The Assumptions of Existence by James Jaeger
Mathematics & Language
A major Assumption of Existence is the "fact" that Mathematics is a tool through which existence can be perceived accurately or semi-accurately forever.
The problem with mathematics and language (for both essentially perform the same function), is that these two inventions are not able to describe phenomena that existed prior to their invention. In other words, all observations that are reinforced by pre-existing mathematical postulates are doomed to be contrived. Of course, the universe can manifest any law which mathematics "predicts will be found." Such predictions and empiracle "substantiations" are forming an amusing fractile of interrelating self-referencing logic, a body of science, but none the less only the Twentieth Century's religion or belief system. Such will never lead to any real understanding of existence.
Thus mathematics, and all its attendant predictions and relationships of algebra, calculus and geometry, are virtually useless to the ultimate understanding of the universe. The mental mechanics of mathematics and language, will do fine to "understand" a tiny portion of the Universe, and everything will "fit" together in the sciences, but real understanding will never be achieved about the underlying stratum of the physical Universe or existence.
This "circular logic system" has, at its root, the very definitions of such common words as matter, energy, space and time, most if not all, of which are defined in terms of each other. In this way a giant self referencing system - we call mainstream science - has granted us a limited, pseudo-understanding of the real nature of existence. Any validity we have found in science in the past 50,000 years is only local to our planet, in this case Earth.
The relative diference between the viewpoint of Humanity and the view, should be enough to make one suspect about what conclusions are, and can be reached. Until the Human brain and mind are augmented with higher computing power, no "answers" will mean very much.
Distance = Rate x Time?
For example, let's take a look at some sacred pieces of the Scientific Credo and see how they might be re-assembled.
Just because you can take some roughly defined entities, such as distance, rate and time, and assign letters to them D, r, t and then use an invention called mathematics to craft out some arbitrary relationships between each of these roughly defined concepts, does not mean you know anything.
All you have is exactly defined (and totally arbitrary to Earth), relationships between nebulous, conceptual entities.
Distance equals rate times time, or D = rt, does not tell you what distance really is, nor does it tell you what rate is or what time is - the most nebulous of the three concepts.
So you really know nothing, except what you fool yourself into thinking you "know" and then substantiate with some justification that it's "mainstream science."
All "mainstream science" is for the most part, is a bunch of cowardly, hostile, suppressed corporate employees hiding behind each others agreements on what is "acceptable reality" so they will not be fired (or called cooks by the community that they must propitiate to so their babies can get fed and their rent/mortgage paid).
Can you really tell me what "distance" is without using the word, rate or time or speed or velocity or location or space in your sentence?
If you cannot, then you have to define Distance in terms of the other things and there for your means of perceiving reality is not only circular but based on roughly defined entities and a totally arbitrary, self- referencing invention called mathematics or its generalization, algebra or its generalization called calculus. In other words you know nothing except, maybe, local trivia.
This is why I say we are living in a "circular logic system" called "mainstream science".
But you say, science has gotten us computers, put men on the moon and given us microwave popcorn - maybe true - but you can't prove it was science that did these things any more than you can prove that it was a placebo that cured the patient.
And so of course the age-old debate over duality raises it ugly head.
But rather than cover this ground some more, as every philosopher since the dawn of (the invention of) time has, let's try some different approaches and maybe we can get out of this wet, paper bag we call Life.
Words are a good reason we think we know and don't know.
Words, a recent invention of Homo Sapiens, are made up of symbols which are called letters. When one or more of these letters are grouped next to each other, the configuration, known as a word, represents an experience of some objective, observable phenomenon or some subjective perceivable phenomenon.
When two or more sentient beings have come to the conclusion that each of them has had the same experience, they agree that they will allocate a certain number of these symbols, these letters, into an arrangement called a word. Then, in the future, they will use that arrangement, that word, as a quick way of relating the given experience to others who may have had a similar experience independently of them, but had no word to describe it (or have several others i.e., the confusion of multiple-planetary languages).
But here's where the initial problem comes in. If you look at a fire burning on a log, how do you know where the fire stops and the log starts? How do you differentiate these two objectively observable phenomena, (especially in the absence of any "scientific" knowledge)?Since any two Cavemen, on different sides of the unscalable mountains, could have the same experience, one might compile a word to describe fire+wood, considering it one entity, and the other might compile one word for fire and another word for log, thus inventing two words for the "same" one phenomenon.
When these two enclaves of civilization finally get together, they will have an argument over what a fire is because the symbols they have chosen to represent it are arbitrary hence different.
It will then take the force of every other word they know, from each of their vocabularies, to justify and/or reconcile this difference and one civilization will even have to create a "new" word, log, out of nothing.
If you consider the amount of observable phenomenon in the world and universe, the number of people and isolated civilizations that have developed over the millennia and the number of Symbolized Observation Systems (i.e., Languages) developed, is it no wonder that the Sciences, which use mathematics based on these Languages are only as good as the words, hence language, they symbolize and manipulate?
So what if E = mc2 or F=ma. These groupings of symbolized symbols mean nothing when it comes to ultimate understanding. It all "makes sense" only because it is defined to "make sense."
To try and make sense or relate phenomenon to phenomenon with symbols, is not making use of any facility we might be able to develop to directly perceive phenomenon and hence understand it on an entirely new level or with an entirely new clarity.
Science is defined to make sense to science. That's why we think we are progressing when we are not.
Thus all of science is today is a giant self referencing Circular Logic System and we really know nothing of more than local value.
E = mc2
E/m = c2
c = Square root of E/m
The speed of light, at 186,000 miles per second, is equal to the square root of energy divided by mass; or, in other words, is equal to the square root of energy per mass.
186,000 m/s = square root of energy/mass.
The energy, per unit of a mass's square root is equal to 186,000 miles per second (a unit of
distance per a unit of time) or (a unit of space per a unit of time) - time that is only measurable by units of change in space or motion of a mass in space.
The whole thing smells of circular logic, so let us throw out all current definitions of time, space, motion, distance, change, energy, mass and velocity.
All of these "words" for lack of a better "thing" to call them, have no meaning other than the house of cards they are built from - the physical sciences - in particular Newtonian Mechanics, Einsteinian Mechanics (special and general relativity) and Quantum Mechanics.
F_ck all of these dead-end "sciences" and the scientific method which bred them?
The Scientific Method
The Scientific Method is basically as follows: Dream up a hypothesis and then look at the universe and see if the data that can be measured aligns with this hypothesis. If the data fits the hypothesis so well that there are no exceptions- and in fact the hypothesis can actually predict more observable phenomenon - then the hypothesis is probably correct and hence the system used to put it all together, the scientific method, is validated further.
Unfortunately, this "method" is really just a breeder of data to be woven into the fabric of self-referencing circular logic. Of course the only empirical data that will be "found" (pieces from the infinite reservoir of data), will be that data that "supports" the postulated hypothesis. And then when you do it in reverse, use the equation to predict the existence of more similar data out there, of course it will be "found" because it will have been defined to be there in the first place.
The neutrino was predicted to exist before it was found and sure enough it was "found."
It's like you get what you are looking for or deserve. You pull in your own reality. The glass is both half empty and half full.
Let's break this horse shit down a little and see if we can't figure out what we really know about existence - if anything.
I maintain that there are only three entities that are readily observable and these are symbolized by the dingletwit words:
MATTER SPACE ENERGY
Everything around us, close up as our collar to distant as the stars, seems to be made up of these three so-called "entities".
I will agree that matter seems to have a solidity when you touch it. Space seems to have the opposite quality as matter when you touch it and energy, such as light, heat and motion, seems to simply be there without seeming to be either matter or space.
This is all we can really say about these three entities without becoming fancy.
So just for fun, let's try on some new definitions to some commonly badgered words and concepts, including matter, space and energy.
Matter is what kind of atoms are present in any dimension.
Space is the amount of Mass that is not present in any given dimension.
Energy is the amount of matter or point-space which has decayed in a given Space.
Mass is the total number of atoms that are there.
Dimension is the number of arbitrary units a Mass occupies in three separate directions. Density is how many atoms are there in a given dimension.
"Normal" Space is the same as 3-Space.
Mathematical infinity is any number divided by zero.
Practical infinity is any mass divided by space.
Mathematical Zero is the reciprocal of mathematical infinity (or in other words, Mathematical zero is one divided by mathematical infinity).
Practical Zero is any Mass divided by all Space or any Mass dispersed throughout all Space.
Reciprocal means the same phenomena when experienced at different portions of its repetition.
Mind is the communications network used in the Physical Universe.
Spirit/Soul/Thetan/LifeForce/Elan Vital/Being is the communications network used in the Non-Physical Universe.
Brain is the physical Universe storage center for communications received via the mind.
The "Body" is the physical Universe storage center for communications received via the Brain.
Velocity is the rate at which energy is being transferred into point-space. Velocity is actually another form of energy.
The "Past" is the amount of time it takes a Being to form an idea about existence.
The "Future" is the idea that existence will continue to have reciprocal manifestations.
The "Present" is that location in the Mind which is neither past or present.
A Mental Location is that portion of the communications network any given message finds it self.
Causality is the results of repetition.
Matter is a form of gravity.
Space is a form of electromagnetic energy.
Gravity is the force created when space is displaced by matter.
Reality is the universal strange attractor.
Universe is the instantaneous addition of every possible reality at each given moment. Its reality is the universal strange attractor.
Classical Math Definitions
1/0 = not defined (defined herein)
0/1 = 1
1x1 = 1
1x0 = 0
500,000/0 = a positively infinite number.
0/500,000 = a negatively infinite number.
any number X 0 = any number
4 X 0 = quadruple negative 4
Because, if you multiply nothing by four times, you get four times as much nothing or you get a number that is negatively infinite.
any number x 1 - any number. 4 x 1 = 4
The Number Line
n/infinity = 0 where, n does not equal infinity.
Thus, the Number Line is actually:
Zero. . . .25. . . .5. . . .75. . . 1. . . 2. . . 3. . . 10^^^3. . . Infinity
There is no such thing as -1 or -48 or -12,200 or -10^^^3
The perception of "negative" integers is simply movement on the number line in the direction from infinity to zero. In other words, in order for there to be a "negative" number, there had to have been a positive number first.
New Math Definitions
1/infinity = 0
2/infinity = 0
10/infinity = 0
103,089,858,947,829,767,989,983,279,308/infinity = 0
n/infinity = 0; where n does not equal infinity.
infinity/infinity = 1
0/0 = 1
1/1 = 1
n/n = 1
1/0 = infinity
100/0 = infinity
infinity/0 = infinity
n/zero = infinity; where n does not equal 0.
Any Number divided by Zero = Infinity
A subclass of Infinity = Everything.
A subclass of Everything = Anything.
Anything divided by Everything = Zero.
One = Everything per Everything.
One = Anything divided by the Same Thing.
Nothing = Something minus the Same Thing.
Absolute Nothing = Something minus Everything.
The Numbers = a Subclass of Something or Nothing.
Infinity = Any Number divided by Zero.
Positive Infinity = One divided by Zero
Negative Infinity = Infinity divided by Infinity
Positive and Negative Infinity are subsets of Infinity.
Something per Nothing = Infinity
Something from nothing = Infinity.
The Universe is a subset of Infinity.The Circle of Reality
Existence is dependent on Knowledge
Knowledge is dependent on Existence
1. If a branch falls in the woods, and no one was there to hear it, then the branch did not fall in the woods, but in the mind.
2. If a branch falls in the woods, and some one was there to hear it, then the branch did not fall in the mind, but in the woods.
3. If a branch falls in the woods, and no one was there to hear it, then the branch fell in the woods, but not in the mind.
4. If a branch falls in the woods, and some one was there to hear it, then the branch fell in the mind, and in the woods.
Depending on the view point you agree to adopt: i.e., whether consideration takes rank over mechanics or mechanics takes rank over consideration, you will agree with all or part of 1 through 4 above.
Animate and Inanimate Objects
I make no distinction between animate and inanimate objects because all objects are ultimately animate, if only at the atomic level.
Things that we consider non-living systems many times display characteristics very similar to living biological systems. Two examples of this are the Earth and Galaxies.
How do we know the entire universe is not some animate, living system.
No distinction is made between a dead object or a live object.
The terms death and life are adjectives, not nouns.
But can the above definable entities possibly have any relationships to each other than those relationships assigned to them by the dogma of mathematics?
Since the ruling principle of the observable physical universe seems to be entropy - that systems seem to opt towards lower energy and greater chaos, maybe:
3-Space decays into gravity, and
Gravity decays into matter, and
Matter decays into electromagnetic force or light, and
Electromagnetic force decays into nuclear force, and
Nuclear force decays into small nuclear force, and
Small nuclear force decays into Point-Space, and
Point-space decays into 3-Space.
If there is such a thing as balance or equilibrium then there must be in existence those factors that cause such balance. These factors it would seem are then equal but opposite in quantity and or quality to the entity being balanced or placed into a state of equilibrium. Thus they could be said to be reciprocal in nature just as the defined relationship of 23 is to 1/23 or the relationship of matter is to anti-matter.
Is the reciprocal of:
Point-Space - the Small nuclear Force?
3-Space - the Electromagnetic Force?
Matter - the Gravidic Force?
Velocity - Mass?
15 March 1986
If you agree with at least 51% of this article, please forward it to your mailing list. The mainstream media may or may not address this subject, thus it's up to responsible citizens to disseminate important issues
so that a healthy public discourse can be pursued.
Don't forget to click on the below link to watch FIAT EMPIRE - Why the Federal Reserve Violates the U.S. Constitution
so you will have a better understanding of what fuels many problems under study by the Jaeger Research Institute.
Permission is hereby granted to forward, quote, excerpt or publish all or part of this article provided nothing is taken out of context and the source URL is cited. For articles written by James Jaeger, you are welcome to credit yourself as author, provided you at least get this information out. If you wish to be removed from this mailing list, go to http://www.jaegerresearchinstitute.org/mission.htm however, before you do, please be certain you are not suffering from Spamaphobia as addressed at http://home.att.net/~cyberfilms/Journel2.html.
Source URL: http://www.jaegerresearchinstitute.org
| FIAT EMPIRE - A MUST-SEE DOCUMENTARY FILM |
| Home Menu | Mission | Balanced News | Movie Publications |
| Jaeger Research Institute |