? I'm not talking about a society based on coercion
of those, who do not want to live in it, but the society based on the
voluntary agreement of its members, if at every moment man
would want to leave, they could take their property and they could
leave.
In fact, I think, I am different from the Communists, who took the
property of people by force.
Ideal society (Utopia), based on the joint, virtually sleeping
individual ownership would be marked like the heaven or paradise by triple prohibition of coercion:
1) You cannot force anyone to become a member of the ideal society
against their will.
2 ) You cannot compel anyone to share as a member of the ideal
society with someone, with whom they do not want to share,
members of the ideal society would decide on the basis of agreement
about an adoption or expulsion of a member.
3) You cannot force anyone to stay in the society, a member should
always be able to withdraw their dormant assets from the society to
leave.
Approximation to the ideal society (i.e. utopia) based on a permanent
agreement of its members would not then happen by force,
virtually state forcing, which can be used as to me only in the case of
defense against evil-doer, which is unnecessarily increasing conflicts
within the state, but through the emergence, or disappearance of
partial private ideal societies of some or more individuals. The
involvement or the departure from such an ideal society by individuals
cannot be considered as an unnecessary conflict (i.e. damage), but it
is a consequence of the freedom of individuals and a device of the
competitiveness of such ideal society based solely on the continued
agreement of all its members.
They would be special Israeli kibbutzim equivalent,
but not intended solely for agricultural activities, plus with the
right to property settlement in case of member´s leaving and
it should not necessarily contain ownership of agricultural land.
Reaction by Miloslav Bažant:
Dalibor.
Heaven for me is what I see overhead and it can be day or night sky. So
I believe in the existence of heaven thanks to my senses,
which supply me this information. But I do not believe in
heaven, as the faith preaches. I do not believe in an afterlife,
because it lacks the way to transfer all the information of the brain
so it was again me in the afterlife.
I do not believe in the benefit of system you show. There are many
places that trigger dispute, that even I do not want to describe it.
Just for illustration. You shall put
into the system your property you would normally
multiply. Here there will be assessment of the property, but you
stopped to like it, you would need a large pool, with which they do not
count and when leaving you would only get the
foundation, with which you came, like you would do nothing all the
time. People do not have the same abilities and they do not even have
the same needs, which in itself exclude the benefit of such a system.
Kibutzs are subject to the faith and those who are there, they are
always ideologically processing and taught that the property is not
kosher. I am a free man, I came to such a system only when my
abilities faded and that equality would not have bothered me, because I
would have no longer such needs as I am having so far.
If you want, then I show you another Utopian system which, unlike yours
is creating a high level of incentives. Yet this system does not seem
realistic and it can make you something to understand.
First, we need to introduce the system in the factory as a pyramid, and
we can draw pressures and back pressures, which the system operates.
There is thus a top, or manager (eg Director), which has functions of
incentives and repression. Below, they have to be deputies, they have
beneath them the heads of operations, those the masters, they the mates
and those the workers. When you look at the pressures and back
pressures established there and you turn the pyramid, that back
pressures can act gravity, then
the pyramid is at the top and manager conquers through his pressure the
whole system weight. Similarly, in all groups, but workers
are free of this burden of back pressure. If this pyramid will turn,
that it stands at the base, it is necessary to change the entire
system. The basis shall become operative, but it no longer needs the
command or repression, but the profit incentive, which must have
guaranteed integrity. The worker produces some of the semifinished
product and he or she buys it from a group of workers on the operation
below. He or she adds his or her job and he or she sells a
product to the group above. If he or she produces nothing, he
or she has nothing and this is the best incentive I know what
repression. The worker does need someone who gives him or her purchase,
sale and direct economic strategy, or the former partner or a master.
The master gives his team the abilities, and therefore he or she is
paid by a collective. The team has the opportunity to choose a master
if he or she fails to fulfill his or her role well, they
replace him or her for another, better, and it's their own
sake. If they change the better one for the worse one, it would be to
the result of their own profit. Masters require more management, and
therefore they charge and pay the manager. The same can be used at the
very top of the pyramid. Consequently, all are interested in the profit
and all the back pressure have
disappeared
in the system, as the scattered powers in a broad base of the pyramid.
Such a system would perform the role of money as battery capacity,
there would be a maximum effort to prosperity and it disappeared all
disputes of hierarchy. Such a system could be described as more than
just right.
Is it a Utopian system? Is
this a copy of Švarc system? It is not a copy from the
simple reason. In Švarc system pressures and back
pressure work as in the normal system and usual manager can assume the part of
the profit and he or she cannot be exchanged for better manager.
A question of utopia is one might say half. Implementing this
system it would be quite simple. It would transfer the salaries of all
the factors on the percentages and leave this level as the start.
Thereafter, they varied according to the labor market. Production costs
remain the same, but there is a system that will better choose
suppliers according to quality and price, so the price costs
automatically fall. As everyone is interested in profits, it increases
morale and productivity at the absolute maximum, of which the system is
capable. That is why it is necessary to transfer salaries to a
percentage, it increases the profits, then it increases the value of
percent. This system is then managed by itself and to the maximum
prosperity. Each of the factors of system actually becomes a private
contractor who is interested in the others in team because it allows a
profit.
It should be noted that the exemplary worker has no possibility to
influence who will be deputy, as this man represents and carries out
service operations for an exemplary leader of operations and they pay
him or her, and they have chosen him or her and they have possibility
to withdraw them and to exchange them for better one.
This topic is too broad for this forum, if I do not write a book here.
Still, I would like to show what would happen if the private owner has
transferred his or her business to this system. Its current profit
would be converted to percentages and it would be retained. In the
system there would be interest in income it would arise the prosperity
and thereby it would evaluate the percentage of owner, so he or she
should get much higher profit
When
they would transfer their business back into the current system, this
would create back-pressure and prosperity would begin to decline
sharply. And so the owner should have a much higher profit using this
system but he or she loses the ability to influence their own firm
through order and repression. This would completely extinguish a class
conflict between the working class and the owner of the plant.
I suspect, that this "Utopian" system is more realistic than the
society not respecting the basic function of money, it is a profit
incentive.
MB
My answer
Slávo to your model,
that you would transfer to a staff the business risk. While
still true that the owner of the company has the business risk, he or
she chooses the staff, foremen and managers and he or she takes profits
as well as loss of funds, you would like, that employees would
be dependent on the fact whether the semiproduct someone buys from them
as employees had to invest in materials and production resources and to
risk that the product is not to sell. At present, however, to the staff
the wage belongs, if the firm is in profit, but even at a loss and
further the two month notice period and three months severance pay
on termination for organizational reasons.
High profits of some business owners are the compensation for their
business risk, because they may much to gain but much to lose.
Nothing, however, prevents workers, if he or she feels, that their
power is not sufficiently utilized in the employment to form their own
company. Ordinary workers often prefer to choose security, virtually
some lower income from wages, because they have not enough energy to
set up their own business, carrying the above business risk.
To my model of ideal society, I would like to add:
Any agreement is a compromise between the desire to obtain, virtually
maintain friendship and profit. Therefore, in the case of an ideal
society group based on freedom and genuine lasting agreement, as I
described it earlier in this topic, for example, probably even in the
kibbutz the personal profit
is not the only
aspect to remain in this group, but the friendship of its members accesses.
To support my model, I want to cite Aristotle, on the one hand, he was
sworn supporter of private property, on the other hand, he has said:
"The proverb should be true for the property of the good people, that
friends should have everything (i.e. also private property) together."
In other words, the rich man could enter into this ideal society group,
especially to gain friends, which he or she would be willing to
sacrifice some of their profits, a poor man would come into this social
group, primarily to improve their social status, and the middle class
would have gone into the ideal society groups in particular to expand
its profit and circle of friends.
Reaction by Miloslav Bažant:
Dalibor.
Yes. Indeed I transfer risk of loss on anyone, who works in this
system, but also profit. I never said that the owner would cover costs
and even energy or material and in the case of failure to bear the
loss. You did say it and I say not. This applies to your model
of the kibbutz, however, with it that the loss is borne by all. In my
model only those who caused the loss. Imagine you need to produce
furniture as private owner. You have to buy wood, you have to pay the
energy and perhaps even to buy new machines. The same is true for the
people in my system. Just things like that the master secured before,
now their manager and for that he or she is paid. When he or she makes
a mistake, then for his or her own responsibility. It is fairer than
the distribution of losses among all if they are guilty or not for the loss. Of course it would require a
business account for everyone in the system and those who would do
damage, the system would exclude. Upon leaving, however, the amount for
investments, that he or she put into the system, would be added to his
or her account. It would be a very hard system and a hard competition
would operate in it. Imagine that there was a bunch of cleaning men.
They would be paid by those who need it and those cleaners would split
these parts. But then one could buy for his or her money a cleaning
machine and he or she reduces the cost for cleaning. Of course, each
would rather pay less and so the other cleaners would have a choice.
Either find another job, or to buy it too. Manufacturing groups would
also have the choice of supplier and their representative would select
the most advantageous. Efficiency and equity would have been in this
system on the maximum, but working there it would be not a walk through
a rose garden. In addition to such a system, the current system would
not be able to compete.
MB
My answer
Slávo,
your system is based on the increase of distrust between people, who
would have to keep records of each of its sub-activities, to submit tax
returns and other reports to state. Your system is based on splitting
the corporate team, where worker did not believe to the foreman, a
master to a manager and manager to an owner and for every slightest
company movement they would expose the financial documents in order to
find out, who in the company is in loss and who in a company is in
profit. Equally, however, it is not possible without an agreement,
because the production of any complex product requires cooperation,
i.e., agreement on purchase of material, to cover the energy as in the
manufacturing hall, on cleaning the factory building, on purchase of
machinery designed for more people, etc.
My proposal is based on the contrary, on increase of trust among
people, on the unification of all people, to achieve maximum individual
economic performance, it is intended for the Society of Friends,
provided, that they are still my friends (our society is lasting) that
is essentially if they develop maximum individual economic performance
for these friends. In my view, it is the concentration of social and
market factors within a single economic entity independent of the State.
In other words, if I return to the parable of the above ideal society
with heaven or paradise, every member of this ideal society wants to be holy,
because their friends are saints, and also because they would
be afraid not to be excluded from this ideal society by other
members.
Reaction by Miloslav Bažant:
Dalibor.
I was also young, but I just did not have such illusions about people.
People either want to get something for free, or at least justice. They
are not saints and they will never be. Eventually you will know when
you finish school and come to work among them. I have the impression,
that you quickly switch the illusion and it occurs disillusionment.
Tell people, that they have the same and you know the two basic types
of people. Those unable will nod, and those able they
crush you in their teeth, because they do not want to rub for
incompetent, lazy and to have just as they have. If you were actually
able to realize it, and then they would slack and they, who are
capable, and a few eccentrics would toil, but not for long.
I thought, that rather than you think about it, what would be reached
by the reversed system of relationships that would
have radically changed and how. Everyone should work according to their
abilities and everyone should get according to their merits and this
would be completely secured. This is what you wrote, it is maintained
even in a normal system, and thus it would not change that much.
As I said, all this would be a widespread work to describe everything
in detail, but here is not enough space, and as I know, nor will to
think about it. In my system, that I was afraid to work, especially
today, when the strength wane
me,
but in your system, that I would never want to work, because still I
have more skills than some people who would paralyze me and they would have without merits as well
as me they have the same on their plate. They should
have the same bed, desk and wardrobe, and possibly
clothing, and when I wanted something else, then I would hear, that I
will have it when all will have it. Something like that is very close
to the idea of communism, but the Communists would not go so far, that
they realize the absurdity of such a system.
MB
My answer
quoted:
Post of Dalibor Grůza
In my opinion the ability to achieve the
maximum profit it is related to energy, vitality, vigor
of someone who must be able to use this power in favor of his
or her society. In an ideal society based on the genuine and lasting
free agreement of all concerned individuals, man will have such
property only vested by the society in the event, that another
individual will be able with it to achieve a bigger fair profit, he or
she will be obliged to transfer the assets to another individual, who
again will be entrusted only with it by a society.
Hence:
in an ideal society based on the permanent agreement of all the members
all will not have the same, only it will be concerned the
ownership of Society of Friends, in which the 100% agreement will
decide also on the joint distribution of profits (and it will always be
a compromise between private profit and friendship). Of course, those
able members of the ideal society would disagree with an
agreement under which they all have the same share of the profit or
loss. In the event, that it is not possible to reach this agreement so
it will come to life the above written dormant property, which the
dissentient member of this society separates this alive more or less
big individual property (i.e. deposit and above described agreed share
of the profit or loss) and he or she will be able to go their own way.
For assets of the Society of Friends it would be distinguished the
right to manage and co-ownership of Society of Friends, and whoever had
the right to manage the assets he or she would be entitled to free disposal of these assets
to third parties without restriction. However, about the right of
management, its termination, possibly. internal guidelines for its
implementation, which would not be effective against third parties
outside the Society of Friends, the 100% agreement by
all members would decide. Otherwise, there the dissenting
member could be leaving, who would get their deposits,
plus his or her share of the profit or loss of Friends Society.
Reaction by Miloslav Bažant:
Dalibor.
Do not you think we are here as a stall keepers somewhere at the fair?
We talk about own goods and we do not care, what the neighbor offers
and what are the praises. What meaning can then have this debate, not
debate, but two monologues?
I offered something to think about which I could show you what is
wrong. However, you got fixed idea coming from your youthful
inexperience, and there's still repeating. Are you talking about
friends? When you grow up a bit you stay in everyday life, then you
know why you must secure your back. There are the friends but each one
thinks primarily on themselves and then to his or her friend. It sounds
hard and you will probably oppose the fact, that you have a friend,
that by his or her behaviour demonstrates otherwise. And I have a
friend and there are a lot, but I also know other friends and I was a
friend who could at some point in particular to think about myself.
Depending on the friendship and especially in some economic system it
is a utopia of youthful ignorance of the situation. Good economic
system must respect the real human qualities and characteristics,
including the wicked and use them for the function of the system. When
you do not respect these, an Utopian
confusion
always arises. Even my system that does not preserve all of these human
characteristics, and therefore it is Utopian. However, less than yours.
MB
My answer
My goal was not to replace the (social) market
economy of country by the Friends Society by any law or other legal
compulsion, the general rule, you do not do through simply forcing from
the enemy or the stranger the friend. I merely suggested another type
of society, which would exist in addition to the association under the
Act on Association of Citizens, an association under civil code,
commercial companies (such as partnership, limited partnership, Ltd.,
stock corporation and the cooperative), and European companies (such as
the European stock company etc.). The main purpose of the new group
organizing department would be to bring people together not
only on the basis of individual economic gain but also on the basis of
friendship.
As I believe, that base for friendship of members of certain society is
its economy, i.e. a fair distribution of wealth of the society, which
would be achieved by the sustained 100% agreement of its members.
Reaction by Miloslav Bažant:
Dalibor.
If I was the gentleman in the background, then I would strongly agree
with you. Those unable dissents would be withdrawn into your system,
where they vegetated, but they could just blame themselves and a normal
economy would exclude them. Do you think Kibbutz has a different sense?
You want socialism, so they take it and give us peace. So men in the background think
and
therefore they support this idea. So you could have a hope that the
implementation occurs. Kibbutzs treat ideals better than prison, and
whoever leaves them is perfectly cured from the ideals.
MB
My answer
Slávo,
according to literature, there are three systems of ethics, the three
concepts of ideal character and moral life. One system is a system of
Buddha and Jesus. It stresses the virtues of the female species, it
considers all people as equally valuable, resisting evil only through
good, it identifies virtue with love and in politics it tends to
unlimited democracy. Another is the ethics of Machiavelli and
Nietzsche. It highlights the virtues of man, it preaches
inequality between people, recognizing the risk of combat, conquest and
government, it identifies virtue with power and it proclaims a
hereditary aristocracy. Ethics of Socrates, Aristotle and
Plato denies universal applicability of both female and male
virtue, the reason has to decide according to them, when the love or
the power must come to the word.
Now I try to explain these concepts under the terms of the exact
sciences. Man by nature has significantly greater energy than a woman
and a woman is significantly less energic than the male. If we consider
energy as the momentum, a man with greater momentum is more able to
knock with his force his wife, a woman with less momentum is rather
knocked, because of
her weakness,
by her husband in their mutual conflict. (This follows from the
physical law of action and reaction).
But even the strongest man can be knocked out by more powerful
individual, possibly individuals (by proverb: For every pig
is to find a butcher) and in turn even the strongest man,
whether any evil he is, essentially he likes his children (see
Bible, New Testament, Luke 11.13: If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?). In other words, even the worst man always combines in
himself the above male and female element. If I explain it in
the terms of the exact sciences, even in the man with the greatest
final energy, virtually momentum in the scale of energy, virtually
momentum, there are two border points in his relationships, the lower
border point, i.e. a person a little less energetic and the upper
border point, i.e. a person a little more energetic. E.g. if one has
energy 3Joules of kinetic energy, the person of energy 4
Joules of kinetic energy
represents the
feminine element, and the male element the person 2 Joules of
kinetic energy.
Next, I would point out that
the forcefulness of individual I
understand their kinetic energy or momentum, rather than as their
potential (kinetic) energy, i.e. a different kind of energy as kinetic
energy potentially convertible into kinetic energy (it is here as the
fat stores).
Now to my model of the ideal voluntary Society (or company) of Friends.
This Society of Friends is a compromise between friendship
(i.e., the aforementioned female element) and the individual gain
(i.e., the aforementioned male element). Slávo, you can see
in it only socialism, which is shown by me given friendship,
but it should be noted that, in my conception of the Society of Friends
there is also included egoism, which is in my point of view presented
as the individual profit. In other words, my projected 100% agreement
of all members of the Society of Friends would not be possible if the
profit is divided equally, because the subjects with the above
prevailing masculine element
would not agree
with it.
My put Society of Friends would stand on the
middle layer, in other words, it would correct (partly but not
entirely) the extremes of the above male and female component
of individuals. This means, that it would make partly friends
(socialize) from individuals with high-dominant male element and partly
it would individualize (egoize) individuals with high-dominant female
element. In other words, it would increase some energy of weak
individuals and it would decrease some energy, vigor of powerful
individuals, vigor, energy of middle class would remain unaltered.
This friendly earning correction of
high above-average performed individual (i.e. with highly predominant
male factor) could never be complete, that all have the same, because
it would be discouragingly to these powerful individuals. This
correction would be to the extent, that the rich and the poor
individual were and remained friends, i.e., to avoid the collapse of
friends society, that the highly efficient individual
would leave otherwise surely. We thus avoid wars, because
friends have no wars among themselves, if they remain
friends. Social differences in the Society of Friends would remain
after the above-friendly correction of earnings retained, because they
represent the momentum of the economy and also of the
above Society of Friends.
* Literature:
Durant, W., Příběh Filosofie, Praha,
publisher PRAGMA, p. 163 (just under the heading "3. Inteligence a
morálka")
Reaction by Miloslav Bažant:
Dalibor.
The entire system is missing one important thing. Who would decide
about how much they get. This is to be argued and who has developed
more of masculine element, will have more? If there you imagine a boss
as decision-makers, then you're in a normal socialism and it can be no
question of justice and thus friendship is also none.
When the right of the stronger
is
valid, then you're somewhere in the primitive commune society.
MB
My answer
About the distribution of common income the
common unanimous (100%) agreement of all members of the Society of
Friends, not a leader, it would decide. In the event, that
this agreement has not been reached, then the individual, who is not
consenting, could leave the Society of Friends and take his or
her deposit plus their unanimously agreed share of the profit or loss
from previous periods. Unanimous agreement by all members of Friends
Society about the annual profit sharing it always includes a friendly
aspect and dimension of individual profit. In other words, for the
emergence of the unanimous agreement of all members of Friends Society the
powerful individual would like a greater share of
profits than the less powerful individual and he or she
would be willing to give up part of his or her profit for the
weak members of the Society of Friends because that is their friend.
Reaction by Miloslav Bažant:
Dalibor.
What could I say you about it? People just are not in such a majority
and those who are, must be influenced by faith that promises them a
profit somewhere in the afterlife. Hundred percent of agreement was
possible only, where people were afraid to disagree. I well remember
the automatical lifting of hands and I'm glad I do not have to see it.
Wait for ten years with your system, until you accommodate a little and
you know what people are, and then you raise it back, if you still
believe it.
MB
My answer
Slávo,
let's test the practicality, virtually usefulness of my ideas and an
model
of my ideal
Society of Friends to use on the famous court case REGINA v. DUDLEY
& STEPHENS from 1884, when there remained on the lifeboat in a
storm without food and water three men and a boy. After 19 days Dudley suggested to
Stephens throwing lots about who will be killed. Brooks refused. After
Dudley and Stephens decided from the fear for survival without
food and water and after 19 days they killed the boy against his will
and they all ate him together. After another remaining 4 days they
were all saved. The court then sentenced Dudley and Stephens as
intentional murder to death.
Dudley and Stephens were a masculine principle of fight, a boy and
Brooks feminine principle of love to neighbor. In other words, Dudley
and Stephens possess together more power than probably together Brooks
and boy. All should on the boat be friends, the Dudley and Stephens
would give up their individual profits, namely water and body
fluids represented by the boy, that all can be friends. The solution
also came to the reasons of the above court decision, that all had to
take risks and to wait until one of them dies a natural death after the
depletion of the remaining common food and water and possibly then the
dead body to use as food or liquid.
In the event, that any of the crew refused the agreement and he decided
to kill the boy, another two men and a boy would always stay as a Society of
Friends, which could hinder the boy. In the event, that such an
agreement rejected Dudley and Stephens, as happened in this case, only
Brooks and boy would represent the Society of Friends. In this case,
the question was whether the Society of Friends formed by a boy and
Brooks disintegrates as a result of stronger threat of Dudley and
Stephens, or whether Brooks also leaves the ideal Society of Friends,
which is his right, or he will behave in an ideal manner (i.e., use of
male principle of the fight) and they will jointly defend with the boy
outnumbered.
Brooks' feminine principle has prevailed, that he stood outnumbered and
he admitted, that Dudley and Stephens killed the boy, he was not
maintained, therefore, ideally in line with the principles of my
Friends Society, but legally but cowardly he backed down. It can be
assumed, that Dudley and Stephens individually have more power (vigor,
momentum) than Brooks as an individual, because in this case, the
cowardice of Brooks was more probable than his heroism. If Brooks as an
individual had more power (vigor, momentum) than Dudley and Stephens as
individuals, that he would be the strongest of all on the boat, he
would be a leading member of the group, then his ideal behavior was
probable and he would probably avoid the tragedy.
In the above analysis of power (or vigor) of Dudley, Stephens and
Brooks it is only probable, not certain (i.e., predetermined, virtually
determined) behavior of (evolutionarily) imperfect individuals. The
situation could also develop with less probability differently
also in the case of possible weakness of Brooks. While Brooks
maintained under the law, but not ideal to say ethically, and as a
result of his conduct it apparently was also his strong sense of his
own imperfection, so the big increasing of contradictions of his soul,
virtually in it contained model of the world.
Such experience of own imperfectness in my opinion is the nature of
self-movement, virtually more probable movement of the soul to the need
of own self-improvement, or to freely and genuinely voluntary universal
establishment of Friends Society for all living organisms.
Literature:
- Irwin’s business law, Klayman E.I.,
Bagby J.W., Ellis N.S., publisher Richard D. Irwin, inc, USA, 1994.
Adding to my answers:
In the real society the dual direction of
socialization (the above feminine principle) and of egoization (the
above masculine principle) of individuals are confronted. Each individual
naturally socializes the stronger, more energetic (in my opinion, with
bigger momentum) individuals than him or herself, and they egoize
individuals with less vigor, vitality and energy than him or herself.
With the socially average individual it is so socialization
and egoization of others in balance, for above average vital, energetic
individual in real society it is the prevailing egoization of
other individuals, for the socially under-energetic,
vigorous individual the socialization of any others outweighs.
Therefore, as young people egoize society in particular,
for middle-aged people mostly egoization and socialization are
in balance and the elderly mostly socialize society.
Society of Friends, based on a permanent 100% agreement
of all its members while it corrects the errors of the above natural
egoization and
socialization of its members. So also socializating (e.g., old or sick
person) member of Society of Friends must to some extent, act
selfishly, to preserve friendship of socially stronger than average,
more vital i.e. mostly selfish members of Society of Friends, and most
selfish member of Society Friends must behave in some extent socially
to maintain friendship of socially under-average vital, energetic, i.e.
mostly socializating members of Friends Society.
Therefore, Brooks in the above court case, even if for him in the real
society the above-mentioned feminine principle naturally had
to apply, in terms of the ideal Society of Friends he must choose a
masculine principle and fight to save the boy against the odds, to
maintain a friendship of stronger than average, more vital, i.e. mostly
selfish members of Society of Friends.
Utopian universal (ideal) Society of Friends is
so a compliance of each and everything, a consistency of good and
evil, a consistency of words yes and no, metaphorically speaking,
conformity with Christ and the Devil, that such compliance is on the
one hand maximum yes and minimum no on the other hand, maximum no and
minimum yes, figuratively speaking maximally bad and minimally good
Christ and a maximally good and minimally bad Devil, that they could
both be members of the same (universal) Society of Friends.
Reaction by Gato:
Slávo,
Why do you confirm the existence of one world, if you do not
believe it?
Reaction by Miloslav Bažant:
Gato.
The world is one. This is doubtless, even though some idealists argue
that there are more worlds. Different people are also a part of the
world. Some give their abilities to others from love for them and some
exploit their abilities for their own and their recognized
truth. It should be noted, that those, who abuse their abilities, are
much more than those, who use them for the benefit of others. Such
people are rather exception than an abuse of capacity is a dominant
behavior, that you could also see and percept. Dalibor is still too
young and such knowledge is still ahead. Once he will know it, his
opinion no longer will be so Utopian, not considering with the majority
that destroys any such an attempt to do something similar. It is
therefore something of such unrealistic and Utopian. Look, the latest
election of the president and imagine, that you want to promote there a
really good personality. At present it would be the same utopia,
because most members abusing their abilities for their recognized truth
or sides, which they represent. The fact, that these people represent
the citizens, I would not rather talk.
MB
My answer
Slávo,
possible compliance of egoists and socialists in the Society
of Friends can be found also in the far-right philosophy of Friedrich
Nietzsche: Although the philosopher celebrates the Superman as
a "gang of blond Beasts", which is on the one hand, allowed
almost everything ( "It is a race of warriors and rulers with
military organization, power and courage to organize, shamelessly to
put paw on the population to be in number, much stronger", "what the
contracts for those who can control, who is by nature the ruler and on
the scene comes with the violence in the actions and behavior") but with
the exception of treason of a friend.
* Literature:
Durant, W.,
Příběh Filosofie, Praha, Nakladatelství PRAGMA,
p. 382 and 383 (above and below the heading "VII. DEKADENCE")
q) Is the way we understand the world right? http://www.filosofie.cz/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=666 : Je způsob, jakým se snažíme pochopit svět správný?
My answer
Paul,
one knows the real world only from the model of the world, which is
contained in his or her soul, virtually brain. Question is, whether
using this factual model of the world we can come to the knowledge of
the real world (thing about itself by I. Kant)? In my opinion, it is
possible, the role of all living creatures, the dead, live and born in
the future is to improve the model of the world, so that in an
infinite future time the complete compliance appears between this
model, virtually picture of the reality contained in the brains of all
living creatures and this reality. In other words, such a
perfect model, virtually image of Karlstejn Castle is real
Karlstejn Castle. Based on the perfect model, virtually image of nature
(world) included through exact sciences in the future infinite time in
human brains it will be possible in my opinion to answer also all
philosophical questions, such as the question of the existence of God,
afterlife, etc. This is in my view, because in my opinion a
soul of both a man and other living creatures and the
objective sensory reality of human and others living creatures form one
whole, the movement of micro particles in terms of microscopic physics.
It is so in my opinion, to speak of the unity of (mental) nature and
(sensorial) objectivity of man and other
living beings.
Phenomenal model, virtually world view of a man and other living
creatures contained in their brains, virtually souls it can display
either the fact (the thing itself, in the case of pantheism the nature
will be the model of knowing God himself formed by all the physical
energy), or again other improved model of reality (matrix). Factual
model contained in the brain of man and other living creatures
can be either a model of reality or the model of another
better model (e.g. ideas of God, or the perfect computer-program with
greater storage capacity than living organisms, etc.). Yet I
believe that given the fact, that the object of the model of the world
contained in the human brain is presented by the physical energy, not
just by the thought relations, rather it is an own reality (the real
world).
As an example of a solution to this problem it is possible to show Bible,
which in the book of Genesis, verse 26 says: And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: " Man and
his or her world, possibly his or her soul would probably represent the
idea, virtually model or image of the God of hosts contained in God's
mind or the physical model, image of God, which is part of God's body,
virtually individual in the hosts of the God of hosts.
Another example is orthodox system of Indian philosophy
Sánkja and yoga based on the dual principle, namely on the
one hand, prakrti, original nature, the principle of active material,
which is in constant motion, but it lacks self-awareness, and on the
other hand, Purusa, purely spiritual principle, which is not active,
but spiritual and gifted by mind. In the individual life as well as the
large events of the world it depends therefore on the Purusa his sight.
Prakrti-feminine principle, not without a deeper reason, as to her
salvation she needs something else that is out of her, she must so long
develop in front of sight of Purusa (as a dancer performs viewers),
until Purusa realizes his
otherness and he turns from her and himself and prakrti he saves. In my above-mentioned concepts, this means
that humans and other living creatures are destined to create
increasingly sophisticated models, pictures of nature in human brains,
etc., virtually soul (i.e. God in the case of my pantheistic concept),
the increasingly sophisticated knowledge of nature is enforced by very
nature (or by the desire of God in my pantheistic conception of the
unity of nature and God), virtually its evolution as their general
objective.
Literature
1) STORIG, H.J.: Malé dějiny filosofie.
Praha, Zvon, 1991,. p. 57 et seq.
Reaction by Miloslav Bažant:
in my opinion
both the soul of a man and the sensory objective reality of
man form a single whole of the movement of microparticles in terms of
microscopic physics.
David.
I am quite a quiet person and rarely something makes me angry, but your
claim of micro particles movements in terms of the microscopic
physics is not far from it. Explain properly the influence of the
movement of micro particles, or you do not know yourself what it means,
then you rather do not use it. But I am not interested in explanations
of the type of non-zero particles and alike, but the context and
influence of this movement in details in the specific acts or thinking
of a man.
MB
My answer
When I explain the movement of the micro
particles and human nature, I
refer to my comments in Chapter g) How I
see the blame, punishment and forgiveness for criminals. And I add to it, because my worldview is
based on the surest of what we have in everyday life that is, knowledge of (the most useful for mankind) exact
sciences, and because general philosophical concepts I do not consider
to be exact (precise), this is in case of my philosophy an
attempt of physical (exact) philosophy, which is based on general
physical etc. exact knowledge and on exact scientific terms.
The strength of the general philosophical terms, in my opinion, is so
small, that with their use practically nothing cannot be
named, to identify or to verify the accuracy of a philosophy, which is
due to their highest level of generalization, virtually generality.
Reaction by Miloslav Bažant
Dalibor.
Also science is done just by people, and if their micro particles move a little on side, then it could create
such nonsense. Has he seen the micro particles, has he examined them or
has he just made it all up? Is it a proved theory, and is it one of
those, which we cannot prove or disprove?
MB
My answer
Slávo,
at least it is the precise definition using exact (i.e. measurable)
scientific concepts, which can be clearly confirmed or refuted, unlike
other philosophies. Unlike other former adoption of the philosophy
which is fundamentally a question of faith in this or any other
philosophical school, and even in case of your materialism.
Answer by Miloslav Bažant:
Dalibor.
Accurate, perhaps scientific, but noncommittal, as if it is constantly
repeated, it is not only boring, but annoying. Once I come across this in your text, I do not read beyond it.
Reaction by Dragonier:
DG
According to me, no probability exists because we cannot calculate all
plots and include all circumstances what can happen.
My answer
One can imagine the final result of certain
action, i.e. whether it is good or evil. The human mind has a
form of reality model, with greater or less measure.
E.g. if one thinks Karlstejn Castle that is a model of the castle in
the mind of man. While in the case of the exact model of the castle in
the mind of man it would be the castle itself contained in the mind
(scale 1:1). But man sees in his or her mind, only the surface of
things and persons (e.g. Karlstejn Castle), it is concerned his or her
model in mind with a very low scale.
Philosophy is a model of the whole act (i.e. Being) contained in the
mind of a man with a very small scale. The right philosophy is very
general but nevertheless flawless model of reality. If we want to
specify the error-free
general model of
situation (on a small scale), then just we increase its scale, thus
creating a more accurate model of reality in a particular place.
E.g. we take the microscope and we start to examine through a
microscope a particular brick of Karlstejn Castle, the general
context of the bricks we understand by sensory (superficial, with a
large scale) perception of the Karlstejn Castle.
It follows that the generalized flawless model of all the reality
contained in our mind (i.e. philosophy) it allows us to identify the
main direction for the development of objective reality (i.e. the most
common final good and evil), if we want to find the precise course of
development of the reality, the most general model is to
specify (to refine, to select a larger scale of this model),
so we can determine the most probable final good or evil of an action
in a particular case.
DG, Slávo,
if we have the model of reality with a small scale in our
soul, as the whole idea of Karlstejn Castle, then we can
understand infinitely many processes, which this idea
of being includes on the base of this general model. This general model
in our mind allows us to see infinitely many processes, such as the
fall of the castle wall (which in fact involves infinitely many
particles, their movements and their links) in this general context,
while we can determine the general (model) probable good and evil, that
for example the fortification wall rolls down the slope and it
threatens to crush houses under the slope.
(see: http://www.filosofie.cz/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=673 : Dobro a zlo.
)
Reaction by Miloslav Bažant:
Dalibor.
There is a difference between one who lives at the Karlstejn all the
life and one who visited it only once in a life. This is the amount of
information. The more information you have, the more complete model is
in your mind, but it is never complete and that's important. The more
information you have, the more you can anticipate. You have information
about the statics so you should see the cracks. You have information
about the subsoil, you can predict whether it is danger or not. The
same is true of good and evil. It's all about quantity and quality of
information and the ability to work with the following information in
your own logic. And so the findings of those may vary also when having
the same information, but it is put into different logic. About no
logic you can say, it is 100% correct, because nobody has completely
all the information and nobody has a patent on the accuracy of their
logic. And so it is always a certain probability, it is never
sure.
And so I can plant the tree when I had learned a lot of information
about how deciduous this tree will be, where its shadow will fall and
then there will be the secondary effects, with which I could not count,
the tree will grow more than usual and so on. I can assume in
the same way that the wall of Karlstejn does not shift down, because it
has subsoil as a rock, but the rock will crack and walls
fall
off. I assume, that the afforestation of deserts will improve the
climate on Earth and it will stop the warming. As a result, such an act
I will make from temperate zones a cool uninhabitable area. This is not listed. This
should be argued endlessly, but it is a principle, or the inability to
identify one hundred percent, if the good can become evil and evil good
in contrast. Believers have their saying. "Inscrutable are the
ways of God's providence." That says the same thing. However, it is
good to find information and to seek to create good to know if it can
be evil, which may arise as a result and also in problems even much
smaller, perhaps only in relation with a partner, or people in your
neighborhood. One avoids many conflicts by it and he or she has around
more people who are favorably inclined to him or her. "Give in good
faith to the blind the rose and instead of perception of
beauty he pricks of thorns."
MB
My answer
Slávo,
I agree, but for predicting the probability of general trends
it can be neglected details, just generalizing model of
reality. You cannot predict which atom of
wall probably releases and which not, virtually what
the wall atom releases first, but you can determine with high
probability (e.g. by static’s expression), if a wall
falls or not. That is also the general trends of good and evil.
r) Are there aliens? http://www.filosofie.cz/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=671 : Jsou zde.
Miloslav,
I believe only what I see, show me an alien and I believe in him or
her. At the same time I believe, that the evolution of nature is
directed, that in the future we could see all the invisible but real
things (for example, it may be aliens, God, heaven, etc.).
Evolution of nature as to me (it is a hypothesis) is designed to
perfect the harmony and conformity of the model of the world contained
in our soul, virtually brain, and the real world, which as to me is
made exclusively from the microparticles movement from the perspective
of microscopic physics, in terms of both the soul (i.e.
subjective reality) and what's the question of objective reality.
(Theory of the nature of evolution in terms of the microparticles movement in
terms of the physics of microworld my text contains, see
for example: http://www.filosofie.cz/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=51&whichpage=6 : Smysl bytí (života))
s) We cannot eat anything that has to be killed http://www.filosofie.cz/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=672 : Nelze jíst nic, co se musí kvůli tomu zabít
In an ideal society based on 100% free, genuine
and lasting agreement of all its members, in which its members will
give energy each other only at the touch of its members, there is a
consistency of everyone and everything. Therefore I recommend not
eating anything from animals, which must be slaughtered. In an extreme emergency we can eat gradually
only plant seeds and plant fruits, merciful milk (not milk products
like cheese produced by coagulating milk using rennet derived from calf
stomachs), unfertilized eggs, carrions, the minimally possible
evolutionarily perfect living creatures, e.g. mushrooms and plants or
in the worst case animals and products purely from them,
Even in the Bible (Genesis Kralice translation) Adam and Eve and other
living creatures eat only plant seeds and plant fruits in the paradise
and not animals, see: Genesis 1.29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. Genesis 1.30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
Only after the expulsion from paradise, Adam and Eve ate also probably
the whole plants and animals see: Genesis 9.3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.
Reaction by Miloslav:
Dalibor.
Even plants are alive and even they have their thinking. To
eat them alive, it is probably not possible and so you have to
kill them so you could eat them. And so inanimate nature remains, perhaps such lydites you can taste. Or
you can try to feed trough the touch, but I think it will not be right.
When the touch is a bit more, especially with the second sex, and you
even may be hungrier.
Now seriously. There are many exemplary group B vitamins (B12) that
with a plant diet you do not gain
sufficiently.
These vitamins are necessary for the heart, internal organs and the
production of red blood cells. And so vegetarians are "asking" for
anemia and problems with internal organs. In addition, nerves need vitamin B12 and lack of it can lead to neuropathy, or nerve death. So good
apetite. Hitler was a vegetarian.
MB
Reaction by Gato:
Plants have no
nervous system. Even if the plant diet has disadvantages about which
you write it is better than animal food. I do not know why you noted
Hitler only. Plant diet does not make a saint of anyone. It was one of
the positive elements of his nature, however, the negative ones outweighed.
Reaction by Miloslav Bažant:
Gato.
You are very wrong, when you say, that the plants do not have mind.
They have not the brain as we know it at animals, but they have its
functional equivalent, which we can attempt to prove. This experiment
was carried out according to my instructions more than twenty years ago
in Switzerland and it was very successful. The plant was connected to
the electrode apparatus for measuring particularly weak electrical
potential, and then there were the separate effects of two
people. One brought pleasure to the plant and the second a sensation of
pain. After a short time the plant began to respond differently to the
mere proximity of these people, which proved to be a different curve on
the screen. This means that there is already creating bridges, or the
plants could percept the individuals at least two senses and, that
information is activated when its just one sense gives the same
information. Dear Gato. This is already a manifestation of complex
thinking (bridge function), and one could say, that the plant felt for
one helper an antipathy and for another love. Still you want to argue
that plants have not mind? If so, you could try to do this yourself
when you receive measuring device for very low electric potential of
the base ultra conductivity. You do not have this option, then you
refrain from denial about what you know nothing.
MB
My answer
I assume, that the energy contained in food the
animals obtain through the cleavage of organic compounds. In
my view, it is particularly the kinetic (motion) energy, which animals
need to be able to move. This energy can be theoretically obtained at
the touch, Especially if the animals will also be
predominantly in the form of such kinetic energy. E.g. thanks to the
future exact science the human being as a system consisting
primarily of the potential (kinetic) energy (i.e. other than the kind
of kinetic energy potentially convertible into kinetic energy) will be
transformed to the system consisting mostly kinetic (motion) energy
(e.g. light, virtually electromagnetic waves). There is a possibility
to obtain organic substances as food for animals through the artificial
photosynthesis, which plants use to synthesize organic compounds from
inorganic mineral substances, and which however despite
the progress of an exact science in this field, has so far
failed to realize.
Before this happens, one must gain energy through the digestion of
living organisms, with the understanding, that this is only a fallback
solution, because they must kill live organisms in their digestive
process. Since in this case one is in extreme distress, he or
she should act so only if the risk i.e. the risk of death from hunger
of man, cannot be averted otherwise.
My answer
quoted:
Post of Dalibor Grůza
According to a court case REGINA v. DUDLEY & STEPHENS in 1884
in the 19th century in England the following court case took place: 3 men and a boy were in a lifeboat
at sea without food. One man suggested, that they draw lots for whom
they eat. The second man disagreed, and the remaining 2 men killed the
boy and all 3 men ate him. Then they were
saved and 2 men, who killed the boy, were then convicted of intentional
murder for the death.
I can bring a different case from the Talmud:
Two men found themselves in the wilderness with one bottle of water,
with which just one man could go through the desert. Shall they both
drink it and expect someone to save them or shall only one drink it and
the other one expect that someone will save him or will die. The Talmud
says, that the owner should keep the bottle. To me it was more about
who is stronger or who can run faster.
How would you act in that situation?
As to me, a man who kills another person is guilty, and just as when
one sacrifices and commits suicide.
Solution, according to me: the righteous man will never get into a
situation, where a choice between his or her death and the death of
another man. According to me about a man who has a pile of corpses of
eaten animals and plants, fungi, the person who dealt with the death
dies.
Therefore I ate only plant seeds and plant fruit with the permissible
amount of water and minerals such as salt.
In my opinion this situation is a situation, where you can choose only
between bad solutions. For a poor solution I consider both, when I kill
someone else, and even when I kill myself as a sacrifice, if I do not
have the guarantee, that I will rise from the dead (as Jesus of
Nazareth allegedly as god-man etc.).
Both situations in pure form as an example of the
insoluble dilemma in which the human may be and who
is never able to satisfactorily resolve. Thinking about how to solve
it, it often leads to knowledge of human helplessness.
Therefore answer to both situations in pure form is
no fundamental thinking about how to solve them, but especially how we
can in the lives of people avoid them?
(see http://www.filosofie.cz/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=958&whichpage=1 : etika záchranného člunu ,)
Organic matter other than photosynthesis has
the property, that it feed itself and not minerals. In other words, all
living organisms eat each other.
It is a cycle of life that the life was tolerable, virtually harmonious
and happy (so not a soul was torn, but harmonic), it must follow three
rules, which are closely linked:
1) May not give rise to pain
2) May not give rise to fear
3) May not give rise to hatred among living
organisms.
One can thus very well imagine that after death we
become what we eat. Who eats
animals, they will be similar animal to be killed in the same way as
animals, which they eat. Who eats plants, they will become a plant to
be killed in the same way as a plant, which they eat. Thus, the
response to the question of what happens to people who ate in the
lifeboat the boy is, that you can imagine, that after death, they
become people who will also be eaten as people, they will be caused the
same pain and fear caused to the boy, the question is whether they also
would hate their eaters such as this boy hated them. (see my topic on
the lifeboat Ethics: http://www.filosofie.cz/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=958 : etika záchranného člunu)
In neither case the above three rules do not meet, it is
always caused pain, fear (i.e. before the death an animal and
plants also suffer from such fear and pain, according to scientists
also plants remember the man who picked them and to know and fear him
or her they tremble as he or she goes around them) and therefore the
hate occurs between a living organism killed and
one who eats it.
The hatred is, in my opinion, the cause of all the pain and fear in the
world. If we can remove this hatred, we will remove the other
pain and fear in our world, the life and our souls will be happy (to be
paradise on Earth). All living
organisms become friends for life and death.
Therefore the ideal animal currently eats only plant seeds and plant fruits from all living creatures, which I presume the compliance with the above-mentioned three conditions. That we cause the least pain and fear of eaten plant seeds and plant fruits. At the same time it arises between us, between me-the man and the plant seed or fruit, no hatred, not love, but we tolerate each other, because it has to be (I am helping it to reproduce as I pick the plant fruit with plant seed, I eat it and I spread it on an area and seeds have a greater opportunity to grow than they felt down under any one plant, they would kill each other. At the same time all the seeds cannot grow because there is not sufficient land, which is created by the dead living organisms, when one seed grows into an ear of hundred plant seeds, the passage through the digestive tract in some plant seeds is condition in order to grow), it is the least possible evil in the above cycle of life. In digestion, virtually earlier in the cooking plant fruit and plant seeds it leads to the killing, because the plant fruits and seeds are also formed by the living cells, which appear to feel some kind of pain in their premature death, but because it is evolutionarily the simplest kind of organisms (or the germs of new plants), which can serve man as a natural food, there is the least possible pain caused by man. With decreasing evolutionary maturity of a living organism the perceived pain of injury or of death of the organism decreases.
At the same time I wish I was after the death the plant
seed or plant fruit, to be able them to return it to me throughout my
life nurtured. I could as plant fruit and plant seeds to die almost
without pain, and enemies (or hatred towards my killers). And
once again I could become a man who eats plant fruits and plant seeds.
And, that I could participate in the above cycle of life, virtually
organic matter, which must be eating each other, but almost without
pain, fear and hatred and all living organisms will
be friends for life and death, namely in the mutual love.
I assume, that the energy contained in food the animals obtain through
the cleavage of organic compounds. In my view, it is
particularly the kinetic (motion) energy, which animals need to be able
to move. This energy can be theoretically obtained at the touch,
Especially if the animals will also be predominantly in the form of
such kinetic energy. E.g. thanks to the future exact
science the human being as a system consisting primarily of
the potential (kinetic) energy (i.e. other than the kind of kinetic
energy potentially convertible into kinetic energy) will be transformed
to the system consisting mostly kinetic (motion) energy (e.g. light,
virtually electromagnetic waves). There is a possibility to obtain
organic substances as food for animals through the artificial
photosynthesis, which plants use to synthesize organic compounds from
inorganic mineral substances, and which however despite
the progress of an exact science in this field, has so far
failed to realize.
In my opinion in the above case of removing necessity of eating living
creatures, except of photosynthesis by the
discovery of artificial photosynthesis or the way or manner of
touchdown reception of kinetic energy the way of eternal
life for those living creatures will be opened that will have
no enemies among the living creatures and a cause of their
death will not therefore be. Biblically speaking, it
is their arrival to heaven, the atonement of original sin the initial
discovery of the garden tree of life, of which fruits give the man
eternal life.
(see also: http://www.filosofie.cz/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=979 : Etika záchranného člunu II. Jsme to co jíme?)
t) Issue of sex http://www.filosofie.cz/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=675 : Otázka partnerského sexu?
My response:
According to literature, there are three
systems of ethics, the three concepts of ideal character and moral
life. One system is a system of Buddha and Jesus. It stresses the
virtues of the female species, it considers all people as equally
valuable, resisting evil only through good, it identifies virtue with
love and in politics it tends to unlimited democracy. Another is the
ethics of Machiavelli and Nietzsche. It highlights the virtues
of man, it preaches inequality between people, recognizing the
risk of combat, conquest and government, it identifies virtue with
power and it proclaims a hereditary aristocracy. Ethics of Socrates,
Aristotle and Plato denies universal applicability of both
female and male virtue, the reason, according to them has to decide
when the love or the power must come to the word.
Now these three concepts of sexual behavior I try to explain in the
terms of the exact sciences. The male is by nature significantly of
greater vigor, energy than the female and the female is significantly
of less vigor, energy than the male. If we consider the forcefulness,
energy as the momentum then the male with more momentum is more able to
knock with his power the female and the female with less
momentum is rather knocked due to her weakness
by the male in their mutual conflict. (This follows from the physical
law of action and reaction).
However, as in human society, more powerful individual can knock out
even the strongest man, possibly individuals (by proverb: For every pig
is to find a butcher) and in turn even the strongest man,
whether any evil he is, essentially he likes his children (see
Bible, New Testament, Luke 11.13: If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?). In other words, even the worst man always combines in
himself the above male and female element. Explain it in the
terms of the exact sciences, even in the men with the greatest final
energy, virtually momentum in the scale of energy, virtually momentum,
there are two border points in his relationships, the lower border
point, i.e. a person a little less energetic and the upper border
point, i.e. a person a little more energetic. E.g. if one has energy
3Joules of kinetic energy the person of energy 4Joules of
kinetic energy represents the feminine element , and the male
element the person 2Joules of kinetic energy.
Next, I would point out that
the forcefulness of individual I
understand their kinetic energy or momentum, rather than their
potential (kinetic) energy, i.e. a different kind of energy as kinetic
energy potentially convertible into kinetic energy (it is here as the
fat stores).
In animal sexual relations the dual
direction interferes the above-mentioned female, virtually
feminine principle, and the above male, virtually masculine principle.
Naturally, each individual uses the principle of female behavior toward
stronger more energic (in my opinion, with more kinetic energy,
momentum) individuals than him or herself, and the principle
of male behavior towards those with less vigor, vitality, energy than
him or herself. For the average socially energetic
individuals so natural male and female principles of conduct
in relation to others are in the balance, for the above-average
energetic individuals in terms of real society the male,
virtually masculine principle of conduct in relation to other
individuals prevails, for the socially under-energetic, vigorous
individual the female, virtually feminine principle of conduct is
predominantly toward other individuals.
Using man, virtually male principle, in my
opinion it means the dominant (ruling) behavior and the use of women,
virtually submissive female principle the (serf) behavior toward other
individuals. Man, virtually male principle of behavior is in the
animal sexual relations the dominance
in relation to all the weaker, less energetic (male and female) and feminine,
virtually female principle of behavior is in animal sexual relations the
submissivity to all stronger, more energetic (male and female)
individuals.
In the case of a man who was called by
Aristotle zoon politicon, a social animal and St. Augustine called a
man rational and mortal animal, it is possible to speak about a
reasonable animal sexual behavior. I.e. one corrects (limits) through
their reason their animal (instinctive, irrational) desires
and behavior, i.e. does not seek sex with any male or female
individuals, who uses to them the female principle,
in other words that is less vigorous than he or she is. It is an
intellectual (rational) corrective to the animal sexual behavior, which
in my opinion stems from the fact, that he or she wants to maintain
friendship society.
In today's society this rational corrective
principle implies that the rational is only the sex, leading to
procreation, it is heterosexuality. The human rational solutions to
these natural animal sexual relations are, in my view, to define as the
following:
1) Every man would have found reasonable
submissive partner, a woman to be able to use to her the
above man, virtually male principle of conduct, therefore,
that his sexual relationship was natural both from animal (instinctive)
and from the intellectual point of view. This applies primarily to both
the dominant and largely submissive men. Every woman should have the
freedom to find a reasonably dominant partner to be able to use against
her the above man, male principle of conduct, therefore, that her
sexual relationship was natural both from animal (instinctive) and from
the intellectual point of view. This applies primarily to both the
dominant and largely submissive women. At the same time, women could
benefit, through inter-community extra-partner relations to reduce
their energy increased (probably kinetic energy, momentum, tension)
from their more or less frequent sex with a reasonably dominant men and
men could reduce their energy increased (probably kinetic energy,
momentum, tension) through more or less frequent sex with the woman
appropriately submissive. There should apply a rule of compliance of reasonable and animal
sexual behavior of individuals.
2) The tension of the above irrational
(perverse) animal sexual behavior and thoughts of individuals (see e.g.
ad.3.)) in my opinion, is not well released by masturbation or deviant
sexual intercourse, because in this case there it is an animal
unreasonable sexual behavior, which is contrary to the above reason of
man. The intellectual conflict of the soul (psyche) frequently
neurotizes a human. The focus here is to ensure that these individuals
in such cases have been able through the evolutionarily improved
reason to regulate their kinetic energy to be able to balance their
forcefulness (momentum, kinetic energy, vitality) with the second
person, possibly individuals. For the same vigor, energy as in my
opinion, it is the social asexual relationship. Here the men and women
would be reasonable to apply the rule of possible rational restrictions
on animal instinctive individual behavior
3) The tension may arise if the dominant female
lives sexually with a submissive man, the dominant woman and submissive
man in my opinion often release it through the extramarital legal
(substantially wise) or illegal (substantially irrational) sex in the
case of dominant women with even more dominant male or female
individuals and in the case of submissive man with even more submissive
male or female individual.
Literature:
- Durant, W., Příběh Filosofie,
Praha, publisher PRAGMA, p. 163 (just under the heading "3. Inteligence
a morálka")
Adding my response:
In my opinion the man should be adequately
dominant (stronger, more energetic) than a women in their relationship
based on sex. If a dominant woman marries a submissive male
(tributary), so in my opinion the marriage cannot work. Submissive man
will still desire for more submissive counterpart and dominant woman
wants even more dominant partner. Such a marriage may also have the
form when the submissive man must do paying clippers (surrender all the
money to his wife) and dominant woman still scolds or beats him. If I
paraphrase a famous statement, so in my opinion it holds: "Shame
on the men whom their wives dominate."
Reaction by Miloslav Bažant
Dalibor.
I know it. Just to look out the window, and sometimes even that is not
necessary, because I hear her scream, and still the marriage works.
They-women do not know what they want, but vehemently they require it.
The biggest disaster would be if they were dominant both of them. This
could go on knives. Thus he is happy, even when the
insults are not comfortable to him and she is happy because he
is exactly, what she wants him to be and she can swear to her liking,
and he does nothing about it. Some women are like that and they need to
shout to be happy. It is interesting, that this lady is a teacher as
the main occupation and in her more quarrels audible across the street
she often uses vulgar words and phrases. But if she heard a bad word
about her husband or he got attacked, then there is she that the
attacker knew what is her defense. However, she is a penny jackknife
and he has nearly two meters, and if he gave her one slap, at
best she would be in hospital at ARO. And so it does not
matter to him and we have sometimes entertainment, and our children are
learning terms that could hardly find elsewhere, while he takes the dog
and he goes for a walk.
So. If you are the most dominant; you cannot understand that even that
may seem permanent partnership. If you are not the dominant character,
and then search the dominant partner. Sometimes it is not entirely
pleasant, but you will experience life in which you have in someone
advocacy. Opposites attract, because they need themselves.
MB
My answer
Slávo,
who shouts more, he or she may not always be dominant
(more energetic, stronger). In your example, a woman
may rule, but always with the consent of her big husband. The
question is whether by you given marriage should work if wife
had two meters, and a man would be like a penny jackknife. Another the
situation would be if a stronger woman could govern not only
with the consent of her husband but also against his will because the
husband was weaker than she is.
In a happy marriage, in my opinion, at least for an intercourse a man
should govern, the woman subjects to the man at least in this
case, which is given by nature itself.
Reaction by Miloslav Bažant:
Dalibor.
Here it is not about power, but the characteristics. The dominance is
not in power and subordination in weakness.
Regarding sex, a superstition, that a male should be only dominant many
inexperienced young men believe, who
then life convinced, that this is different. Many, however, also failed
to understand even in mature age. Also a man, who identified themselves
as dominant, usually he does what a woman wants. Exceptions are bullies
who abuse their power in their favor regardless of the partner. We will
not talk, perhaps about them. It is the chapter to itself. If a man
wants to rule in sex and to get the most for it, he's early rejected.
If a man wants to give to a woman most of what he is able to achieve so
she was happy, then even if he wins with hump against Apolon. Wise
partner acts in favor of a partner and she should show her
weakness, knowing that a man shall accept it gratefully. The same is
true both ways and no matter the strength of any of the partners. Good
sex is when one tries to give a second maximum and he or she does not
think about him or herself. Why do you fondle partner? Because you
enjoy it or because it was so nice to her?
Otherwise. There are partners dominoes and there are partners slaves.
When they are together, they are both happy. They are also heroes who
tell to others, how dominant they are and to others they behave dominantly. If
they are with the partner-domino they are slaves and they are satisfied.
Violence is not the sex, but love leads to that one tries to make another
happy even if he or she has to be limited
in something.
If you are referring to violence in partner's first sex because they
must overcome her fear and pain, then you're completely wrong, but I
admit, that I have this superstition also believed as a virgin and it
was believed also by my friends. And because of this superstition, I
lost several loves.
I did not expect that there will be such a philosophical theme in the
forum, but you asked and I answer. Sex, however, contrary to love
it
does not belong to the philosophy.
MB
My answer
Slávo,
I quote a psychologist Alice Vondrová:
Not impressing man is a "man of three P-poor, decent,
reliable. Being nice and reliable is good, but together with
the weakness it is a lethal combination in a relationship, especially
with an immature partner. The dedication and the reliability she does
not appreciate and she despises with the weakness. The first
of what it would come to not impressing man, it is the sexual
rejection. For a woman is unattractive through his weakness and
handling. So the man starts unstoppable career of sexual inept
handymen, from the poor to the abstinent. Then a woman is followed by
another test-border the financial and work abuse. If even a man holds,
and he does not set the constraints, they are here infidelities and
abandonment. "
Literature:
Vondrová, A., ŽENÁM
NEIMPONUJE chlap se třemi S, Magazine Styl of diary Právo of 13.11.2007,
p. 7
I add to that the weakness is always relative, each person, virtually
man is to someone, for example, some women weak (less energetic) and to
others, such as other women strong (energetic).
From the above it follows that a man should therefore choose partner,
virtually spouse against whom he is strong not weak, fair
and reliable.
Reaction by Miloslav Bažant:
Dalibor.
Being smart it does not mean being weak. Woman knows the power, even
though you play only the poor and she welcomes it more. Remember one
thing. When a woman writes
professionally
about men and it depicts what a woman does not want, then you take it
with caution. Women require such ideals, but when they meet what they
find, that they did not want it. If a man writes, then you think of Dr
Plzák. He advised everyone but he was unable to cope and I
think he had four marriages, which he could not sustain. I speak from
experience and what I have validated. Speaking of all variants it is
impossible, so if you say anything, somebody can say, that the
situation is different. Some woman wants to be handled
by
man, some want to dominate and the same true is for men. The point is
to convene those who belong together and then they are both satisfied.
You will be guided by the advices of others, and then you will pay for
it, because they can be opposite character as you. Always choose according to yourself and
some others you just listen for advice. If you're alone and adjustable,
then you do not seek the same, because she will rely on you, you on
her, and nobody does anything. If you're a strong personality, then
look for weak, which you will need. You'll find the strong you
will fight who will rule. Always according to yourself, it is
important. Find yourself it is the hardest because man likes to flatter
him or herself and then one places somewhere else than they are
attributable.
MB
My answer
Slávo,
everything is related to the hormone testosterone. Testosterone has the
impact on the mental activity - probably its receptors also in
the brain. As male sex hormone influences male elements of behavior -
increasing ambition, aggressiveness and it encourages predatoriness or
aggression.
|
