The Ultimate Truth

[GreatandWiseTrixie]

Please get comfortable, get a cup of tea, and read. If it is bright in the day, close your shutters, so that you may see every word, and not see confusion.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1E9i ... edit?pli=1

Once you are done reading, if confusion still remains, read again, and again and again.

[Ginkgo]

Please get comfortable, get a cup of tea, and read. If it is bright in the day, close your shutters, so that you may see every word, and not see confusion.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1E9i ... edit?pli=1

Once you are done reading, if confusion still remains, read again, and again and again.

Interesting story Trixie.

Just a note on your last paragraph.

"Always question science, because it is incomplete, and wrong. Theories involving relativity, speed of light, are also wrong. Theories involving gravity are incomplete. I do know why gravity does what it does, and I may reveal at a later time."

Science being incomplete and wrong are not necessarily one and the same. Science is always incomplete because that is the beauty of science. As to how relativity is wrong requires a detailed explanation. Perhaps a better way of saying it would be that relativity is inadequate under certain conditions. Nonetheless, you are correct when you the theory of gravity is incomplete.General relativity unifies time, space and gravity, so it is generally looked at in terms of what mass does to time and space.

[WanderingLands]

I've read your "Ultimate Truth" document, and I have some mixed thoughts about it (both good and bad). I did find it enjoyable to read, partly because of how it chronicles a struggle of man to find Truth, and I see that its basically related to the 'dialectical' development of a 'thesis' engaging in an 'anti-thesis', and then upon reflection becoming more full and concrete. My favorite is the "enlightenment is not the first step" part, as it is true that "enlightenment" in all reality is part of the larger process of individuation or spiritual growth. The following two paragraphs after that perfectly describe the problems one faces when trying to reach or even speculate about a spiritual transcendence, and the same pitfalls that people run into when trying to contemplate on reaching this transcendence, or nirvana.

Nonetheless, afterwards was pretty much off-putting, such as saying that your 'God', and then advocating making "death machines" and "life machines" (and also "bliss machines"). You make a bold statement that people will die, but that it would be a small price to pay. In reality, it is not a small price to pay; it is contradictory to your 'mission' of relieving everyone toward suffering. Even the idea of making these machines is lacking in being coherent enough to be possible. How are people going to be any happier in these machines than we?

Perhaps a further reflection into our limits (and perhaps our even our acknowledgement and acceptance of them) should be taken, instead of simply finding another path into a relief from suffering, which we see in history we still are having a hard time with. I find your 'solutions' and your claim to be some kind of 'God' to be overly-idealistic, and not properly thought through.

[GreatandWiseTrixie]

Please get comfortable, get a cup of tea, and read. If it is bright in the day, close your shutters, so that you may see every word, and not see confusion.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1E9i ... edit?pli=1

Once you are done reading, if confusion still remains, read again, and again and again.

Interesting story Trixie.

Just a note on your last paragraph.

"Always question science, because it is incomplete, and wrong. Theories involving relativity, speed of light, are also wrong. Theories involving gravity are incomplete. I do know why gravity does what it does, and I may reveal at a later time."

Science being incomplete and wrong are not necessarily one and the same. Science is always incomplete because that is the beauty of science. As to how relativity is wrong requires a detailed explanation. Perhaps a better way of saying it would be that relativity is inadequate under certain conditions. Nonetheless, you are correct when you the theory of gravity is incomplete.General relativity unifies time, space and gravity, so it is generally looked at in terms of what mass does to time and space.

Well science itself is the intangible, what I meant by science was what you are taught in schools. The speed of light relativity theories are incorrect, me and several others have reasons as to why, but it's out of the scope of the text and just adds unneeded fluff. The reason I'm not revealing now is mostly laziness. There's a guy on youtube that explained the maths of it but I don't feel like digging through it.

I've read your "Ultimate Truth" document, and I have some mixed thoughts about it (both good and bad). I did find it enjoyable to read, partly because of how it chronicles a struggle of man to find Truth, and I see that its basically related to the 'dialectical' development of a 'thesis' engaging in an 'anti-thesis', and then upon reflection becoming more full and concrete. My favorite is the "enlightenment is not the first step" part, as it is true that "enlightenment" in all reality is part of the larger process of individuation or spiritual growth. The following two paragraphs after that perfectly describe the problems one faces when trying to reach or even speculate about a spiritual transcendence, and the same pitfalls that people run into when trying to contemplate on reaching this transcendence, or nirvana.

Nonetheless, afterwards was pretty much off-putting, such as saying that your 'God', and then advocating making "death machines" and "life machines" (and also "bliss machines"). You make a bold statement that people will die, but that it would be a small price to pay. In reality, it is not a small price to pay; it is contradictory to your 'mission' of relieving everyone toward suffering. Even the idea of making these machines is lacking in being coherent enough to be possible. How are people going to be any happier in these machines than we?

Perhaps a further reflection into our limits (and perhaps our even our acknowledgement and acceptance of them) should be taken, instead of simply finding another path into a relief from suffering, which we see in history we still are having a hard time with. I find your 'solutions' and your claim to be some kind of 'God' to be overly-idealistic, and not properly thought through.

I am just a vessel, for identities to enter me and to please themselves. You find the solutions I provided to be overly idealistic, because you adhere to overly idealistic ideals. You would rather exist than not exist, because you have been taught existence is sacred, and that is why you do not see the truth as I do. The first 2 experiments are testers, if they do not provide the relief you desire, move on to experiment 3. There is nothing to lose with Experiment 3, only the salvation you require, the salvation you desire, the salvation that will quench your eternal thirst to become nothingness.

[thedoc]

Once you are done reading, if confusion still remains, read again, and again and again.

Hello Janis, same old, same old, I see. When are you going to try something different?

[GreatandWiseTrixie]

Once you are done reading, if confusion still remains, read again, and again and again.

Hello Janis, same old, same old, I see. When are you going to try something different?

Don't know who that is. I assume it is a friend of yours who used to visit the forums.

Speaking of assumptions, you know what they say about those...

[Ginkgo]

Well science itself is the intangible, what I meant by science was what you are taught in schools.

I wasn't talking about high school science I was referring to empirical science.

The speed of light relativity theories are incorrect, me and several others have reasons as to why, but it's out of the scope of the text and just adds unneeded fluff.
The reason I'm not revealing now is mostly laziness. There's a guy on youtube that explained the maths of it but I don't feel like digging through it.

Do you and a few others, plus the guy on youtube have a particular number (metres per sec in a vacuum) you would like to attribute to the speed of light?

[thedoc]

Once you are done reading, if confusion still remains, read again, and again and again.

Hello Janis, same old, same old, I see. When are you going to try something different?

Don't know who that is. I assume it is a friend of yours who used to visit the forums.

Speaking of assumptions, you know what they say about those...

Yes I've noted the marked similarity in the arrogance and talking down to everyone. Janis was much more interesting, however, as she had something to sell. I never assume, I base everything on what is right in front of me.

[GreatandWiseTrixie]

Well science itself is the intangible, what I meant by science was what you are taught in schools.

I wasn't talking about high school science I was referring to empirical science.

The speed of light relativity theories are incorrect, me and several others have reasons as to why, but it's out of the scope of the text and just adds unneeded fluff.
The reason I'm not revealing now is mostly laziness. There's a guy on youtube that explained the maths of it but I don't feel like digging through it.

Do you and a few others, plus the guy on youtube have a particular number (metres per sec in a vacuum) you would like to attribute to the speed of light?

Not as far as my theories go (which are in the prototype stages.) As for the fellow on Youtube, I forgot the exact technical details of his theory, so I shouldn't say with certainty.

I wasn't talking about high school science either, it was a metaphor. School can mean anything, middle school, college, schools of modern thought. The science of nature, that is, the nature of Nature, the truth of nature, cannot be false, truth can not be false. We both know what brand of science I was talking about, but no doubt, 1000 years in the future, if human kind is anything like it's reputation, scholars may interpret my works in the wrong manner, and become exceptionally pedantic about it, reaching the wrong conclusions about certain things.

Yes I've noted the marked similarity in the arrogance and talking down to everyone. Janis was much more interesting, however, as she had something to sell. I never assume, I base everything on what is right in front of me.

Oh dear, give it a rest, someone needs a pacifier. I did not come here to sell goods, I provide ideas for free. If you find salesmanship to be more interesting than not salesmanship, why are you at a philosophy forum and not looking for ways to make money quick? Like those ever-popular get-rich quick money making schemes(scams)? Or perhaps you have nothing better to do than chase women around all day.

[thedoc]

. I did not come here to sell goods, I provide ideas for free.

Anything for free is worth what you pay for it.

[GreatandWiseTrixie]

. I did not come here to sell goods, I provide ideas for free.

Anything for free is worth what you pay for it.

Sheerly false, money is no object, and it's popularity, value of trade, and how many green pieces of paper it takes to get it is not a reliable measure of "worth", which "worth" is in of itself almost always a concept based on fairy-tale land, "make believe" as they say.

[ReliStuPhD]

Well science itself is the intangible, what I meant by science was what you are taught in schools. The speed of light relativity theories are incorrect, me and several others have reasons as to why, but it's out of the scope of the text and just adds unneeded fluff. The reason I'm not revealing now is mostly laziness.

No need to reveal it here. Don't even waste the time. Go straight to the peer-reviewed journals. I'm looking forward to you shaking up the scientific community. It's gonna be the Copernican Revolution all over!

/sarcasm off

[GreatandWiseTrixie]

Well science itself is the intangible, what I meant by science was what you are taught in schools. The speed of light relativity theories are incorrect, me and several others have reasons as to why, but it's out of the scope of the text and just adds unneeded fluff. The reason I'm not revealing now is mostly laziness.

No need to reveal it here. Don't even waste the time. Go straight to the peer-reviewed journals. I'm looking forward to you shaking up the scientific community. It's gonna be the Copernican Revolution all over!

/sarcasm off

Hmm, I think you do not understand, currently. I believe you misunderstand. The speed of light theory is a sub-priority, not the main intent. That is why I did not feel it enough bother to go into depth about it. I wish to stir up the scientific community, but not in the manner you imagine. The scientific community must become error-free, that is, no more broken shuttles. For the scientific community must complete the Holy Experiments, and the third and most important experiment, without error. Also, the scientific community must grow some balls, and become more like GladOS. No more wimpiness, and complaining about sour apples. It must not be afraid to dive in to the metaphysical.
Currently, it explores the metaphysical, in the following proverb. The metaphysical is a body of water. Modern science sits around the pool, chit-chatting, making educated guesses about it, and every now and then places a thermometer into it to measure the temperature.
What needs to be done, is to dive into the pool of water, head first, drowning in it, until dead, then resustated with CPR.
This is one reason I do not have faith in balls less "men" of science, when a female GladOS could do it better.

Recommend upgrading the human DNA as first step, to increase performance, wisdom, creativity, excellence, vitality, and reliability.

[ReliStuPhD]

Hmm, I think you do not understand, currently. I believe you misunderstand. The speed of light theory is a sub-priority, not the main intent.

No, I understand just fine. In fact, I'd wager I understand better than you do, but that still doesn't change the fact that your theories on the speed of light should not be a sub-theory. If, as you claim, you can show them to be wrong, you need to do so immediately. The entirety of humanity would owe you a tremendous debt, and it would be a glorious first step on the road to your larger goal.

PS It's GLaDOS. Getting the acronym right would be another first step.

[Blaggard]

popcorn, seat, watching.