Create or die (a 3 months team mission)

[Nereid]

In this case we have not to be very clever in order to understand that our civilization is in a very crucial moment of its existence, and we can show it in many other ways.

I chose Dreake's equation as a tool that can help us to look on ourselves from a larger perspective.

Simple as that.

Thanks. So how else can you show 'that our civilization is in a very crucial moment of its existence'?

You said earlier that the next war would be the last war (or something like that); last time I looked there were a good half-dozen wars going on in different parts of the world already. Perhaps you mean a war which involves superpowers and the exchange of nuclear weapons? If so, then I suggest that history since WW II can viewed optimistically - while there was great misery and suffering created by superpower competition (through proxy wars alone), the US and USSR never really came close to a real war (and took increasingly more detailed measures to head any such off).

Why then do you feel today is any more crucial a moment for Homo sap. than (say) 50 years ago? or 50 years from now?

 

[Nereid]

And we have to do the best we can in order to keep it open, because if they are closed it means that we can smell the end.

a) we would only know it were closed by doing a great deal more science; b) it likely will be closed unless scientific discoveries keep rolling in; c) you haven't addressed the core question I asked - how does incorporating a new morality into science ensure that all future detrimental effects of Homo sapiens' continued modification of the climate and ecosystems of the Earth can be forseen?

 

[fbsthreads]

Moral Maths:

1+1 = 2 (if your good) or 1 (if your bad so that you don’t gain anything)

The internal angles of a Euclidean triangle add up to 180 degrees if you are philanthropic, if you are a bit of a fascist though, they equal 360, so that your weapons backfire on you.

Energy is equal to Matter times the speed of light squared, so long as you swear not to try it out, if you do try it out then Energy and matter are not the same thing because it’s safer.

 

[Locrian]

Hah, good stuff.

 

[CrankFan]

You are a strange fallow CrankFan.

Form one hand you cannot understand what is included-middle reasoning,

Says who? Where has it been demonstrated that I can't understand what you call included-middle reasoning. As far as I can tell, it's just your awkward way of saying that you don't accept the law of the excluded middle. Which is fine, in the sense that I think I have a clear idea of what that entails.

and on the other hand you want me to explain my system in terms of your reasoning.

Well, actually I asked you to explain something specific about your system, I didn't ask it to be explained in "terms of my reasoning", which presumably means reasoning which makes use of the law of the excluded middle. I don't really care how you prove these things, just that you prove them. I would suspect that your task would be easier if you accepted the law of the excluded middle but I don't mind if your proofs don't make use of that principle.

So, my straight answer is:

From your reasoning point of view you will not see any difference between your system and my system.

That would be surprising, since you've indicated that the set of Lama-reals are countable.

If you want to understand my number system you simply have no choice but to see my system from an included-middle point of view, that until this very moment you clearly show that you cannot close your standard cassette in your head and replace it by an included-middle point of view.

Now it looks like you're stalling.

You've not taken any step towards defining what a natural number is (in your system), let alone rationals and reals. Your constant mutterings about the law of the excluded middle are irrelevant, rejecting it (which I'm prepared to do for the sake of exercise) is only a limitation that you place on yourself.

For example:

You show {},{.},{._.},{__} 100 times (I am using your own words) and you have no ability of how to start and make Math out of them.

Right, I have no idea how to make math out of them!

That is the problem. Does anyone on this forum, know how to make math out of them? does anyone on this planet know how to make math out of them? If it's as simple as you say, show us.

For example. I know that in set theory we would treat {} as 0, and then define the successor of X as the union of the elements of X and X, so we have:

0 {}
1 {,{}}
2 { {}, {{}} }
3 { {}, {{}}, { {}, {{}} } }

And we can go on to extend N to Z, Q, etc. as you're probably well aware, but since we already know how to do this for "the standard framework" how do we do it with your framework?

I'm not asking you to provide the same method but I am asking you to provide a method. This is your theory, it's your job to explain to us precisely how one makes math out of it.

As for your question about pi and sqrt(2),N,Z,Q,R,C yes I have all of them in my system and much more.

Not so fast. You've yet to explain what N, Z, Q, etc. are in your system. I want you to tell me what they are in terms of your "first principles". Stop stalling and get to it.

By the way Matt Grime is in your possition, therefore he cannot say any meaningful thing about my system.

Apparently you can't say any meaningful thing about your system either.

If you really want to understand my work, then you have no choice but to open my website and read the paper of my axioms

I've seen this crap before and seeing it again doesn't deepen my understanding. Instead I just think:
hey look, it's the same old nonsensical crap.

... but I did take a quick look at the document and when I preformed a search for the phrase "scale factor" I noticed that it was used 8 times in the document (including in an axiom) and it's never defined. Near the end of the document you say that 0 and _1 are basic scale factors, but you don't tell us how a basic scale factor is different from a scale factor, or if there are more basic scale factors than just 0 and _1 , etc.

What you really need to do is define terms like scale factor before they are used so that the reader can apply that definition to determine if a particular object in your system is a scale factor or not.

X is a scale factor if and only if ... [conditions]

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/My-first-axioms.pdf

Yes, I've seen that document in several forms. It's devoid of value.

and then if you really want to understand my system, all you have to do is to start and ask your questions according what you have found in this paper.

I can't honestly say that I really want to understand your system, but I could be curious about some aspect of it, that is if I believe that there's a possibility that it might have some substance. However, considering your latest round of responses it's pretty clear to me now that there is no substance whatsoever to it.

Apparently, your revolutionary ideas are a personal fantasy which you play over and over in your head for amusement rather than something which can be objectively described. Which explains why the details of this system are as vaporous as the imaginary friend of a child who can never convince his parents that it's real.

Your theory appears to be nothing more than an imaginary friend.

 

[arildno]

Apparently, your revolutionary ideas are a personal fantasy which you play over and over in your head for amusement rather than something which can be objectively described.

I'd rather say he's playing them over and over again in his head for mast***ation purposes, but I really wouldn't care to know.
Did you read Tom Mattson's suggestion, BTW; that we should just ignore this guy? Hopefully, he'll lose interest in posting his silly ideas.

 

[anti_crank]

Unfortunately, being pressed for time, the only way I can assist is by offering the following link, with the hope that it will clarify in the minds of contributors the style of logic and general direction of the journey of discovery undertaken here:

http://members.lycos.co.uk/brisray/optill/ascendd.jpg

Enough said.

 

[Lama]

A post for Nereid.

Why then do you feel today is any more crucial a moment for Homo sap. than (say) 50 years ago? or 50 years from now?

1) Mass destruction weapon technology is no longer in the hands of so called developed and rational countries.

Take Iran's case for example.

2) Mass destruction weapon technology is very close to be in the hands of organizations like Al-Kaida.

you haven't addressed the core question I asked - how does incorporating a new morality into science ensure that all future detrimental effects of Homo sapiens' continued modification of the climate and ecosystems of the Earth can be forseen?

1) There are "good" chances that we already missed our last train.

2) Every student in the near future will use methods which combine his own unique personal (moral and technical) contribution to save and develop complexity that is based on simplicity (which is actually the basis of life development).

Through this attitude,(which is based on the art of dialog development between different and unique points of view of other persons) each young mind will learn first of all to cherish the fascinating interaction between its own life and the life phenomena in general.

 

[Lama]

A post for fbsthreads.

1+1 = 2 (if your good) or 1 (if your bad so that you don’t gain anything)

An example of a moral conclusion based on the Langauge of Mathematics, can be seen here: http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/Moral.pdf

In short, since the system I suggest is based first of all on the idea of non-destructive interactions between independent opposites, it can be used as a natural basis for both our moral and technical skills in a one organic framework.

In my opinion only this kind of organic framework is our future guaranty to survive the blind power of our future technologies.

 

[Russell E. Rierson]

Here is an interesting article by Andrei Linde about
"The Self-Reproducing Inflationary Universe". A self-generating fractal that sprouts other inflationary universes:

http://www.stanford.edu/~alinde/1032226.pdf

By "included middle" reasoning, do you mean fractal logic?

 

[Lama]

A post for CrankFan.

Says who? Where has it been demonstrated that I can't understand what you call included-middle reasoning. As far as I can tell, it's just your awkward way of saying that you don't accept the law of the excluded middle. Which is fine, in the sense that I think I have a clear idea of what that entails

If you think that included-middle reasoning is some kind of reasoning where excluded-middle reasoning does not hold (which is the interpretation of constructivism/intuitionism), then you do not understand included-middle reasoning.

Do you have a means of sqrt(2) and pi expressing or in your system?

We are talking about sqrt(2) and pi, because we discovered that they are connected to some very interesting and useful invariant proportions that can be found in the basis of many interesting systems.

Also from a more general point of view they are some two irrational numbers that each one of them has its own unique place on the real-line.

Since the standard form of the entire real-line is a 1-D “shadow” of my number system, those particular numbers are also in my system.

Well, actually I asked you to explain something specific about your system, I didn't ask it to be explained in "terms of my reasoning",

You cannot ask any meaningful question if you don’t understand the included-middle reasoning (see again the first part of my answer to you).

That would be surprising, since you've indicated that the set of Lama-reals are countable.

Since you did not see (yet) R from an included-middle reasoning, it is not surprising at all that you do not understand what I am talking about.

You've not taken any step towards defining what a natural number is

I did much more than that, I defined (by the included-middle reasoning) Organic Natural Numbers, which are based on our most basic congition’s abilities to count.

Peano’s or ZF are only a shadow of them.

Right, I have no idea how to make math out of them!

Then instead of the usual “old crap” response about them, why can’t you simply ask me to explain to you how we can use the included-middle reasoning to make Math out of them?

Not so fast. You've yet to explain what N, Z, Q, etc. are in your system. I want you to tell me what they are in terms of your "first principles". Stop stalling and get to it.

I have no problem to tell you in details about any specific term that you wish to know, but for this please do at least 3 things:

1) When you don’t understand something, simply say that you don’t understand it, instead of the repeating on the unnecessary “nonsense” and “crap” reflex-like responses.

2) I will not answer to any response which is based on commands, for example: “I want you to tell me…”.

3) Please be more focused when you ask some question because -‘what they are in terms of your "first principles"’- is too general.

Please understand that when you ask a focused question, you give me a better chance to know where to start my answer, in order to develop a meaningful dialog between us.

Apparently you can't say any meaningful thing about your system either.


I've seen this crap before and seeing it again doesn't deepen my understanding. Instead I just think:
hey look, it's the same old nonsensical crap.

If you understand and agree with 1) , 2) and 3) of the previous part, then there is a good chance that we can develop a fruitful dialog between us.

...but I could be curious about some aspect of it,...

Well, curiosity is a wonderful basis for a dialog between us, because I am curious too to know what you have to say after you understand the included-middle reasoning.

X is a scale factor if and only if ... [conditions]

This is the tautology of 0_XOR_1 reasoning, but not necessarily the tautology of the included-middle reasoning.

Arithmetic operations, which are based on included-middle reasoning, can be found in:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=287535&postcount=155

 

[Lama]

Unfortunately, being pressed for time, the only way I can assist is by offering the following link, with the hope that it will clarify in the minds of contributors the style of logic and general direction of the journey of discovery undertaken here:

http://members.lycos.co.uk/brisray/optill/ascendd.jpg

Enough said.

Well dear anti_crank, this is one of the options to not understand my work, when you look at it only from 0_XOR_1 logical reasoning point of view.

Also a person which is "being pressed for time" cannot close by "Enough said".

 

[Lama]

Here is an interesting article by Andrei Linde about
"The Self-Reproducing Inflationary Universe". A self-generating fractal that sprouts other inflationary universes:

http://www.stanford.edu/~alinde/1032226.pdf

By "included middle" reasoning, do you mean fractal logic?

Dear Russell E. Rierson thank you for the address of this beautiful work by Andrei Linde, I need deep look of it in order to give a meaningful answer to your question.

But from a very general point of view, since a tautology in included-middle reasoning is: "The identity of a thing to itself", I think we can use this tautology as the most basic principle of a fractal.

 

[matt grime]

A post for CrankFan.


If you think that included-middle reasoning is some kind of reasoning where excluded-middle reasoning does not hold (which is the interpretation of constructivism/intuitionism), then you do not understand included-middle reasoning.

he didn't say that, he siad he wants you to offer a self contained explanation of the reasoning you have chosen to adopt, whereas all you do is tell us that we can't understand it, and never tell us what it is.

We are talking about sqrt(2) and pi, because we discovered that they are connected to some very interesting and useful invariant proportions that can be found in the basis of many interesting systems.

no, doron, sqrt(2) is an element in the completion of the rationals, which are a localization of the integers which are obtained by adding formal inverses to the naturals. they are a construct of mathematics you reject, hence you cannot use them without explaining what the real numbers are in your system.

Also from a more general point of view they are some two irrational numbers that each one of them has its own unique place on the real-line.

you've not defined rational so you can't say that it's irrational, the "unique place on the number line" is a pointless idea that some one who thinks the real numbers are mathematically defined as the real line would adopt, that is someone who doesn't know anything about mathematics really.

Since the standard form of the entire real-line is a 1-D “shadow” of my number system, those particular numbers are also in my system.

You cannot ask any meaningful question if you don’t understand the included-middle reasoning (see again the first part of my answer to you).

that'd be the thing you never explain just say we don't understand it.

Since you did not see (yet) R from an included-middle reasoning, it is not surprising at all that you do not understand what I am talking about.

you've not defined R so this is a meaningless statement.

I did much more than that, I defined (by the included-middle reasoning) Organic Natural Numbers, which are based on our most basic congition’s abilities to count.

you did indeed define a set which had no well defined arithmetic, and was completely useless. you yourself have admitted that you have not found a use for it.

Peano’s or ZF are only a shadow of them.

Then instead of the usual “old crap” response about them, why can’t you simply ask me to explain to you how we can use the included-middle reasoning to make Math out of them?

he did ask you to explain "included middle" you failed to do so.

I have no problem to tell you in details about any specific term that you wish to know, but for this please do at least 3 things:

1) When you don’t understand something, simply say that you don’t understand it, instead of the repeating on the unnecessary “nonsense” and “crap” reflex-like responses.

2) I will not answer to any response which is based on commands, for example: “I want you to tell me…”.

that is hypocritical, meeting a demand with a demand, especially given your repeated posting of said crap with demands that we read it all.

3) Please be more focused when you ask some question because -‘what they are in terms of your "first principles"’- is too general.

no that's not true, more that you've never been able to adequately explain anything in language anyone else understands

Please understand that when you ask a focused question, you give me a better chance to know where to start my answer, in order to develop a meaningful dialog between us.

several times we have asked you explicit and exact questions, never have you answered adequately, what makes you think we will believe you will start now?

here is a simple one, you keep talking about the real numbers, but you don't say what you mean by them, so define them.

define scale factor, that is a repeated request that has never been met.

If you understand and agree with 1) , 2) and 3) of the previous part, then there is a good chance that we can develop a fruitful dialog between us.


Well, curiosity is a wonderful basis for a dialog between us, because I am curious too to know what you have to say after you understand the included-middle reasoning.

This is the tautology of 0_XOR_1 reasoning, but not necessarily the tautology of the included-middle reasoning.

is that your new use of the word tautology? just because you use the words doesn't mean you understand them or are using them correctly.

apologies to Tom; whilst Doron was off on this bizarre ramble I didn't post, but he's back to making spurious claims. However, I will only respond again if he actually makes any statements that answer the questions he has asked us to ask of him.

 

[Lama]

Ok matt, here is the first lesson of included-middle arithmetic:

By my included-middle axiomatic system there are two kinds of cardinals, two kinds of ordinals, and a scale factor, Which are used as the basis to define R and also my number system.


UC = Urelement Cardinal

QC = Quantitative Cardinal

IO = Internal Ordinal

EO = External Ordinal

SF = Scale Factor

Basic Scale factor is the ratio between 0 {.} or 1 {._.} to any other segment which is not 0_1.

Scale factor is {.} or any {._.} when it is used as the basic factor for the entire number system.

The basic arithmetical structure:

The first element of any arithmetic operation is always {.} or some {._.}.

The next parameter can be UC, QC, SF or a combination of them.

Any arithmetic always has a left to right direction of operations and the result of each pair is the basis of the next operation:

for example:

Addition and subtraction examples (only UC or {.} or {._.} are used):

0__2 + 0_1 = 0___3 (a new segment)

0__2 + 0_1.347… = 0____4.347…

{0__2} + {0_1} = {0__2, 0_1} (a new set of segments which its total length = 0___3)

{0__2} + {0_1.347…} = {0__2, 0_1.347…} (a set of segments which its total length = 0____4.347…

0__2 – 0_1 = 0_1 (a new segment)

0_1 – 0__2 = 1_0

0_1 – 0_1 = {}

0_1 – 1_0 = 0

1_0 – 0_1 = 0

1_0 – 1_0 = {}

1_0 – 1_0 – 1_0 = {} – 1_0 = 1_0

1_0 – 0_1 – 0_1 = 0 – 0_1 = 1_0

-0_1 = 1_0

-1_0 = 0_1

0 + 0 = 0

{0} + {0} = {0, 0}

0 - 0 = {}

{0} - {0} = {}



Multiplication and relations examples (QC or SF are used):


0__2 * QC3 = {0__2, 0__2, 0__2}

0___3 * QC2 = {0___3, 0___3}

The two results above are noncommutative (only if QC is used).

0_.5 * QC2 = {0_.5, 0_.5} (a set of segments which its total length = 0_1)

0_.5 * SF2 = 0_1


0__2 * SF3 = 0______6

0___3 * SF2 = 0______6

0__2 * SF0.5 = 0_1

-0__2 * SF0.5 = 1_0


0__2 / QC2 = {0_1, 0_1}

0__2 / SF2 = 0_1

0__2 / SF.5 = 0____4

0__2 / SF3.14…(PI) = 0__2/PI (and if we want we can notate it by a single symbol like 0__2/PI=@)


Also we can combine QC and SF for example:

0__2 / QC3 SF.14… = {0__2/3/SF.14…, 0__2/3/SF.14…, 0__2/3/SF.14…}

0__2 / SF.14… QC3 = {0__2/SF.14…/3, 0__2/SF.14…/3, 0__2/SF.14…/3}



0__2 / SF.14 = 0__2/SF.14…

X / 0 = {__}

0 / X = 0


As for a sqrt(2), it is the ratio between x-axis and y-axis identical segments.


IO and EO can be seen by using my new number system:

 

[matt grime]

That is an attempt, I suppose, though it only brings more questions (and doesn't really define anything), such as where on Earth did 1.347... come from?

It appears you're just labelling things with decimal expansions and/or integers, and adding them using the rules of proper mathematics that you are dismissing, so it makes no consistent sense. In short, unless you can explain self consistently and without circularity where all the ordinary numbers you are using to label come from and their properties and rules of arithemetic, then you're not doing anything at all pointful.

You are also breaking the rules you laid out at the start of the thread.

 

[Lama]

0_1.347... = 0_1 + 0_.347...(where .347... is a representation of a single path along base 10 fractal)

 

[matt grime]

"where .347... is a representation of a single path along base 10 fractal"

yep, there's your completely undefined concept again! (what on Earth can base ten mean if yo'uve not defined ten as a numeral?)

so once more evasion with bad answers that you probably think are good answers and we're being stupid bodyguards and so on, oh hum, it never ends at this rate: self aggrandising claimants tend not to give in, so I shall.

 

[Lama]

yep, there's your completely undefined concept again! (what on Earth can base ten mean if yo'uve not defined ten as a numeral?)

It is nice that you ignore my included-middle axiomatic system, and continue to "define" my system according to 0_XOR_1 reasoning.

10 = 0__________10 if 1 = 0_1

 

[Nereid]

A post for Nereid.

1) Mass destruction weapon technology is no longer in the hands of so called developed and rational countries.

Take Iran's case for example.

2) Mass destruction weapon technology is very close to be in the hands of organizations like Al-Kaida.

Thanks Lama, but to be honest I don't know whether to laugh or cry (so I laughed)!

Nuclear proliferation sure is a worry, and some 'worst case scenarios' are truly horrible (e.g. nuclear war between India and Pakistan). However, it's a huge stretch from this to the destruction of life on Earth, or the end of Homo sap., or even the end of a global economy.

For starters, only a possible Chinese superpower could recreate competitors with the ability to destroy Homo sap.; nukes in the hands of others would create regional disasters only.

But a bigger flaw re WMD is the fact that biological WMD are far easier to make, and can be just as devastating as nukes ... and that capability has been with us from well before WW II. Further, that capability was an inevitable consequence of what was arguably the greatest advance in human technology ... the control of infectious diseases.

1) There are "good" chances that we already missed our last train.

2) Every student in the near future will use methods which combine his own unique personal (moral and technical) contribution to save and develop complexity that is based on simplicity (which is actually the basis of life development).

Through this attitude,(which is based on the art of dialog development between different and unique points of view of other persons) each young mind will learn first of all to cherish the fascinating interaction between its own life and the life phenomena in general.

Nice words, but it doesn't answer my question: how does your 'new logic' eliminate the possibility of thoughts of mass murder forming in the mind of a future Pol Pot?

I mean, not only would have have to alter science, but you'd have to extend all religions and ethical principles, and give all such such power as to unequivocably change everyone's motivations.

Since, AFAIK, evil thoughts arise at least somewhat independently of one's education - in anything, not just how to do science - the existence of magic fairy dust logic doesn't help much.

Finally, suppose this 'new logic' could be developed and is as wonderful as you say ... if hugely intelligent and capable folk such as PF members can make neither head nor tail of your ideas, why do you think that little Bertie, with all his learning difficulties, could master it?

 

[Lama]

Nice words, but it doesn't answer my question: how does your 'new logic' eliminate the possibility of thoughts of mass murder forming in the mind of a future Pol Pot?

No single method can eliminate the possibility of thoughts of mass murder, it only can reduce its chances to become our reality.

If each person in this planet has a deep understanding which is based on life cherishing, then the chances of the arising of a new Hitler, Stalin or Pol Pot are reduced.

My Idea is no more then a one very first step for this goal and it is nothing but one of many other actions that should be made by governments, educational system, organizations, companies, communities and privet persons that have the common goal, which is to care day by day about the existence and moral/technical level of our civilization in order save and develop our life.

Finally, suppose this 'new logic' could be developed and is as wonderful as you say ... if hugely intelligent and capable folk such as PF members can make neither head nor tail of your ideas, why do you think that little Bertie, with all his learning difficulties, could master it?

The logic that I am talking about is based on the essence of what we are as complex yet simple living things, that REALY try day by day find the best within them in any aspect of their life and then they choose to share it by an open dialog that can give them the ability to express themselves in non-destructive ways.

This internal/external dialog put anyone of its participators in a better position that he was before the dialog.

As for my system, I only started to develop the first outlines of it, and it is hard to understood by any parson that believe that there cannot be any connection between morality and exact science methods.

Since I realized that nobody here can grasp my ideas until now, I started to show examples of arithmetical operations, which are based on an included-middle reasoning and also connected to R.


It can be found here: https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=287535&postcount=155

 

[fbsthreads]

if you or anyone else can figure out a new system of maths, then what is to stop terrorists from developing their own system of maths such as the one we have now and use it to there own advantage.

YOU have questioned current maths and want to replace it, but that is just killing the king to become the king yourself.

what is to stop people figuring out that your maths could be replaced by one that doesn't include morals.

i can't believe I'm having to say these words, as even a child could grasp the simple concept the maths and ethics don't go together.

Also have people noticed how Lama only deals with some points in peoples posts and ignores the rest.

I bet if he replies to this he will snip it so that he doesn't have to deal the problem of freethinking i mentioned at the beginning of this post.

 

[Lama]

Hi fbsthreads,

Please read my post for you at:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=287407&postcount=149

if you or anyone else can figure out a new system of maths, then what is to stop terrorists from developing their own system of maths such as the one we have now and use it to there own advantage.

Since the reasoning that I am talking about is a combination of technical and moral training of the mind, then this kind of reasoning can be our "Athnes" method which can deal with any "Sparta" method and win for life.

We should not leave our destiny in the hands of "Sparta".

i can't believe I'm having to say these words, as even a child could grasp the simple concept the maths and ethics don't go together.

If you open your eyes to my work, we will see that there can be a connection between morality and Mathematical reasoning, after all both of them can be found within us, all we have to do is to find the proper methods in order to construct the bridge between them.

Also please read my posts to Nereid in:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=287404&postcount=148

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=287649&postcount=161

Some arithmetic that is based on included-middle reasoning can be found here:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=287535&postcount=155

 

[Alkatran]

Since the reasoning that I am talking about is a combination of technical and moral training of the mind, then this kind of reasoning can be our "Athnes" method which can deal with any "Sparta" method and win for life.

We should not leave our destiny in the hands of "Sparta".

"Technical and moral training of the mind"

Sounds like brainwashin at its finest. What about the people who don't want to learn? What's to stop them from making their own system, since they can think for themselves.

 

[Nereid]

Wow, 163 posts in less than a week! I wish some of my threads were so 'popular'

This is the first time I participated in such a thread, and I can see that several others have had rich experience in discussions with Lama. Now, do I want to repeat the experience? Let's see ...

 

[Alkatran]

Wow, 163 posts in less than a week! I wish some of my threads were so 'popular'

This is the first time I participated in such a thread, and I can see that several others have had rich experience in discussions with Lama. Now, do I want to repeat the experience? Let's see ...

I remember posts about a certain "push" theory which grew by about 100-200 per day...

 

[Lama]

Hi Nereid,

Please look at:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=287649&postcount=161

 

[Alkatran]

Hi Nereid,

Please look at:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=287649&postcount=161

If each person in this planet has a deep understanding which is based on life cherishing, then the chances of the arising of a new Hitler, Stalin or Pol Pot are reduced.

The problem is that you can never have everyone understand an idea like that. It just DOESN'T HAPPEN. This is the kind of thinking where communism works (idealistic).

 

[Lama]

The problem is that you can never have everyone understand an idea like that. It just DOESN'T HAPPEN. This is the kind of thinking where communism works (idealistic).

So, what do you suggesting , to speak about Idealism and do nothing?