[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by baudrunner Keynesian economics is and will continue to be the current trend in a successful capitalist nation. Spend, spend, spend until the workers are tied to the yoke of debt and until government spending has succeeded in making the nation the hegemonistic power that it is today. When you're number one, nobody will argue with you. Get yourself heavily into debt and feel obligated to contribute to the repayment scheme for the sake of continuity and to just have a life. It's only money, and all it takes is a piece of legislation to write off and forgive all debt if it were deemed appropriate to do so because it's all just a game. Really, it's only money. It's really all just about supremacy. The biggest debtor wins. No-one says it always has to stay the same because anything can and does happen, because...

Baudrunner, were you to possess a full knowledge of true Keynesianism, you would know that Keynes' bancor was a debt forgiveness, self-liquidating capitalist system of great superiority over the foolish system of gross exploitation, we now function under... Herein lies the greatest problem of the modern world, the Keynesian interpretation you offer is also the one most believe it to be. This is really a shame, as the real Keynesian system, properly understood, could solve our problems, almost overnight. I have written three books on this very topic, published them on the web, and had very little success in achieving understanding of the ideas. So, I deleted all three e-books and am working on updates, based in pure mathematical logic. I think if I prove my system expansion of Keynesianism with tautological logic, as I write it, maybe it will have more impact than what I previously wrote. If not, oh well, to hell with the world...

Just kidding,
Lloyd

[baudrunner]

Well, Lloyd, I admit to not spending a whole lot of time with the left side of my brain so you might be right. However, I think that any system design must take into account human nature. I have always thought that having money is great and everybody should be encouraged to have it just to keep the wheels of local economies turning. Ultimately, what exists today in this foolish system of gross exploitation is merely a manifestation of what happens after the implementation of ideal principles meets the human element. A further examination will reveal expression of Darwinian sociological evolution, survival of the fittest. We can't escape it. It's as good as it gets.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by baudrunner Well, Lloyd, I admit to not spending a whole lot of time with the left side of my brain so you might be right. However, I think that any system design must take into account human nature. I have always thought that having money is great and everybody should be encouraged to have it just to keep the wheels of local economies turning. Ultimately, what exists today in this foolish system of gross exploitation is merely a manifestation of what happens after the implementation of ideal principles meets the human element. A further examination will reveal expression of Darwinian sociological evolution, survival of the fittest. We can't escape it. It's as good as it gets.

Baud, just finished reading most of your TOE material, etc. You are an excellent writer, and much of your theorie I can endorse, but not all. I especially liked your mention of pre-big-bang bangs. I have mentioned this concept to many, myself. My easiest way to approach that would be to ask a few questions here, even though it's the wrong thread. Still; Do you think or realize the first principle singularity, infinite space, would have had to create dark matter clouds as star nurseries to produce the first big-super-nova bang? I know you've mentioned many bangs, interesting. Any guess as to how many big-bangs, or was and is it just simply as the newest cosmological evidence shows - a continuous history of star nurseries and big-super-nova bangs, creating whole galaxies?

Now, as to my thread, this is what you stated earlier;

I guess that with human intervention we can create a paradise out of this mess we're stuck with now, but it won't happen overnight. Still, parts of America are truly beautiful, as well all over the northern hemisphere, with vast swaths of pristeen and untouched land spread out over the glorious landscape of eastern Russia for example. You have only to look at the National Geographic's satellite image of the world to appreciate that. They sent me one for free.

So I take it you do have an optomist side. Yet above you stated; "It's as good as it gets." Now that is rather pessimistic. Which are you? Constancy is everything.

Regards,
Lloyd

p.s.
I'll be posting in your TOE section, as I have a few problems with certain of your SR and QM ideas.

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie When ego and soul balance, we have a proper personality, sometimes good, sometimes bad. Sometimes arrogant, sometimes humble. Just the way it is. Lloyd

That is so right,I totally agree,must look for more balance
within me!

kind regards michael.

[baudrunner]

Do you think or realize the first principle singularity, infinite space, would have had to create dark matter clouds as star nurseries to produce the first big-super-nova bang? I know you've mentioned many bangs, interesting. Any guess as to how many big-bangs, or was and is it just simply as the newest cosmological evidence shows - a continuous history of star nurseries and big-super-nova bangs, creating whole galaxies?

Just as you've postulated, an ongoing process of creation. The concept of a random quantum fluctuation yielding one Big Bang was always too simple an explanation to my mind. The actual process of creation is a little more subtle than that. To every effect there is a cause and the effect represents a logical result of that cause, that is why I suggested the premonition theory, because it predisposes the existence of life as manifesting the consciousness with which it is mutually contingent. It's a more rational explanation and as a matter of course more outlandish in circumspect, perhaps because it leaves no questions, and people are more comfortable with unresolved scenarios.

So I take it you do have an optomist side. Yet above you stated; "It's as good as it gets." Now that is rather pessimistic. Which are you? Constancy is everything.

The "as good as it gets" statement referred specifically to the subject under discussion, ie. applied Keynesian economics. I am pessimistic as to the future of humankind but optimistic as to my place in the cosmic scheme of things. As to my constance, read my signature...

[subversion]

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie Paradoxes unto themselves are self-fulfilling. My attitude has nothing to do with truth, nor does anyones! Truth is truth, good or bad, period. Pessimists and optomists will always exist, but truth must win the battle for true sustainable survival. This requires seeing the facts, not the feelings. The feelings are inconsequential to the facts, and always will be. The highest understanding of the facts, produces the greatest respect fur human essence's survival, and proper sustainability. Lloyd

But I conjecture, if time ran backwards, it would be a bad thing, and this does not exist. Therefore the Law of Positivity is proven by reality, is it not?

Observe, stated in a certain form, the law of "+" says that reality (i.e. the place where life lives) and life itself are always optimal, otherwise we would not be alive and this "place" we call the universe would not necessarely even exist. THe only reason the universe positively exists is because we are here to see. I'm here, therefore I'm positive. If we do not believe in "+" then we can just die. And besides which if "life" didn't believe in "+" it wouldn't have evolved in the first place. So existence that life experiences is always positive, not negative. This is just a definition. So that would mean that to be realistic is to be optimistic, by definition.

This is the best possible way to look at things. Time runs forward, and this is a good thing, is it not? If the law of positivity were untrue, theoretically time would run backwards, in the negative direction. Do you understand the law of positivity? Time runs in the positive direction therefore this infers the law of positivity. So don't worry, I'm positive that the law of + is true and thus the theory of everything is the best thing it can possibly be, because it has to be merely by the fact that it exists, and that the universe exists, and that life exists to figure it out.

SO in conclusion, the mere fact of how we have used words to define things may be revealing to the true nature of reality, for example, we define time as running in a positive direction, and we also define things which are positive as being good such as "look on the positive side." So why do we define reality as a good thing? Perhaps because it is? This directly leads us to conclude the law of positivity which says that everything is a good thing and life always lives in positive, and never negative, reality. Positive reality is exactly that, it conjures up a feeling, and yet it is a fact.

To seperate the attitude from the facts is to ignore the fact that we are here for a reason, and it is a good one.

Just ask yourself, "is everything a good thing or is everything a bad thing?" Then you will know what is correct.

Not that you didn't already know or anything. I always assumed that everybody always assumed the best things. I guess that was just my best assumption.

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by subversion But I conjecture, if time ran backwards, it would be a bad thing, and this does not exist. Therefore the Law of Positivity is proven by reality, is it not? Observe, stated in a certain form, the law of "+" says that reality (i.e. the place where life lives) and life itself are always optimal, otherwise we would not be alive and this "place" we call the universe would not necessarely even exist. THe only reason the universe positively exists is because we are here to see. I'm here, therefore I'm positive. If we do not believe in "+" then we can just die. And besides which if "life" didn't believe in "+" it wouldn't have evolved in the first place. So existence that life experiences is always positive, not negative. This is just a definition. So that would mean that to be realistic is to be optimistic, by definition. This is the best possible way to look at things. Time runs forward, and this is a good thing, is it not? If the law of positivity were untrue, theoretically time would run backwards, in the negative direction. Do you understand the law of positivity? Time runs in the positive direction therefore this infers the law of positivity. So don't worry, I'm positive that the law of + is true and thus the theory of everything is the best thing it can possibly be, because it has to be merely by the fact that it exists, and that the universe exists, and that life exists to figure it out. SO in conclusion, the mere fact of how we have used words to define things may be revealing to the true nature of reality, for example, we define time as running in a positive direction, and we also define things which are positive as being good such as "look on the positive side." So why do we define reality as a good thing? Perhaps because it is? This directly leads us to conclude the law of positivity which says that everything is a good thing and life always lives in positive, and never negative, reality. Positive reality is exactly that, it conjures up a feeling, and yet it is a fact. To seperate the attitude from the facts is to ignore the fact that we are here for a reason, and it is a good one. Just ask yourself, "is everything a good thing or is everything a bad thing?" Then you will know what is correct. Not that you didn't already know or anything. I always assumed that everybody always assumed the best things. I guess that was just my best assumption.

Or maybe your worst assumption Sub! who knows?

kind regards michael.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Therefore the Law of Positivity is proven by reality, is it not?

Sub, I've stated elswhere that I like your Law of Positivity. It's how we all should be, always.

regards

[baudrunner]

Now, sub and everybody, it seems to me that we are always occupying the here now, so ascribing a direction to time becomes in reality a very difficult thing. One could say that time runs in the +'ve direction, but in reality we are never ahead of ourselves to experience this phenomenon but only ever in the present, so in ascribing a direction to time we are always referencing the -'ve direction but we can't say that time moves in the -'ve direction because we are always right here, right now, even though it is permissible to assign a -'ve vector to time as this is done all the time. Since our discussion of time in retrospect always involves hindsight and foresight may I suggest that time moves in the ±'ve direction? ±'ve involves neither a forward or a backward progression but describes instead continuity, which we shall say has no direction but carries the unitary property of persistence. In so doing we remove any reference to things having a +'ve or -'ve attribute but rather assign to them the neutral attribute of ±'ve, which fits in nicely between +'ve and -'ve, which incidentally is where we find ourselves all the time, not moving forward, or getting left behind and therefore moving backward relative to that which is gaining on us, but rather comfortably right here in the ±'ve.

[subversion]

Originally Posted by mkirkpatrick Or maybe your worst assumption Sub! who knows? kind regards michael.

No, you're wrong. It's defined as the best assumption. That's what I said!