Revised and corrected mechanical translation of google

Mechanical translation by google.cz and seznam.cz translators of the Czech original of the Philosophy of Balance, revised and corrected by Mgr. Marie Pinkavová and JUDr. Dalibor Grůza Ph.D.

 

PHILOSOPHY OF BALANCE (HARMONY)

 

PHILOSOPHY OF LOVE OR ORDER OF VICTORIOUS ARMY:

„All living creatures in fact mostly want to live in a world, where everyone likes each other,

therefore everyone is still obliged to cause the least possible death and pain."

 

All the rest consists more in views (speculations).

 

(I.e. the maximum compliance of good and evil individuals, virtually good and evil)

   

JUDr. Dalibor Grůza Ph.D.

Own expense, Hustopeče, Czech Republic, copyleft 2009-2014.

In support of the political Party for the Rights of All Living Creatures www.spvzt.cz .

This book is released under CC BY-SA 3.0, text of the license see: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ .

 

E-mail: ak-gruza@seznam.cz ,

See also literature: www.filosofierovnovahy.sweb.cz , www.e-polis.cz , http://youtu.be/YhOv47fQlRU , http://youtu.be/ibV-Fwh4sUc , www.filosofie.cz/forum/forum.asp?FORUM_ID=3

 

 

 

raj

 

CONTENTS

 

SCREENPLAY

 

The Philosophy of Balance and the slaughter tax. Is nature’s evolution merciful? … 6

 

Book I.

 

Foreword … 20

 

1st Part Scientific Theory of the Paradise on Earth

 

Articles of civil association - Society of Friends  … 22

(For those interested to become founding members of society, please e-mail: ak-gruza@seznam.cz )

I.) The merger of spiritual and natural (exact) sciences … 23

II.) How to educate the carnivores in herbivores and how to lose weight …27

III.) Nature of evolution of living creatures, virtually history of mankind … 28

IV.) Theory of the Universe expansion and attraction … 30

V.) The theory of time travel paradox …31

VI.) Origin of the Universe … 33

VII.) Physical theory of relativistic energy … 36

VIII.) Time, weight and space … 43

IX.) Arithmetic and geometry of infinite  … 43

X.) The relationship of conservation of momentum and energy … 44

 

2nd Part Discussions about the Philosophy of Balance

 

The main idea  … 47

a) Universal Ethics … 47

b) Could something be created from nothing  … 66

c) Evidence of real material world … 67

d) The meaning of being (life)  … 68

e) Why does not a man want to die  … 69

f) I found what is an illusion of Christians  … 70

g) How I see the blame, punishment and forgiveness for criminals  … 74

h) Do you think, that one can prove the existence of God  … 80

i) Can it make all people happy?  … 90

j) How to objectively express the price of certain thing  … 90

k) My philosophy and metaphysics of conceptual language … 92

l) Is humanity directed to the salvation or the destruction  … 96

m) Marxism  … 101

n) Collective justice is more than individual  … 102
o) Live and dead  … 105
p) In an ideal society there is not a private property  … 105
q) Is the way we understand the world right?  … 115
r) Are there aliens? … 118
s) We cannot eat anything that has to be killed … 118
t) Issue of sex  … 121
u) Automate as a man or God  … 128
v) My God is the compliance of each and everything … 128
w) My political economy  … 128
x) World of light … 131

y) Why did God commit evil in the world?  … 132

z) Does infinity exist and can be proved in your opinion … 137

ž) Judaism and Islam … 138

 

3rd Part Philosophy of Balance

 

1st Introduction-Paradise in our world, and Preface … 145
2nd Philosophy of Balance … 150
2.1 Introduction … 150
2.2 About God (metaphysics) … 152
Introduction … 152
God … 154
Afterlife … 156
God's love … 158
2.3 About basis of being (ontology) … 159
Introduction  … 159
About basis of being … 161
Life … 162
Death … 164
Man and woman … 166
Birth … 167
Model and idea … 168
2.4 About knowledge (Gnoseology) … 169
Introduction … 169
World as an idea or a mass … 171
2.5 About right thinking (logic) … 172
Introduction … 172
Philosophy of language … 173
2.6 How to live (ethics) … 175
Introduction … 175
Ethics … 178
Good … 180
Evil … 181
Reconciliation of good and evil  … 182
Good and evil deeds … 183
Love … 184
Sex drive and other reasons of love … 185
Euthanasia  … 186
Trust in people … 187
Not eating of meat … 188
2.7 About State and Law  … 189
I. General Part … 189
a) Law, virtually agreement (contract) and coercion … 190
b) Private and public law, virtually contract … 192

c) International law, virtually contract … 195

d) Judicial law, virtually contract … 197

e) Illegal, virtually counter contractual act … 198

f) The future of law, virtually contract … 200

g) Natural and fair law, virtually contract … 203

II. Special part … 206

a) The philosophy of economic law … 206

b) The philosophy of marital law … 209

c) Guilt, crime and punishment … 211

d) Philosophy of the rights of living organisms … 213

e) The use of foreign law in private international law … 215

f) Fair War (bellum iustum) … 219

III. Philosophical part … 222

a) The ideal religion and law … 222

b) The correction of the three deadly sins of democratic Western civilization … 224

c) The ideal state in terms of Philosophy of Balance … 226

d) Natural law philosophy in terms of Philosophy of Balance … 226

2.8 About the beautiful (aesthetics) … 227

Introduction … 227
Arts … 229
Music … 230
God and Music … 231

3rd Philosophy of Psychology … 233

Introduction … 233
Foundations of philosophy of psychology … 233

Psychology of penalty … 235

Philosophy of psychology … 237

Soul … 238
Consciousness and will … 239

Reason and emotion … 240

Emotion and instinct … 242

Suicide … 243
Sleep … 244
4th Philosophy of Religion … 245

Christianity and the description of a possible savior … 245

5th Philosophy of history … 246

Introduction … 246
History and the history of mankind … 246

Evolution … 249
6th Philosophy of Chess and Checkers … 250

7th Philosophy of Economics  … 252

Economics in terms of Philosophy of Balance … 252

The equitable distribution of wealth … 256

The causes of economic cycles, wars, and their solutions … 259

8th Philosophy of conclusion or the conclusion … 260

 

Summary: Scientific theory of Paradise on Earth … 262

 

Appendices-Rational Mystique (Do Catholics refuse my Philosophy of Balance … 269, Mental illness … 270, Philosophy of Balance against the extinction-entropy of the Universe … 271, Psychoanalytic view of my Philosophy of Balance … 273, The question of beauty (aesthetics) … 274, Subjective idealism from the exact point of view of Philosophy of Balance … 275, Why not have or when to have children … 278, Calculations with zeros and infinities … 280, The Philosophy of Balance in terms of brain hemispheres … 282, Who are the politicians to vote … 283, Salvation of the world as the exclusive apoptosis … 284,  My Fruitarianism according to Philosophy of Balance … 286, End … 287) … 269

 

Petition for the adoption of the following draft of law on the slaughter tax … 289, Draft of law on the slaughter tax … 289, Links to the text … 294, The explanatory memorandum of the law … 294, Interview meat tax- utopia or a solution?  … 296, Interview II. Meat tax - utopia or a solution? … 297, Interview: meat tax-change of name to the slaughter tax … 298, Vegetarian.cz presents … 299

 

Book II.

Application of Philosophy of Balance in material world

 

1st Part Apology of the Devil as death and evil … 301

 

Philosophy of predators, Nietzsche, Satan and salvation in terms of subjective idealism … 302

Resolution of the relationship of brain and philosophy as salvation … 307

Why does the Devil want to get to the paradise and whether will the expansion of the Universe continue? ... 308

The slaughter tax and merciful butcher as a salvation… 309

Exact description of hypnosis-appropriate tranquilizer as a method of falling asleep in terms of Philosophy of Balance … 310

 

2nd Part Behavior according to Philosophy of Balance  .. 312

 

a) in relation to breeding a dog and hens and to biblical paradise … 312
b) in relation to moths … 340
c) in relation to plant fruits and plant seeds  … 343
d) in relation to fish … 344
e) in relation to plants … 346
f) in relation to Jesus of Nazareth and Roman Catholicism … 347
g) in relation to bread  … 354
h) in relation to microorganisms … 356
i) in relation to hair and beard … 358
j) in relation to fire and wealth … 359

k) in relation to physical exertion and army … 360
l) in relation to diseases, medicine and animal experiments … 363
m) in relation to partner and offspring … 376
n) in relation to the Devil as evil and death … 394
o) in relation to euthanasia … 396
p) in relation to fruitarianism … 397
q) in relation to charity … 401
r) in relation to ants
… 401
s) in relation to democracy and dictatorship … 402
t) in relation to civilization effeminacy … 405

u) in relation to opponents … 405

v) in relation to insects in a car … 410

w) in relation to pests … 410

x) in relation to agricultural factory farms … 411

y) law of cause of early death and severe pain and evolutionary success in the history … 411

z ) in relation to milk and glue … 413

 

3rd Part Nature science proof of merciful individuals success   … 418

 

a) Draft of experiment … 418

b) Growing of yeasts … 425

c) Suspension, change and plea for help regarding to experiment  … 431

 

Appendix: Philosophy of Balance or ORDER OF VICTORIOUS ARMY as biblical paradise in the world for all living creatures by our own forces as commentary on Bible, Genesis, chapter 1-4 ... 435



SCREENPLAY

 

No cosmetics made from slaughtered animals or tested on animals was used in making this film.

 

The Philosophy of Balance and the slaughter tax. Is nature’s evolution merciful?

 

(see http://youtu.be/YhOv47fQlRU , http://youtu.be/ibV-Fwh4sUc )

 

 (G-JUDr. Dalibor Grůza Ph.D.) Ladies and Gentlemen, my name is Dalibor Grůza. I was born in Hustopeče near Brno, Czech Republic, in 1973. I graduated from a mathematical grammar school in Brno and the Law Faculty of Charles University in Prague, where I also completed my post-graduate doctoral studies. Since 2002 I have been running a legal practice in Hustopeče near Brno. Even in my free time I devote myself to law and I take an interest in philosophy. I have made the decision to become a vegetarian on several occasions; since 2004 I have been an ovo-lacto vegetarian with the exception of eating animals that have not been intentionally killed by any human, and I also sympathize with frutarianism. I look after and enjoy the friendship of a dog called Good, who I attempt to feed based on the permanent principle of causing minimum possible death and pain to other living beings. In addition, I own a shelter for broiler chickens, currently housing some 42 chickens. More information on my dog- and chicken keeping can be found in my Philosophy of Balance. In my life work I draw, among others, on the work of the first Czechoslovak President Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk. I was therefore delighted at the opportunity to buy a house in Hustopeče in which Masaryk lived as a student in 1861-1863. In 2009 I published a book called The Philosophy of Balance, whose basic ideas I would like to share in this film.

 

“politics should be reasonable and moral” ... “The law of love applies to society and state as much as to the family. All reasonable and honest politics are the implementation of humanity inside and outside.”

 

Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk, first Czechoslovak president

ČAPEK, Karel. Talks with T. G. Masaryk, p. 386.

 

(F – female presenter) The Philosophy of Balance modifies Darwin’s theory of nature’s evolution as understood by today’s natural sciences. In addition, it deals with the role of mercy from the point of view of Nature’s evolution.

 

(M-male presenter) We will begin by introducing the attitude of today’s natural sciences towards nature’s evolution in the words of the evolutionary biologist and Catholic priest Marek Orko Vácha, Head of the Institute of Medical Ethics at the Third Medical Faculty of Charles University.

 

(F)  According to Marek Orko Vácha, Darwin’s theory, which actually represents the most successful theory of nature’s evolution in the history of science, can be described in the following manner:  

 

(M) “There is a substantial difference between nature’s evolution and Darwinism, Vácha claims, adding, that “Darwinism is one of many attempts to interpret nature’s evolution. Evolution is an obvious fact, a phenomenon, that we observe in nature. Different interpretations are offered, for instance, by the theory of ontogenesis, neutral theory of evolution or Lamarkism. The dispute about the existence of evolution, i.e. that species in nature change over the course of time, is regarded by science as having been solved, and this solution is considered definite.

 

(F) Marek Vácha goes on to say, that according to Darwin, all siblings differ from each other. Few of the siblings survive in nature, as the parent couple’s reproduction capacity is greater than the offspring’s ability to survive. For example, an oak produces hundreds of acorns, the burbot fish a million of eggs per kilogram of live weight and titmice bear 8-10 young a year.

 

(M) Despite this fact we don’t feel, that the number of oaks, fish or titmice in nature is rising. This is because nature’s resources are limited. Reproduction success is not entirely accidental, but depends on differences among siblings. For instance, a rabbit possessing sharper eyesight will glimpse a predator earlier, a rabbit with strong legs will escape a fox or hide from a hawk in time. Thicker fur will enable survival during winter, a better immune system will provide more efficient resistance to disease. Thus, the fittest ones will survive. Darwin was helped by artificial selection, i.e. artificial breeding of, for instance, dogs, plants, etc. by humankind over its history, with humans apparently doing the same as nature.

 

(F) Vácha also says, that a breeder picks those pups from a litter , that he likes best, letting them breed among each other again and again until we a have dachshund bred from the original wolf on the one hand, or, for example, a Saint Bernard on the other.

 

(M) Darwin realized, that there is no wise breeder in nature; there is only nature itself. He realized, that in nature there is cold, there are predators, there are bacteria causing diseases, etc. Nature appears to function as a breeder in its own right, capable of breeding new species of organisms, including man. These deliberations form the basis of Darwin’s theory.

 

(Ž) Marek Orko Vácha finally comes to the conclusion, that while there is nothing in Darwin’s theory that would prove the existence of God, there is also nothing in it that would prove HIS non-existence.

 

(G) Now to the evolutionary theory of nature according to my Philosophy of Balance. I tend to believe, rather then disbelieve, in God. Therefore, I attempt to prove, that evolution is not merciless but in fact merciful. The evolutionary theory of the “Philosophy of Balance does not reject the whole of Darwin’s theory dealing with natural selection of the evolutionary success of the fittest living individuals. The “Philosophy of Balance merely complements it.

 

(F) The “Philosophy of Balance complements Darwin’s evolutionary theory by claiming, that the abilities or, more precisely, the evolutionary success of a living individual is largely based on his mercy, defined here as the infliction of the least possible amount of death and pain by this individual and his ancestors.

 

(M) In other words, as a difference obtained by subtracting the amount of death and pain of living creatures, inflicted by a living individual and his or her ancestors, from the sum of the lives saved and the amount of pain relieved by them in relation to any living creatures. This may include humans as well as animals, insects, plants, fungi, living cells, bacteria, viruses, etc.

 

(F) Simply put, what is decisive from the point of view of mercy defined in this way is not only the amount of evil caused by living individuals and their ancestors, but also the difference between good and evil caused by them. This should be the outcome of the hypothesis of the “Philosophy of Balance about the ability of all microorganisms to distinguish a friend or enemy in other microorganisms.

 

(M) According to the “Philosophy of Balance, living microorganisms, especially living cells, are capable of distinguishing and remembering whether we protect them, especially by feeding them, or whether we kill them.

 

(F) Therefore, even these living microorganisms, according to the “Philosophy of Balance, are able through basic mental reflections to distinguish between and remember their friend or enemy. It could be said, that they possess a soul in the religious sense of the term.

 

(M) An adversarial living microorganism is then treated as an enemy by not only these living organisms but also by their affiliated or related microorganisms, which devour it. In our macro-world, this tends to manifest as quarrel, illness, pain, war, injury, disaster, failure, death, etc.

 

(F) A friendly living organism, according to the “Philosophy of Balance, is then treated in an amicable manner by these living microorganisms, or, more precisely, it is not devoured by them. On the contrary, they devour such living microorganisms that attempt to devour the amicable one. The friendly behaviour of the microorganisms manifests itself in the macro-world as the peaceful and long life of me and my offspring or as a series of friends and comrades who are willing to fight and sacrifice their lives for us.

 

(M) The mercifulness of food was probably the main cause of the evolutionary leap from a common ancestor of humans and primates to man’s predecessors such as Australopithecus, the southern ape, whose food probably consisted solely of fruit and seeds, and Homo Habilis, the handy-man, who was a fundamentally a herbivore and scavenger, posssibly also eating insects. The transition to slaughtered or hunted animal food was probably the main reason for the evolutionary slowdown in Homo Ergaster, the working man, with whom evolution stopped for a long period of time.*

 

(F) The transition to merciless food in Homo Ergaster*, the predecessor of today’s man, thus probably had immensely adverse consequences for mankind’s future in the form of wars, diseases, etc., especially in that it caused immesurable suffering of not only animals.

 

(M) The second example of friendly behaviour of microorganisms can be the evolutionary success of Stalin, who ordered the killing of many adult men of his real and imagined enemies. Unlike Hitler, however, he was not killing women and children on a mass scale. Unlike the Hitler who, since about 1941, had been involved in killing mainly Jewish and Roma women and children, thus perpetrating the worst possible evil in our world due to causing the greatest possible suffering and death.

 

(F) The third example of the friendly behaviour of microorganisms can be Hitler himself and his evolutionary, or more precisely, military success until 1941, due to the fact, that some positive steps in the area of animal protection were made in Nazi Germany. Animal experimentation was radically limited here.

 

(M) On 24th November 1933 it was the animal protection act: Tiershutzgesetz.**

 

 

(F) Shortly before introducing Tierschutzgesetz, vivisection as such was first banned; later it was limited. - Animal experimentation was seen as part of the so-called “|Jewish science .**

 

(M) On 3rd July 1934, a hunting ban act was passed: Reichsjagdgesetz.**

 

(F) On 1st July 1935, a complex environment protection act: Naturschutzgesetz.**

 

(M) On 13th November 1937, an act regulating animal transport by car …. **

 

(F) … and on 8th September 1938, a similar law related to handling animals during rail transport.**

 

(M) An example of the opposite, i.e. adversarial behaviour of microorganisms can be Hitler’s evolutionary failure after 1941, when organized mass murders of Jews and Roma women and even children took place in Nazi Germany. Experiments on animals were replaced with experiments on Jews and Roma, including their children. The same purposes were served using war captives. All these murders undoubtedly outweighed the evolutionary benefit of animal protection in Nazi Germany, and, apparently, also on the German-occupied territory to some extent.

 

(F) The scientific proof of the ability of microorganisms to recognize and remember a friend or enemy would not mean the refutation of religion, whether Jewish, Christian or other. But it would show us why it pays off to be good (i.e. inflict the least possible amount of death and pain). And how nature, or God working through it, punishes evil (i.e. needless death and pain) and rewards good. In other words, non-infliction and prevention of needless death and pain by a living individual. The idea in favour of God’s existence would then be, that someone must have created nature as a fair system which automatically punishes the above-mentioned evil while also rewarding the above-mentioned good.

 

(M) Simultaneously, a scientific proof of the ability of living microorganisms to recognize and remember friends and enemies would, according to the “Philosophy of Balance, establish ethics as the expediency of doing the above-mentioned good and the non-infliction of the above-mentioned evil in the laws and forces of nature that pre-determine the reward of a good individual and punishment of a bad one. It would not be necessary to anchor ethics in God, personal beliefs, faith, etc., but it would be possible to anchor it in the natural law of personal benefit in an individual’s life.

 

(G) Based on my hypothesis on the mercifulness of nature’s evolution, I have submitted a proposal for the Slaughter Tax Bill.

 

(M) The aim of the Bill is to tax and thus limit needless slaughters of animals and, by implication, the suffering of animals caused by the slaughters. The problem is that, on principle, these animals are slaughtered at a very young age, after having experienced fattening solely for the purposes of the slaughter, often under very merciless conditions. The Slaughter Tax Bill supposes the exclusion of this slaughter tax for health, welfare and other reasons.

 

(F) Details are modified in this bill proposal, including the rules for using the revenue raised by this tax to support farmers in their transition to a different – more merciful method of agricultural production.

 

(M) Furthermore, the Bill supposes, that these financial means will be used for public welfare projects, so that the money raised from death is simply used for saving life.

 

(F) There are two great risks involved in this Slaughter Tax Bill from the point of view of the above-mentioned evolutionary hypothesis on the friendship and animosity of microorganisms. First, the slaughter tax rate might be set too high, resulting in the forced reduction of the number of the farm animals kept. Second, the slaughter tax rate might be set too low, failing to provide sufficient encouragement and consideration to the gradual transition of all living creatures to an increasingly merciful method of nourisment and therefore life as such, as argued by the present hypothesis on the mercifulness of nature’s evolution.

 

(M) One of the solutions to these risks is the fact, that animals not killed intentionally by a human, i.e. those that died exclusively of old age, will not be subject to taxation within the Slaughter Tax Bill. Such dead animals could, under medical supervision and in compliance with valid animal cruelty laws, be produced by large-scale agricultural production. They would be used as food for carnivorous animals kept by humans or for those humans who cannot do without meat and have chosen this type of food for ethical reasons. This Bill will help balance the interests of carnivores and herbivores, without forcing a total transition to vegetarian food on the carnivores, something, that most of them would probably not survive in good health.

 

(F) Based on the “Philosophy of Balance, it would be possible for the Slaughter Tax, should it come into force, to fundamentally change our society for the better. Therefore, it would no longer be necessary to rely on some talented political messiah to save us and guide us through the present crisis of the debt-ridden Western democratic civilization. A similar law was in effect during the First Czechoslovak Republic. Therefore, according to the “Philosophy of Balance, the hopes of rescue from economic crisis should not be pinned on individual politicians but only on the passing of the Bill.

 

(M) The “Philosophy of Balance claims, that the the main political obstacle in every attempt at improving Western democracies is people’s imperfect morality. It is common for various opportunists to attach themselves to a merciful person who wants to assert him- or herself in politics and sooner or later to completely discredit him or her. The submitted proposal for the Slaughter Tax Bill draws on the previous hypothesis of the mercifulness of evolution, i.e. on the fact, that there is a supposition, based on this Bill, that these opportunists will change their behaviour due to the above-mentioned friendship of microorganisms saved by this law before succeeding in the total discreditation of the idea of the slaughter tax

 

(F) Recently, we have had the chance to realize, that western democracy in its current form represents a cul-de-sac, with many poor people voting for politicians who will provide them with an opportunity to abuse high welfare benefits without their having to make an effort to earn them.

 

(M) And many wealthy people, in turn, vote for politicians who cover up their property frauds, whether in the form of corruption, tax evasion, or outright tunneling of state or private finances.

 

(F) Last but not least, social unrest is likely to be on the rise, either instigated by the wealthy or the honest poor affected by cuts in welfare benefits due to their abuse by the above-mentioned frauds.

 

(M) This immoral behaviour can only continue as long as the democratic state is able to fund it. This year, the largest world economies, i.e. the G7 group complete with Russia, Brazil, India and China have to pay astronomic debts in the amount of 7.6 trillion dollars, i.e. 152 trillion Czech crowns, as staed by te Bloomberg agency. The countries mainly fund this pillaging of property from the loans from other countries, for instance China, which allegedly has the highest foreign exchange reserves in Euros and dollars.

 

(F) Or by squandering the property saved by citizens in local banks. For example: according to the EU law, bank investments from the property saved by citizens in banks can represent the purchase of state bonds of the member states at as much as 75% of this property.

 

(M) According to the “Philosophy of Balance, the above-mentioned immoral behaviour cannot be blamed on bad laws. In the current situation, it is impossible to believe, that anything can be changed by allegedly stricter control of the budget of EU countries, or that the growing indebtedness of the Czech Republic can be halted by any democratic political party.

 

(F) The thing is, that every law is only a piece of paper that must above all be supported by the morality of the people willing to obey it. While there exist relatively strict laws against corruption, tunnelling, tax evasion or welfare abuse in the Czech Republic, the morality of people who would obey them is lacking.

 

(M) The “Philosophy of Balance sees two potential solutions to this immoral behaviour. Firstly, it is a dictatorship or totalitarian regime that will divide people into the unprivileged, who will only pay the debts without possessing any rights, and the privileged, who will have the rights without having to pay the debts. Here we have the classic Marxist class conflict: either the war will be won by the poor, who will enslave the rich, an infamous scenario of attempting to introduce Communism.

 

(F) Or, secondly, what seems like a more likely development today, this war will be won by the rich, who will enslave the poor. This is the well-known fascism or non-welfare capitalism.

 

(M) The second solution to the above-mentioned immoral behaviour of the inhabitants of Western democratic countries, as seen by the “Philosophy of Balance, is represented by a change in the morality of the inhabitants of the democratic welfare state. That is, to prevent many poor people from abusing unearned welfare benefits and, on the other hand, many rich people from robbing the state. According to the “Philosophy of Balance, this change in morality can be brought about by the proposed Slaughter Tax Bill for one simple reason: if we act mercilessly towards other living creacures, how can we be expected to act mercifully towards each other? According to the “Philosophy of Balance, there are no hermetically separated moralities - morality among humans and morality in relation to other living creatures. There is only one universal morality which applies to all living beings.

 

(F) If the Slaughter Tax Bill can prevent the above-mentioned immoral behaviour of humans, which, as argued by the “Philosophy of Balance is inevitably heading for a fundamental economic crisis and the fall of Western democracy, it can be expected, though it is not certain, that this proposed means of rescue will sooner or later be tried with the deepening crisis.

 

(G) In conclusion I would like to briefly summarize my “Philosophy of Balance. According to my life experience, the only and most reasonable certainty is, that all living creatures in fact mostly want to live in a world, where there will be universal love, and everyone, therefore, is obliged to inflict a minimum of death and pain . All the rest consists more in views (speculations). It applies to the whole of my “Philosophy of Balance. I regard it as a self-evident truth, that “Those who have the strongest desire to achieve a world of universal love in the shortest possible time (i.e. to achieve paradise for all living things) should inflict the minimum possible death and pain (especially to all living creatures). Deciding, according to the “Philosophy of Balance, whether it is fairer for a merciful animal or an equally merciful human to die, represents an infinitely complex problem, which can only be solved by nature, or God working through it. Our descendants should thus continue in the education (i.e. evolution) of all living, often legally irresponsible creatures, such as animals, in order to help them fulfill their permanent obligation to inflict as little death and pain as possible.

 

Filosofie rovnováhy na internetu v češtině a angličitně je na: www.filosofierovnovahy.sweb.cz .

The “Philosophy of Balance (Harmony)” on the Internet in Czech or English can be found on: www.filosofierovnovahy.sweb.cz .

 

(G) The “Philosophy of Balance is now out of print, but it is available free on the Internet as copyleft, i.e. under the same author license as the Internet encyclopaedia wikipedia. Within its fairly extensive content I have also speculated on our most reasonable certainty or pre-requisite to my “Philosophy of Balance; in other words, I have attempted to project it from the point of view of the current state of sciences and humanities. These speculations, however, are not the necessary conditions for the “Philosophy of Balance. Until the full confirmation or refutation of this most reasonable certainty, it will be necessary to accompany the change of the present state of science with the change of its scientific projection, or, as the case may be, to make this simplified definition of love more specific.

 

(F) There follows written statements of experts in the field of natural sciences.

 

(M) According to an opponent’s reply of the biologist and Catholic priest Mgr. et Mgr. Marek Vácha, PhD.: … the screenplay is very well worked-out and it is obvious, that you have thought things through … but …: I do not think it possible to prove, that bacteria are either friendly or unfriendly. I believe (perhaps I am wrong), that there is no such thing as friendship or animosity in nature among microorganisms; in other words, I do not think, that nature invented morality. Like it or not, even in higher organisms, killing is the principle of the game.

 

The reply has been elaborated and written by Mgr. et Mgr. Marek Vácha, PhD.

 

(F) According to MVDr. Jiří Kunc of the VETERINARY CLINIC HUSTOPEČE, who also supervises the below-mentioned scientific experiment, the viewpoint of current natural sciences regarding the question “Whether a body cell or related cells in co-operation with the whole body, especially the brain, is, for instance, able to subconsciously recognize and remember a friend or an enemy, not only at a microscopic distance but at larger distances as well (within the range of centimeters, meters or even kilometers) …?” is as follows:

 

(M) Contemporary science and biological knowledge are based on scientifically proved and defined facts on the functioning of organisms. These are, that peripheral cells, particularly sensitive receptor cells, emit chemical-based signals to the surrounding cells, especially nerve cells; these then transfer the information to the centre, the central nervous system – the brain. The brain will evaluate the information and send a corresponding signal to the periphery. This system of co-operation functions both in higher organisms, e.g. mammals, and in lower ones, e.g. coelenterata, always in co-operation with a simple nervous system. Other organisms, plants and fungi, lack these functions and abilities. Subconscious behaviour is understood in terms of brain activities. The brain reacts on the basis of experience, instincts as well as conditioned and unconditioned – genetically coded reflexes. All this seems to be hidden in our subconscious and controlled from the centre, the brain. This co-operation between the centre and periphery is vital for the whole organism. If peripheral cells die, or parts of the organism, e.g. ordinary skin wounds or burns caused by a hot object, the centre evaluates this information and attempts to avoid the situation in the future. This is how a conditioned reflex arises. Co-operation with the centre is always necessary. Peripheral cells or parts can die but the whole, the organism, continues to live, as it is controlled from a higher place. On the contrary, should the centre die, e.g. as a result of an extensive stroke, the co-operation ceases to function; it could be compared to some chaotic state in the body, which, as a whole, then dies, ceases to exist. Some body tissues, though, can survive for some time, e.g. the deceased person will grow a beard. These reactions to outer impulses, if it is possible to define as friendly or unfriendly, can be stored, coded and carried as genetic information for other generations; they are the so-called unconditioned reflexes. There is a whole range of them, e.g. songbirds will fly away at the sight of the silhouette of a bird of prey, a hunting dog freezes, or sets, when smelling game nearby, an eye will blink when a hand emerges fast in front of it. Through learning and repeating, these reflexes become an increasingly solid part of the genetic information.

 

The reply was elaborated and written by MVDr. Jiří Kunc.

 

(G) For demonstrating the above-mentioned opinions, based on the ability of microorganisms to recognize friends and enemies in other microorganisms, I have designed and attempted to carry out the following experiment. For several months and under the supervision of an expert, I have been growing two cultures of yeast cells resistant to a high content of sugar. The first culture of yeast cell is nourished for an extended period of time by a solution of water and sugar from rice syrup, while the other by a solution of water and unrefined raw beet sugar. Later, I contaminate the tuber of a mature sugar beet with these yeast cells. After the contamination, I will keep providing the yeast cells with the same nourishment and observe through an electron microscope whether the living cells of the sugar beet can recognize the yeast cells nourished by the rice syrup as a friend, giving rise to symbiosis between them, while they will regard as an enemy the yeast cells nourished by non-refined beet sugar, a relative to the trial sugar beet, resulting in a life-and-death struggle between them. More about this experiment is described in the Philosophy of Balance.

 

(G) Simultaneously, I would like take this opportunity to ask you, being a lawyer, not a scientist, to try to design and conduct your own scientific experiments related to this hypothesis on the ability of microorganisms to distinguish between friend and enemy. As far as experiments on living creatures are concerned, I allow these only when the permanent obligation to inflict the least possible amount of death and pain is fulfilled. My standpoint towards animal experiment is described in more detail in the Philosophy of Balance.

 

(G) If you wish to support the proposal for the Slaughter Tax Bill by attaching your signature to the petition, here is a link to the petition and the text of the Bill.

 

PETICE za přijetí a návrh zákona o porážkové dani v češtině: http://filosofierovnovahy.sweb.cz/Petice.html .

PETITION for the enactment of the Slaughter Tax Bill in English: http://filosofierovnovahy.sweb.cz/english/Petice.html .

 

I thank you for your attention and hope, that my work and the work of other people on the Philosophy of Balance as well as this film will fundamentally contribute to making the world a better place.

 

 

V závěrečných titulcích (in end titles):

Překlad (translation): I.T.C.-Jan Žižka s.r.o., IČ 27087093, Sokolská 31, 120 00 Praha 2, překladatelé (translators): PhDr. Alice Tihelková Ph.D. a kol. (et al.), JUDr. Dalibor Grůza Ph.D., Mgr. Marie Pinkavová.

Literatura (literature):

JUDr. Dalibor Grůza Ph.D. Filosofie rovnováhy, Petice za přijetí a návrh zákona o porážkové dani, Scénář filmu o Filosofii rovnováhy. [online], copyleft 2009-2011, [cit. 2012-01-5]. Dostupné na World Wide Web: www.filosofierovnovahy.sweb.cz 

Marek Orko Vácha. TV Noe: Náš dům v kosmu-ekologie a bioetika 7.díl Darwinova teorie II.  [online], c TELEPACE s.r.o. 2011, [cit. 2012-01-5]. Dostupné na World Wide Web:, http://tvnoe.tbsystem.cz/index.php?cs/videoarchiv/ndk_a0015_v1112__

**Animal rights, from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia [online], copyleft, last revision 27 December 2011 at 18:11 [cit. 2012-01-5]. Dostupné na World Wide Web: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_rights#Main_philosophical_approaches

aš Novinky. Největší ekonomiky světa mají astronomické dluhy. A budou na tom hůř. [online], c 2011, [cit. 2012-01-5]. Dostupné na World Wide Web:,http://www.novinky.cz/ekonomika/255176-nejvetsi-ekonomiky-sveta-maji-astronomicke-dluhy-a-budou-na-tom-hur.html

JUDr. Dalibor Grůza Ph.D., Absolut, www.FILOSOFIE.cz Diskusní fórum, webmaster. [online], c 2009 webmaster, [cit. 2012-01-5]. Dostupné na World Wide Web: http://www.filosofie.cz/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1375&whichpage=42#24318 , http://www.filosofie.cz/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1375 , http://www.filosofie.cz/forum/forum.asp?FORUM_ID=3

JUDr. Dalibor Grůza Ph.D., Návrh zákona o porážkové dani. [online], c 2009-2010, [cit. 2012-01-5]. Dostupné na World Wide Web: http://www.vegetarian.cz/a/nzakona.html  

JUDr. Dalibor Grůza Ph.D., Důvodová zpráva k zákonu o porážkové dani. [online], c 2009-2010, [cit. 2012-01-5]. Dostupné na World Wide Web: http://www.vegetarian.cz/a/mddz.html  

Kronika Lidstva, sestavovatel Bodo Harenberg, z německého orgininálu, šesté, doplněné české vydání, Fortuna Print, spol. s r.o., Praha 2001, str. 10 a násl.

*Putování s pravěkými lidmi, 2DVD-116minut, produkce seriálu Mike Salisbury, režisér a výkonný producent Richard Dale, koprodukce BBC/Discovery Channel 2002, vydala Mladá Fronta Dnes.(DVD I: 1.-2.část strava předků člověka po Homo ergaster, 2.část čas 24:59 a násl.  Homo habilis jako mrchožrout po objevení výroby kamenných (zřejmě pazourkových) nástrojů, 2.část čas 28:01 a násl. první Homo ergaster před 2 milióny let, DVD II: 3.část čas 1:39 a násl. lov pakoně Homo ergasterem, 3.část čas 24:01 a násl. zastavení evoluce u Homo ergaster do před 1 milióny let). (Walking with Cavemen with Robert Winston, 2DVD-116minut, production of the series Mike Salisbury, Director and Executive Producer Richard Dale, co-production of BBC/Discovery Channel 2002, published by Mladá Fronta Dnes, (DVD I: 1st-2nd Part  food for human ancestors until Homo ergaster, 2nd part time 24:59 et seq. Homo habilis as a scavenger after the discovery of production of stone (probably flint) tools, Part 2 time 28:01 et seq. the first Homo ergaster 2 million years ago, DVD II: Part 3 time 1:39 et seq. wildebeest hunting by Homo ergaster, 3rd part time 24:01 et seq. stopping the evolution of Homo ergaster until a million years ago))

 

ČAPEK, Karel. Hovory s T. G. Masarykem. 1. soubor. vyd. Praha: Československý spisovatel, 1990. 592 s. Spisy, sv. 20.

 

Petr Kotek, Novinky.cz, Databáze 52 000 filmových svědectví o holocaustu je přístupná i z Prahy. [online], copyright 1.2.2010 v 13:00, last revision 1.2.2010 v 13:00  [cit. 2012-01-9]. Dostupné na World Wide Web: http://www.novinky.cz/veda-skoly/190796-databaze-52-000-filmovych-svedectvi-o-holocaustu-je-pristupna-i-z-prahy.html

 

USC Shoah Foundation Institute for Visual History and Education, from Wikipedia, The Free Encyklopedia [online], copyleft, last revision 30 June 2011 at 09:14.[cit. 2012-01-9]. Dostupné na World Wide Web: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivors_of_the_Shoah_Visual_History_Foundation

 

Digitální knihovna | NS RČS 1935-1938 | Poslanecká sněmovna - stenoprotokoly | 57. schůze (obsah, přílohy) | Čtvrtek 25. června 1936 , Společná česko-slovenská digitální parlamentní knihovna, cit. 18.1.2012, Dostupné na World Wide Web: http://www.psp.cz/eknih/1935ns/ps/stenprot/057schuz/s057004.htm

 

ZÁKON (THe LAW) č. 30/1946 Sb. ze dne 19. února 1946 o nové úpravě československého práva v oboru nepřímých daní a státních finančních monopolů. Daň z masa (tax on meat) §§ 40-53. A provádějící VLÁDNÍ NAŘÍZENÍ (and implementing government regulation) č. 98/1946 Sb. ze dne 26. dubna 1946, kterým se provádí zákon ze dne 19. února 1946, č. 30 Sb., o nové úpravě československého práva v oboru nepřímých daní a státních finančních monopolů. Daň z masa (tax on meat)  §§ 3-19.

 

"Byl jednou jeden život", v originále: "Il était une fois ... la Vie", created by Albert Barillé, music composed by: Michel Legrand, characters designed by: Jean Barbaud, copyright PROCIDIS-Paris, v České republice copyright: BH promo CZ 2008, titulní píseň Jana Mařasová, Ľuba, 1,2,4,5 DVD 104 minut, 3,6 DVD 130 minut, 26 dílů seriálu.

 

Použité obrázky (used images):

Marek Vácha, Wikipedie, otevřená encyklopedie [online], copyleft, last revision 28.12.2011 v 21:51  [cit. 2012-01-9]. Dostupné na World Wide Web: http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orko

Lamarckisme, Wikipedia, l´encyclopedie libre [online], copyleft, last revision 16 décembre 2011 à 11:35 [cit. 2012-01-9]. Dostupné na World Wide Web: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckisme

Lamarckism, from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia [online], copyleft, last revision 31 December 2011 at 12:32 [cit. 2012-01-9]. Dostupné na World Wide Web: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism  

Darwin, Wikipedie, otevřená encyklopedie [online], copyleft, last revision 4.12.2011 v 05:20 [cit. 2012-01-8]. Dostupné na World Wide Web: http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin

Darwin, from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia [online], copyleft, last revision 4 th January 2012 at 20:40 [cit. 2012-01-8]. Dostupné na World Wide Web: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin  

O původu druhů, Wikipedie, otevřená encyklopedie [online], copyleft, last revision 5.1.2012 v v 09:24 [cit. 2012-01-8]. Dostupné na World Wide Web: http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/O_p%C5%AFvodu_druh%C5%AF

Emma Darwin, from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia [online], copyleft, last revision 23 December 2011 at 23:19 [cit. 2012-01-8]. Dostupné na World Wide Web: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma_Darwin

 

Microorganism, from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia [online], copyleft, last revision 9 January 2012 at 08:16 [cit. 2012-01-9]. Dostupné na World Wide Web: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microorganism

 

Human Evolution, from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia [online], copyleft, last revision 6 January 2012 at 14:47 [cit. 2012-01-8]. Dostupné na World Wide Web:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

 

Homo erectus, from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia [online], copyleft, last revision 4 January 2012 at 17:00 [cit. 2012-01-12]. Dostupné na World Wide Web:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_Erectus

 

Homo ergaster, from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia [online], copyleft, last revision 24 December 2011 at 17:35 [cit. 2012-01-12]. Dostupné na World Wide Web:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_ergaster

 

Stalin, Wikipedie, otevřená encyklopedie [online], copyleft, last revision 31.12.2011 v 12:32 [cit. 2012-01-8].  Dostupné na World Wide Web: http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin

 

Голодомор в Україні 1932—1933, Вікіпедія — вільнa енциклопедія [online], copyleft, last revision 2.1.2012 v  07:52 [cit. 2012-01-9]. Dostupné na World Wide Web: http://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%80_%D0%B2_%D0%A3%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%97%D0%BD%D1%96_1932%E2%80%941933  

 

**Animal rights, from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia [online], copyleft, last revision 27 December 2011 at 18:11 [cit. 2012-01-5]. Dostupné na World Wide Web: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_rights

 

Adolf Hitler, from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia [online], copyleft, last revision 9 January 2012 at 07:28  [cit. 2012-01-9]. Dostupné na World Wide Web: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler

 

Bombing of Dresden in World War II, from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia [online], copyleft, last revision 5 January 2012 at 18:19  [cit. 2012-01-9]. Dostupné na World Wide Web:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_IIr

 

The Holocaust, from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia [online], copyleft, last revision 2 January 2012 at 22:09 [cit. 2012-01-8]. Dostupné na World Wide Web: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust

 

Steven Spielberg, Wikipedie, otevřená encyklopedie [online], copyleft, last revision 5.1.2012 v 15:01 [cit. 2012-01-9]. Dostupné na World Wide Web: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Spielberg

 

Mojžíš, Wikipedie, otevřená encyklopedie [online], copyleft, last revision 7.1.2012 v 21:14 [cit. 2012-01-9]. Dostupné na World Wide Web: http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moj%C5%BE%C3%AD%C5%A1 

 

Brahma, from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia [online], copyleft, last revision 8 January 2012 at 01:11  [cit. 2012-01-10]. Dostupné na World Wide Web: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahma

 

Ježíš Kristus, Wikipedie, otevřená encyklopedie [online], copyleft, last revision 1.1.2012 v 16:22 [cit. 2012-01-8]. Dostupné na World Wide Web: http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Je%C5%BE%C3%AD%C5%A1

 

Sistine Chapel, from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia [online], copyleft, last revision 8 January 2012 at 07:55 [cit. 2012-01-9]. Dostupné na World Wide Web: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sistine_Chapel

 

Nature, from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia [online], copyleft, last revision 8 January 2012 at 03:46 [cit. 2012-01-9]. Dostupné na World Wide Web: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature

 

Milky Way, from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia [online], copyleft, last revision 7 January 2012 at 03:46 [cit. 2012-01-9]. Dostupné na World Wide Web: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way 

 

Immanuel Kant, Wikipedie, otevřená encyklopedie [online], copyleft, last revision 7.12.2011 v 16:04 [cit. 2012-01-9]. Dostupné na World Wide Web: http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kant

 

Immanuel Kant, Wikipedia, Die freie Enzyklopedie, [online], copyleft, last revision 2. Januar 2012 um 14:46 Uhr [cit. 2012-01-9]. Dostupné na World Wide Web: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant

 

Buddha, Wikipedie, otevřená encyklopedie [online], copyleft, last revision 7.1.2012 v 20:56 [cit. 2012-01-10]. Dostupné na World Wide Web: http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddha

 

Bible, from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia [online], copyleft, last revision 9 January 2012 at 18:38 [cit. 2012-01-9]. Dostupné na World Wide Web: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible

 

Jesus, from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia [online], copyleft, last revision 7 January 2012 at 18:00 [cit. 2012-01-9]. Dostupné na World Wide Web: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus 

 

Tóra, Wikipedie, otevřená encyklopedie [online], copyleft, last revision 30.12.2011 v 13:47 [cit. 2012-01-8]. Dostupné na World Wide Web: http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C3%B3ra

 

Magna Carta, from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia [online], copyleft, last revision 8 January 2012 at 08:17 [cit. 2012-01-10]. Dostupné na World Wide Web: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta

 

Deklarace práv člověka a občana, Wikipedie, otevřená encyklopedie [online], copyleft, last revision 11.12.2011 v  00:17 [cit. 2012-01-10]. Dostupné na World Wide Web: http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deklarace_pr%C3%A1v_%C4%8Dlov%C4%9Bka_a_ob%C4%8Dana

 

United States Declaration of Independence, from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia [online], copyleft, last revision 8 January 2012 at 17:46  [cit. 2012-01-10]. Dostupné na World Wide Web: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence

 

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia [online], copyleft, last revision 9 January 2012 at 05:31  [cit. 2012-01-10]. Dostupné na World Wide Web: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohandas_Karamchand_Gandhi

 

Karel VI., Wikipedie, otevřená encyklopedie [online], copyleft, last revision 9.1.2012 v 17:59 [cit. 2012-01-10]. Dostupné na World Wide Web: http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karel_IV

 

Václav Havel, Wikipedie, otevřená encyklopedie [online], copyleft, last revision 8.1.2012 v 20:54 [cit. 2012-01-10]. Dostupné na World Wide Web: http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C3%A1clav_Havel

 

Michail Sergejevič Gorbačov, Wikipedie, otevřená encyklopedie [online], copyleft, last revision 26.11.2011 v 03:13 [cit. 2012-01-10]. Dostupné na World Wide Web: http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorba%C4%8Dov

 

Krádež, Wikipedie, otevřená encyklopedie [online], copyleft, last revision 25.8.2011 v 22:26 [cit. 2012-01-8]. Dostupné na World Wide Web: http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kr%C3%A1de%C5%BE

 

Theft, from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia [online], copyleft, last revision 6 January 2012 at 21:18  [cit. 2012-01-10]. Dostupné na World Wide Web: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft

 

Lichva, Wikipedie, otevřená encyklopedie [online], copyleft, last revision 28.12.2011 v 21:38 [cit. 2012-01-8]. Dostupné na World Wide Web: http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lichva

 

Usury, from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia [online], copyleft, last revision 9 January 2012 at 13:33 [cit. 2012-01-10]. Dostupné na World Wide Web: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usury

 

Podvod, Wikipedie, otevřená encyklopedie [online], copyleft, last revision 21.8.2011 v 09:47 [cit. 2012-01-10]. Dostupné na World Wide Web: http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Podvod

 

Falsimonia, Wicipaedia, libera encyclopaedia [online], copyleft, last revision 21 Agusti 2011 v 09:46 [cit. 2012-01-10]. Dostupné na World Wide Web: http://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsimonia 

 

Karel Marx, Wikipedie, otevřená encyklopedie [online], copyleft, last revision 9.12.2011 v 01:48 [cit. 2012-01-8]. Dostupné na World Wide Web: http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx

 

Paradise, from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia [online], copyleft, last revision 5 January 2012 at 03:07 [cit. 2012-01-8]. Dostupné na World Wide Web: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradise

 

Ráj, Wikipedie, otevřená encyklopedie [online], copyleft, last revision 12.7.2011 v 06:29 [cit. 2012-01-8]. Dostupné na World Wide Web: http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%A1j

 

Рай, ВикипедиЯ - Свободная энциклопедия, otevřená encyklopedie [online], copyleft, last revision 4.1.2012 v 16:03 [cit. 2012-01-10]. Dostupné na World Wide Web: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D0%B0%D0%B9 

 

Image:AdamAndEve fx.png , http://www.centipedia.com/articles/Image:AdamAndEve_fx.png , http://www.centipedia.com/images/en/8/88/AdamAndEve_fx.png , cit 18.2.2011 v 13:07, From the book The Clip Art Book, 1980, compiled by Gerard Quinn "The Clip Art Book is a compilation of illustrations that are in the public domain. The individual illustrations are copyright free and may be reproduced without permission or payment."


Hudba (music):

Mediální partner vegetarian.cz a za pomoc při vzniku tohoto filmu děkuji redakci vegetarian.cz, text zákona o porážkové dani, důvodovou zprávu a rozhovory o zákonu můžete také shlédnout na webových stránkách www.vegetarian.cz (Media partner vegetarián.cz and for assistance in the creation of this film, I thank to the editors of vegetarián.cz, the text of the Act on the slaughter tax, the explanatory report and the talks about the law can also be viewed on the website www.vegetarian.cz ).

Spolutvůrce scénáře Radim Paluš www.radimpalus.cz .

copyleft 2012 Mnou poskytnuté toto, resp. výše uvedené dílo je licencováno za podmínek http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.cs , licence Creative Commons Uveďte autora/Zachovejte licenci 3.0  (Copyleft 2012 By me provided this, virtually the above work is licensed under the terms http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en , license Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0) ).

 

 

 

 

Mechanical translation by google.cz and seznam.cz translators of the Czech original of the Philosophy of Balance, revised and corrected by Mgr. Marie Pinkavová and

JUDr. Dalibor Grůza Ph.D.

 

PHILOSOPHY OF BALANCE (HARMONY)

Book I.

 

PHILOSOPHY OF LOVE OR ORDER OF VICTORIOUS ARMY:

„All living creatures in fact mostly want to live in a world, where everyone likes each other,

therefore everyone is still obliged to cause the least possible death and pain."

 

All the rest consists more in views (speculations).

 

(I.e. the maximum compliance of good and evil individuals, virtually good and evil)

   

JUDr. Dalibor Grůza Ph.D.

Own expense, Hustopeče, Czech Republic, copyleft 2009-2012.

In support of the political Party for the Rights of All Living Creatures www.spvzt.cz .

This book is released under CC BY-SA 3.0, text of the license see: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ .

 

E-mail: ak-gruza@seznam.cz ,

See also the literature: www.filosofierovnovahy.sweb.cz , www.e-polis.cz , http://youtu.be/YhOv47fQlRU  http://youtu.be/ibV-Fwh4sUc , www.filosofie.cz/forum/forum.asp?FORUM_ID=3

 

7th corrected and revised edition

 

 

raj

 

I thank to all who contributed with her or his advice, assistance and patience to the drafting of the text below.

 

 Dear friends, philosophers and readers

 

in the introduction l say the only evidently sure truth in our lives, all the rest consists more in views (speculations). (it applies to my entire Philosophy of Balance): "All living creatures in fact mostly want (i.e. my main purpose or goal as a living creature is) to live in a world, where everyone likes each other, therefore everyone is still obliged to cause the least possible death and pain.

 

In my opinion the only real reason of any living creature that can be consciously objected against the world, where all would like each other is, that, unlike the general preference for the love, they prefer nice arising directly or indirectly from killing other living creatures, which is never possible for themselves or for the others well to justify. The only conceivable solution of the conflict in conscience of every living creature can be through awareness of the primary axiom of my Philosophy of Balance (i.e., that I in fact mostly want to live in a world, where everybody likes each other) particularly through the experience of every living creature in his or her lifetime or after death with the death and pain  of himself or herself, of relatives, of other people or of other living creatures.

  

Our desire or the subjective reality I do not consider the unruly mud, on which it is impossible to build, but on the contrary, only my own experience directly verifiable (most exact) philosophical (invisible) truth of every individual, that our being or non-existence offers to us. Everyone can answer personally him- or herself what one personally wants without having to deal with truthfulness other external circumstances (e.g. if something exists, and if detail of A is the detail of A, if there is me, if there is my consciousness, the truth of objective reality, i.e. scientific knowledge or if the truth is sure, such as religious beliefs etc.). Evidently the surest philosophical truth is then my desire to be objective in nature, i.e. it is wished constantly by all living creatures gifted with more or less perfect knowledge. In my opinion the desire of all that is the objective subjective reality, it is in every living creature a genuine desire to universal love, virtually friendship for life and death, which truthfulness in his or her case, any living creature can find just to take their honest answer to the following question from his or her mind: Do I in fact mostly want to live in a world, where everyone likes each other? Yes, I do.

 

I consider as an exact knowledge of the truth the knowledge through our experience, especially our senses. It is sure thus only a particular sequence of sensations perceived by our senses, e.g., that I see the house. If we see this same house at the same place every time, I look at the same place, it is my surest truth (I have nothing surer), that this house I see clearly, even though I have never had any certainty, that the next time I see it, when I look at this place in the future again, and therefore I had been right. Therefore an exact science shows natural laws as a high probability of a happening, not the causality, i.e. causality or certainty (see the empirical philosophy of David Hume). Likewise, my desire to live in a world, where everybody likes each other, I can find through my experience, but not the senses (not the subject of sensory knowledge), but the experience of my consciousness. It is also in the case of my desire the evidently  surest, virtually most probable truth (I have nothing surer), and it is so much, the longer this desire takes in my mind and the more living creatures are in favor.     

   

Literature: http://www.filosofie.cz/forum/topic.asp?whichpage=1&TOPIC_ID=1091 , http://www.filosofie.cz/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1163 

     

 


1st Part

Scientific Theory of the Paradise on Earth


1st Part

Scientific Theory of the Paradise on Earth

    

(see also www.sweb.cz / filosofierovnovahy , http://www.filosofie.cz/forum/forum.asp?FORUM_ID=3 , www.cbox.cz / ak-gruza , www.e-polis.cz )

 

Articles of Civil Association

 Society of Friends

 

(for those interested to become founding members, please e-mail: ak-gruza@seznam.cz )

 

Articles of Civil Association - Society of Friends

Established: .................................................. ..........................

   

Preamble:

The main object of the civil association Society of Friends (further also association) is to achieve the harmony of everyone and of all things, that means, all the living creatures (each animal, insect, plant, fungus, living cell, bacteria, virus, machine conscious of itself, etc.) could in future (evolutionarily) become friends for life and death.

 

Article I.
Eternal duty of all living creatures

(1) Fundamental duty of all living creatures is to cause the least possible death and pain. The perfect living creature eats then only plant fruits and plant seeds from all living creatures. (Further also eternal duty of members).

2) Any change of this eternal duty of all living creatures, who are members of this association (further also members), is inadmissible. In the event of any change or nullification of this eternal duty of members the extinction of association occurs automatically.

(3) By the interpretation of these articles it is impossible to entitle any elimination or threat of this eternal duty of members.
(4) Member has right also to eat only gradually in extreme emergency (especially from serious health reasons) eggs, in extreme emergency carrions of living creatures died of natural causes, on principle of old age, or in extreme emergency collected blood of non-slaughtered animals and humans and milk, or in extreme emergency plants, all always the most mercifully as possible bred and killed, and products purely from them.

 

 

Article II.
Membership in association

(1) A member can become each living creature, who in face of the association and its members binds always to keep the eternal duty of members and at the same time he or she binds to keep the valid Articles of the Association.

(2) The extinction of a membership in the association happens as well automatically in case of the member, who substantially breaks the eternal duty of members. The general meeting resolution can declare this extinction with binding effect. Till 1 month from this resolution each member, also excluded member, can demand the final declaratory court judgment well by the action at law, that the membership in association terminated or did not terminate as in this manner.

(3) A member excluded from the association according to these Articles can become repeatedly the member of the association earliest after lapse of time 3 months from his or her exclusion, a member, whose membership in the association became extinct according to these Articles for the substantial violation of the eternal duty of members, can become repeatedly the member earliest after lapse of time 5 years from the final resolution about this extinction of his or her membership.

(4) Each member is in capacity at any time by the unilateral legal act to leave the association.

(5) All the members are obliged always to act to each other conformable with good morals, especially by all the approachable means to defend life of every member against his or her loss or serious affect the health (e.g. hunger, thirst, cold, flaming, by lack of the health care, etc.), this duty is to judge especially with reference to the lasting observance of the eternal duty of members. 

Article III.
General meeting

(1) The general meeting (further only general meeting) decides about all matters of the association with the absolute majority of voting members. Each member has at the general meeting one vote. Announcement of an object act, place and time of proceedings of the general meeting must be published with a sufficient timing-advance on web pages of the association.

(2) Members can make above-mentioned decisions also outside the general meeting (e.g. by means of e-mail, especially by means of the electronic signature of the qualified certificated authorities). The member, who at the general meeting explicitly or tacitly abstains voting, is supposed to vote against proposed decision.

 

Article. IV.
Agents

(1) Two agents always act on the outside on behalf of the association, the legal acts on behalf of the association both agents are entitled to do so only together.

(2) The general meeting chooses and removes agents among members. An agent is in capacity to resign from his or her function by the unilateral legal act. The function of an agent extincts as well with the extinction of his or her membership in the association. After the extinction of his or her function is the former agent obliged to do all acts, so as the association and its members do not suffer on their laws or appropriate interests any prejudice.

(3) The agent is obligated at any time in due form to inform any member on his or her request about matters of the association. Both agents decide together about all other things of the association, that before the general meeting has not been reserved or has not been decided. 

Article. V.
Possession of association

(1) The association is financed especially from gifts of its members.

 

Article VI.
Extinction of association

(1) After the dissolution of the association the remaining assets from the realization of all estates and after satisfaction of all creditors of the association divide among actual and former members and their heirs according to quota of estates, which they give to the association.

 

Literature: http://www.filosofie.cz/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=838

     
I.) The merger of spiritual (ad.1., 2))

and natural (exact) sciences (ad.3.))

 

The obligation not to kill anything alive unless it is absolutely necessary:

 

1) A human must never kill any living creature, especially human (or him- or herself). (i.e. according to me for the probability of 0-5 percents, that a human kills the human, the first human must begin to save this second human, i.e. at worst case only to recede)

2) A human has a duty to kill as few of living creatures as possible (i.e. for the protection of life) and if so then those naturally feeling the least pain.1) (i.e. according to me a human can kill any living creature only if the probability of at least 95-100 %, that he or she saves in this way the life of other living creature, so that in this way he or she caused the least possible death and pain). 

3) Regarding for me as a person it  is healthy (i.e. if I am not vomiting and underweight2)or in allergic shock) to eat from all living creatures only non-sprouting plant seeds (hereafter referred to only as plant seeds, sprouting plant seeds are already young plants) and plant fruits with seeds, of which separation from the plant cannot kill it, while the reproduction of these plants with the maximum health not damaging amount of salt or appropriate quantity of other minerals and water (e.g. for adults and children aged over 11 years the maximum daily dose of six grams of salt, for smaller children five grams, for suckers one gram of salt3))4). It would probably be concerned seeds of plants (soya beans, peas, beans, corn, etc.) and fruits of plants with seeds, especially trees (such as apples, pears, dates).

 

In my opinion three basic laws, that guarantee a paradise on Earth for each, arise from generalizations above three rules. These 3 basic laws of a paradise, which should govern all living organisms, that want a paradise on Earth for all, are:


1) Never kill any living creature (or yourself)

2) Kill as few living creatures as possible (i.e. for the protection of life) and if so then those naturally feeling the least pain, 5), 6)  

3) It follows, that for the man it is healthy to eat from all living creatures only plant fruits and plant seeds and for other animals it is healthy to eat only plants, fungi, single living cells, bacteria and viruses (i.e. if they are not vomiting and not underweight or in an allergic shock) together with the relevant health not damaging quantity of minerals and water. 1), 2)

 

Notes:

1)This concept can be traced as a possible explanation also before the expulsion from paradise of Adam and before the election of Israel as the people of God in the Bible, see:


And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. Genesis 1,26-27(All quotations from the Bible in this book because of copyright are on principle in Czech from Kralice Bible see http://www.etf.cuni.cz/~rovnanim/bible/k/1K15.php , originally all inspired by the Bible Old and New Testaments | including deuterocanonic books |, Czech ecumenical translation, CZECH Bible Society, 1995, see www.biblenet.cz , in English from King James Version http://www.biblegateway.com/ )

 

Only God, who as for me is the same with nature, as a perfect landlord, who manages all living things, may kill a man and all living things. Person, who is in relation to other living beings like God, is like the perfect householder, they may kill other living creatures. As a perfect householder God loves man and wants to be loved by him or her and he does not kill him or her except in case of need to protect life of living creature and living creatures struggling for life through the natural selection in evolution (see Chapter 2.6 How to live (ethics) , Not eating of meat) so in relation to other living creatures than man a man as a perfect picture of the landlord has to love them and wants to be loved by them and humanely to kill another living creature than a human being only at the most urgent case protecting the life of any living creature, mainly humans and one should choose another living creature that at least under natural circumstances (i.e. without artificial means of soothing pain) feels pain that is the least evolutionarily perfect other living creature, that will hate them therefore less. If we (man and nature) must choose for saving a life between killing more living creatures evolutionarily less perfect and killing of less living creatures evolutionarily more advanced (i.e. that feel more pain), there is not precise rule how to behave (it is a dilemma in the above rule No.2), it is necessary to decide by emotion, while in particular the following aspects are to be considered: old age, virtually youth of killed live individuals, the size of positive difference between the number of evolutionarily less and more perfect killed live individuals (e.g., threat of extinction of less perfect species of living individuals), blame of killed live individuals for the death of other living individuals, such as in the case of carnivores and herbivores, a fatal disease of some killed living individual, etc. That in the case of this dilemma a man decides correctly by emotion between the death of several from people different living individuals evolutionarily less perfect and the death of less living individuals different from people evolutionarily more perfect one him or herself must eat under the above rules, No.1 and 2, ideally under rule No.3, which provides the perfect emotion. According to this philosophy shepherd Abel was not entitled to sacrifice to God by killing the animals from his herd, for which the God, virtually the nature, virtually microorganisms of nature retaliates him by death at the hands of Cain, a murder is thereby not only a breach of that rule No. 2, but also the breach of rule No. 1, i.e. a murder of man.

 

This is a way to restore the world's paradise on Earth, the Jews, virtually Jewish cabbala would say, to liberate the divine light, representing everything live from capture of klippot, i.e. teguments of evil (see chapter: VI.) Origin of the Universe).

 

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. 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. Genesis 1,29-30


(Ten Commandments :) "Thou shalt not kill." Exodus 20:13.:


In my opinion the aim is the harmony of everyone and everything, this means of all living creatures (all animals, plants, fungi, living cells, bacteria, viruses, machines conscious of itself, etc.), in the future (by evolution) they could become friends for life and death.

 

In my opinion the paradise on Earth requires us to kill other living creatures only when strictly necessary, not to kill them too much, which is the only requirement for achieving a paradise on Earth. Sentence in the Bible: And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, (Gen 1:28) is the duty to prevent the extinction of species. This duty to reproduce is not restricted also by space, one can live by the advancement of science at the entire Universe. That duty of righteous individuals applies also to those that cannot have children or descendants of other living creatures, after fundamental correction of human or their species injustice. Other rights in paradise on Earth, but not to name all, are probably right to love of all living creatures, the joy of life, but also philosophy and the great progress of science and other capabilities of living creatures, etc.

 

Literature: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+20&version=KJV

  

2) BMI - body mass index, body mass index, calculation, which is to determine, whether the weight is optimal, or whether a person is suffering from overweight or underweight. BMI: less than 18 - underweight, 18 to 25 ideal weight, 25 to 30 overweight, above 30 health-threatening obesity. Calculation of BMI: weight (kg) / the square of height (m).


In my case this means achieving weight 73 kg and a maximum height of 1.72 meters as the proportion:


73 kilograms: (1.72 meters * 1.72 meters) = 24.67 BMI or (53 to 54 kilograms):(1,72meters*1,72meters)=(17,92 to 18,25 BMI)

 

(see http://www.hubnuti.org/encyklopedie/vydej-energie and http://www.vypocet.cz/bmi.php )

 

3) due to the zero calorific value of salt, see "SALT 1 TSP (TSP-i.e. teaspoon)on: http://www.myfoodbuddy.com/foodCalorieTable.htm it is healthy "for adults and children aged over 11 years the maximum daily dose of six grams of salt, for smaller children five grams and a single gram for suckers", because "an important task of salt (NaCl) in the human body is water retention,"internally salt promotes digestion ", concurrently salt serves to clean the poisons from the stomach, while excessive amounts of salt can cause kidney damage

 
(see:
http://www.21stoleti.cz/view.php?cisloclanku=2005111825 and father of my girl-friend Mr. Josef Samek)

 

4) Collisions of micro particles, of which number is somewhat probability random, which are forming bodies of macro world, and thus form the basis of collisions in our world (in macro world in terms of physics), they are a matter of chance and probability. Taking only two micro particles, and after each collision according to de Broglie waves and Heisenberg uncertainty principle further movement can be determined only vaguely based on probability, which therefore applies also to their next collision. By more or low 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 in my opinion evolution is directed to the termination of collisions and evolution from a less to more probable state of nature.

 

5)   To kill another species individual it is only possible in danger of the life of a living individual, a simple rule not to kill an individual of another species follows.


My paradise on Earth has not supernatural, virtually spiritual basis, but it is built on the basis of purely realistic, virtually the friendship of all living creatures, people but also animals, plants, fungi, living cells, bacteria and viruses. The point is, that the individual, that uses the two rules will create around defensive ring of friendly individuals, people and animals, plants, fungi, living cells, bacteria and viruses, or a small area of a new paradise on Earth. Combining these friends circuit we will create paradise on Earth.

 
As Nietzsche says even the conquerors and murderers apply one rule they would not allow the betrayal of a friend. Therefore, these two rules make from enemies friends by force of their use, rather than supernatural way. In my opinion these two rules are not in conflict and underlying all world religions, not only Judaism.


The permanent rule causing the least possible death and pain is also self-supporting, and besides it there are no other ever applicable rules, so all the other rules are only its interpretation, not new laws. Any additional rules added to this permanent rule have their exceptions, this rule does not any, by Christianity; it is nearly a precise, but a simplified definition of love, which Jesus of Nazareth (perhaps Christ) says, that it is more than any law. The interpretation of this rule should try to find every individual honestly in his or her life.

 
As these above mentioned two rules are a kind of constitution of a paradise on Earth, but, where no laws are, they are not so without further to enact and to be enforced by a State, it is a reasonable basis for all laws, but they are so general, that the right content can be found through the interpretation of each individual, that is honestly trying to perform them. It is concerned rather about moral rules than by the State enforceable, virtually enactable rules.

 

I think, that even with an animal, plants, fungi, cell, bacterium, virus, evolutionarily (i.e. after a certain period of development) we can contract and why we are already making enemies of them. At the same time I think, that animals, plant, fungus, cell, bacterium or virus are to a certain extent aware of themselves (which is in my opinion defining feature of every living organism) and they know, if we are acting like a friend or an enemy, if you are killing or saving them.


At the same time I realize, that I kill, to be able eat etc., even though I eat only plant fruits and plant seeds from all living creatures such as salty or sweet porridges as in paradise. Still I try to kill as few as possible, i.e. as few animals, plants, fungi, living cells, bacteria and viruses as possible, and only when I protect my life, with no food I will die. These are the rules to minimize the death of living creatures. They are the precise definition of charity to the neighbor (i.e. to living creature). If all plant fruits fell below the plant, the seeds released from fruits of plant would be suffocated, so spreading fruits on a large area as a food of animals is the way of reproduction of these plants. All the plant seeds cannot grow because they do not have enough land, the seed of a plant can grow as the ear of a hundred seeds. At the same time some plant seeds passing through the gastrointestinal tract. It is a prerequisite for their further development in the plant.


It's an old philosophical and religious truth („Do not do to another, what you do not want him or her to do to you." virtually "Do others only, what you want him or her to do in your place to you on his or her place." See e.g. Kant´s categorical imperative, by which the theoretical aspect of reciprocity, i.e. the exchange of roles and universality, i.e., impose the reciprocal rule to all other similar cases) are to apply, these rules mean, that you have to accept, that if you were the animal, so you would serve as food for another living creature. Therefore I accept my death as food, if I had (e.g., in the next life, see Eastern religions) to become possibly the plant fruit or plant seed, but not the animal, which under the current protection law feels the same pain as a man.


I offered also in my scientific theories a solution also for carnivores which must eat meat and it is at their re-education in herbivores through milk, which began its life also herbivorous and carnivorous mammal, possibly through the egg diet, unless carnivore in adulthood cannot eat milk.


At the same time I believe, consistent with the Jewish religion, that he or she, who eats properly (kosher), acts rightly
(kosher behavior). At the same time, in this sense I believe in my scientific theory, that evolution, namely the improvement of animal species, but also of a certain individual is entirely dependent on his or her diet. At the same time I believe, consistent with Christianity (see the words of Jesus of Nazareth, apparently Christ: "I will have mercy, and not sacrifice", virtually not burnt offerings - it is not sacrifice of animals during Judaism. Matthew 9:13, 12:7), that this diet must be merciful, therefore as I mention above, it must minimize the death and pain of living creatures (animals, plants, fungi, living cells, bacteria and viruses). Hence:


Proper diet, i.e. eating plant fruits and plant seeds, according to my scientific theory it is able to cure every disease (e.g., blindness) or disability, either by simple regeneration of living cells or evolutionarily, i.e. by scientific progress associated with such rapid evolution, in other words, to bring paradise on Earth.

 

According to Darwin's evolutionary (developmental) theory a man evolved from lower organisms, ultimately from primitive living cells, which are asexual and multiply by dividing. Therefore the development of male and female sex as the pulling opposites is probably a question of a higher evolutionary (developmental) level of evolution (evolution) of living creatures.

 
If first in
 Paleozoic living cells arose, which later evolved in all living organisms (which evolutionary theory teaches), it can be expected consistent with the current form of live cells, that they proliferated by dividing and they did not differentiate with sex (except the sex cells of living creatures at a higher stage of development, but who seems not to exist in Paleozoic). It can be assumed, that these asexual living creatures developed evolutionarily in living creatures, male and female. At the same time it is consistent with evolutionary theory to posit, that the emergence of living creatures with male and female sexes did not act in a single moment but gradually, it is assumed also, that during evolution there was a transitional period when the living creatures coexisted as neuter, virtually androgynous (androgynous), male and female individuals, which mated with each other. The progressive evolutionary development faded then from today's perspective these "sexual deviations", virtually remnants of past sexual (sex prehistoric relics) in favor of overriding the current distribution of individuals on male and female. The question of evolutionary (developmental) perfection or imperfection of a live individual, such as humans it is probably also his or her sexual deviations such as homosexuality, transsexuality, etc.

 

(see also http://forum.lide.cz/forum.fcgi?akce=forum_data&forum_ID=79506&auth = ,

http://www.filosofie.cz/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=822 ,

http://www.filosofie.cz/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=826 )

 

6) In my view, the enemy soldier must shoot the soldier, who wants to kill, at the shoulder, which holds the gun. If he wants to kill me by the other hand, which grabs the gun due to the fact, that the usual shoulder-hand holding arm is crippled by my shot, I shoot him well into the opposite shoulder. These injuries make the enemy soldier, who wants to kill, incapable for a long time. After a long period of treatment of wounded arms it can be assumed, that the war ends in between. It will be possible to distinguish in a crowd the terrorists, they will have crushed shoulder and they will be poor or not at all able to move their hands. This will be achieved by preventive targets, because the most aggressive terrorists are excluded from the fight, and both they are easily identifiable and they will not be able to lead their counterparts in other fights. At the same time it will be a mean to assuage the war, because the pain from a shot into their shoulder as an injury and its treatment will prevent a further escalation of the fighting, when people think twice before war, when the only result will be their crippling and painful injury and treatment. In fact it is concerned the pacifist tactics of trench warfare.


In my view the rule of trench warfare is also a moral rule. The only absolute ethical code, which in my opinion exists, that a human should never kill any living human (or himself or herself), it will be maintained.

 
From the biblical symbolic logic, which teaches according to Islam and Judaism, that "eye for eye, tooth for tooth", the soldiers using the above tactics are improbable to die only shot to the arm by the enemy, because he or she also does not kill anyone. In my opinion, it is completely true the saying: "Who handles with death, they will die." In other words, who kills a man, they are determined to death. This happened to Cain, who killed Abel, Moses, who killed an Egyptian guard, David, who slew Goliath, and Uriah, Solomon, who killed his brother, seeking to overthrow his father, etc.


The above tactic of trench warfare is also advantageous in terms of the Middle East conflict because the killing of any man also an enemy soldier in a war in the Middle East, due to the family and clan
nature, and the law of blood revenge it is an endless continuation of the conflict. The avenger of blood vendettas must by law kill the murderer of his or her relative, he or she becomes also a murderer and threatened by vengeance blood of a relative of the murdered. Using the above tactics of trench warfare it would prevent further killings and further because of blood feud, according to Jewish and Islamic law: "An eye for eye, tooth for tooth" the soldier using this tactic is not threatened more than by shot of one or both shoulders. This mutilation is already today or it will be in the near future for a long and painful treatment and recovery already treatable through medical procedures using an exact artificial joint replacement. In my view at the same time it would mean the acceptance of wars and participation in them from Orthodox Jews and thus the acceptance of Orthodox Jews in terms of today's mainstream Israeli society, which is forced to defend its existence in the constant wars against its Arab neighbors. The question here is not, where or who you shoot or do not shoot in war by firearm as a pistol, but whether you aim to the shoulder, knee, elbow, wrist or arm or leg, or vice versa the neck, chest, abdomen or head.

 

(See also: http://www.filosofie.cz/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=784 )

 

II.) How to educate the carnivores in herbivores and how to lose weight

   

The body of mammals is driven by energy obtained by burning sugars (it is a sort of fuel for the body of mammals). Sugars can be divided into:

 

1) Grape sugar (glucose) more in young grapes, which is included in all kinds of animals, eggs and plant fruits.

2) Fruit sugar (fructose), which is included in all kinds of fruit.

3) Milk sugar (lactose) containing glucose and specific sugar galactose.

4) Cane and beet sugar (sucrose), which is obtained from roots, virtually stalks of plants in the case of sugar beet, virtually cane. Sucrose is composed of the above fructose and glucose.

 

Therefore the carnivore eats meat at least. This can be achieved by a return to childhood of carnivores, that they will eat the maximum of milk, to which they are not allergic. It is necessary to select milk and maybe make also a change, such as cows, sheep, goat, camel, lama, etc.

 

This is, because the fruit sugar (fructose) is fundamentally very difficult to digest, so most of the carnivores cannot apparently eat fruits, or honey and bunch of grapes (essence of honey and bunch of grapes is fruit sugar (fructose) and plenty of free glucose), or beet or cane sugar, of which essence is sucrose (i.e., again, fructose and glucose). All carnivores can eat different types of milk (see above), where glucose is included with the aforementioned special sugar galactose, which is in my view the transition of fruit sugar (fructose) and glucose contained in meat for carnivores.

 

In the event, that a carnivore is not able to digest milk yet, it should base its meals on unfertilized eggs containing glucose in pure form.

 

I myself eat only for four years (2004 to 2008) eggs, milk and milk products (with the exception of the two slices of salami, which I take ,when my head is sore and I thought, that this is from not eating of meat) before I went primarily to plant fruits and plant seeds diet. At that time I gained about 25 kg at height of 170-172 cm from 70 kg to 95 kg, and after I lost quickly weight from 95 to 72 kg, when I ate and drank only salt water about one month, which can be applied from health reasons only once in the life, and I keep this weight of 72-77 kilograms up to now after I have started eating on principle of only plant fruits and plant seeds.

 

Literature: Eliška Petulová, Sledování stability enzymů a enzymových směsí pro stanovení sacharidů ve víně, Brno 2010, http://is.muni.cz/th/222932/prif_b/bakalarska_prace_konecna_verze.pdf , Přehled středoškolské chemie, prof. RNDr. a kol., SPN 1999, Praha, s. 294-295, 2.) Harperova Biochemie, R.K. Muray a kol.,Prentice-Hall Internetional Inc., Nakladatelství a vydavatelství H&H, translated by MUDr. L.Fialová, CSc. a kol., 2002, s. 216, http://www.wine.cz/reva/index.html


III.) Nature of living creatures evolution, virtually history of mankind

   

In my opinion the evolution of living creatures is possible to define as the perfection in the behaviour of living creatures by means of the perfection of their alimentation.

 
It is: In other words the living creature, who chooses a more perfect alimentation by its behaviour (by its instinct or by its rational acting), he or she perfects also his or her next behaviour, thereby he or she forms also the basis for an still more perfect selection of an alimentation and for a further more perfect behaviour from this still more perfect alimentation. The alimentation of an living creature is so the result of his or her less or more perfect behaviour, on which basis this living creature opts for this alimentation, however at the same time it is as well the cause of the improvement or the downgrade of his or her resulting behaviour pursuant to this alimentation. It is concerned so the evolutional spiral created by the alimentation and behaviour of an living creature, with which the living creature or man can either ascend to still higher perfection, or either sink still more deeply by deepening his or her aggressiveness and restraint of his or her cerebral activities, i. e. become an unthinking animal, by election of his or her alimentation.


In my opinion this definition of the evolution as the spiral of an perfection or sinking of living individuals by means of his or her behaviour and alimentation is also the reason of rules of the kosher food (kosher means the conception of the ritual fit, really clean alimentation, in wide sense it means in Hebraism everything, what is allowed, fit or right) for the Jews.

In my opinion this definition of the evolution as the spiral of an perfection or sinking of living individuals by means of his or her behaviour and alimentation is as well the reason of my three rules merging exact and spiritual sciences {see chapter I. of my Philosophy of Balance-The merger of spiritual and natural (exact) sciences}. In other words the man, or another living creature, who eats still more perfectly according to above quoted rules No. 1.) and No. 2.) (It can be said kosher according to me. i.e. No. 1. a human mustn't kill ever any living creature also himself or herself and No. 2. the duty to kill the minimum
(i.e. for the warships of a life) of living creatures and if so then those naturally feeling the minimum of pain), is able to act as well still more perfectly according to these two rules (it can be said kosher according to me), really to develop itself. At the same time the living creature, that doesn't eat according to these two rules, it isn't capable to act according to these two rules, really it is sinking.


1) The pain of living creatures (men, animals, insect, herbage, fungi, cellules, bacteria, viruses, etc.), 2) the fear of living creatures from the extreme mental, or physical pain that is the death, and 3) the hate of living creatures in face of these, that cause pain, in my opinion they are the chief resources of the evolution. I think, that all the micro-organisms remember the pain, both its own pain and the pain caused to its near micro-organisms and revenge upon the killers of these micro-organisms thereby that they eat them, really parasite on them or attack them as e.g. viruses. This mutual eating of micro-organisms in our world causes the attacks of the human bodies by alien micro-organisms, which is the reason of all the illnesses, conflicts, fights and wars of man and other living creatures. Symbolicly told if the cellule, virus or bacillus, say to it e.g. Henrietta, lives its whole life nearby another's micro-organism, say to it e.g. Maria, and you kill Maria, then Henrietta revenge upon you together with the tribes of others micro-organisms of the same kind. It is possible so to talk about the presumption of the friendship among micro-organisms of the same kind that is the base of the evolution and the evolutional struggle, then the election of the food of these friendly micro-organisms from their hostile micro-organisms, e.g. from the cellules of your human body, which causes its illness. That is why it should be the main purpose of the evolution to form only one organism by all the living micro-organisms, esp. cellules that can evidently communicate one with another in micro-world and to create only one organism formed by all the living creatures, really the micro-organisms, especially cellules that will be the friends for life and death (paradise on Earth).


At a good death the cellules die step by step one after another, it is not the death of many cellules immediately, which causes to a man, animals, insect, herbages or fungi or other living creatures a big pain or the premature death. Then the condition is, that the cellules of a human, animal, plant or fungus bodies die step by step for long time, that these living creatures survive the maximum age and they die almost without any pain.


That is why, I eat only plant seeds and plant fruits from all living creatures and only in the case, when I am not capable to do it, I drink milk, and when it is not sufficient for me I eat the minimum of eggs. As for me it is now four eggs for five days, that I minimize above-mentioned bad, really discreditable death in the world.


I think, that the world is not ruled by the money, the supra-national capital or incorporate bodies, powerful States or rare men, etc., but by cellules and other living micro-organisms, which only can influence, what everyone, animal, insect, plant, fungus or other living creature thinks and what they do. Only cellules-e.g. neurons in brains influence, what man thinks and the man him- or herself hasn't any influence, how these cellules e.g. neurons in brain are interfacing.


In my opinion further these living micro-organisms, especially cellules are much more intelligent, than today we can think. They are able to act kindly or adversely towards the man, animal, insect, herbage, fungus or other living creature according to it if they act towards them and their near living micro-organisms kindly or adversely, whether they kill or save them.


The adversely behaviour of living micro-organisms, especially of cellules, e.g. neurons in brain looks as illness of living creature or as the conflict, fight or war e.g. of men or of other living creatures. The friendly behaviour of living micro-organisms, especially of cellules looks as the pleasant sensation e.g. of man of the friendship to all living creatures, his or her fruitfulness and luck in his or her life or occupation or likewise in case of other living creatures.


In words of the symbolic language of Bible in my opinion the evolution leads from the point of departure, what was the man in biblical paradise, who ignored good and bad, at the followed achievement of the paradise, where the man will know good and bad and all will be friends for life and death there. This paradise however cannot be achieved by an individual alone, but only step by step by all the living creatures together. Who wants to go back to the biblical paradise, he or she doesn't need to do for it no more and nothing less, than to eat and to try to act according to above quoted rules No. 1.) and No. 2.) (It can be said kosher according to me). In other words everyone is the author of the salvation of all.

 

If we want to explore the law of history, it is inevitable to start with the Chronicles of mankind. The most complete Chronicle is probably the Bible. From the Bible we can read out that the history of Israeli nation is carried out according to a formula exile, exodus, the Promised Land Israel and the exile again, etc. In the similar way the history of other nations follows, the period of dependence (colonies) is replaced by gaining the independence (decolonization) and power (empires) and the repeated dependence again (colonies), etc., such as Germany (virtually Saint Roman Empire of the German nation and the Third Empire), Italy (really Roman Empire), Great Britain (really England), Russia (really the Soviet Union), the Czech Republic or today the U.S.A. which are on the level of an empire.


What causes this historical course? Everything is the movement, by conflicts among moving objects and their systems occurs redeployment of movements (really momentum) from one object or their systems which are multiplied. In this way the momentum is concentrated within a particular nation in the period of its exile, this process culminates by exodus and then the time of conflicts during conquering and protection of the Promised Land (Israel) follows. In this way the loss is caused and the exhaustion of this nation momentum via its conflicts with other nations and transforming of this momentum on a different one is carried out.


In the same time we can suppose that after a possible nuclear war the expansion of animals will follows (see the book by Pierre Boule “The Planet of Monkeys”) or plants (see the book by John Wyndham “The Day of Triffides“) which today are in the slavery of people (exile) and replace the position of a man (exodus) and also decline and slavery in mankind will come (exile of a man).


And does any way out of this historical circus exist there? The solution is making a friendship among everything which is alive, among friends and enemies (see emphasizing of Jesus from Nazareth's words: "But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you." (Matthew 5:44)  in the contrary with Moses´ words: "And ye shall chase your enemies, and they shall fall before you by the sword." (Leviticus 26:7)
We should not kill any creature only due to some extreme emergency especially serious health reasons. In case of friendship there are not any conflicts and the momentum of a nation is not endangered by sinking (in case of a friendship to our enemies the minimal lost of momentum appears). The movement conflicts of objects and their systems lead the world to creating the only movement system, in other words the world without conflicts. When we are friendly with our enemies they become our friends and our society of friends spreads, we can speak about an existence of small paradises on the Earth and when these groups are unified, there arise the paradise on the Earth.


In today’s Israel the friendship of Israelites and Palestinians means not to kill each other in fighting, only injure in an inevitable way, that the enemy is eliminated from the struggle for a necessary period. Thus in gradual stages the restriction of an implementation of the law of blood vengeance will be put in (really the law An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth). The mutual charity on enemies will be supported (for example building of schools, supplying with food and so on).

   

IV.) Theory of the Universe expansion and attraction

 

In my view the Universe can be thought as a roundabout, where vacuum attractive force acts as a root cause of centripetal force of gravity. If the Universe originated from a small spatial unit stretched gradually throughout their history to our size, it can be said, that this small spatial unit is characterized by a high kinetic energy, which meant according to A. Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity (further also as STR) also a major initial relativistic mass of this small space originator of today's Universe. In other words the micro particles and at the same time that small solid body as a whole are probably marked by the movement of large momentum, virtually velocity, which appears to surround as the rotation of the small-unit originator of our Universe today. Returning according to the above analogy of the Universe as big roundabouts then this small spatial unit-originator of today's Universe and also the today's Universe have strength of centripetal movement due to its former high-momentum, virtually speed, probably it is concerned the rotation of the Universe, which is probably the cause of gravity.

 

Now try to disprove conventional wisdom theory of entropy of the Universe, which assumes simply, that the Universe will expand so long until the average density of the substance reduced to almost zero, while there is even distribution of the average, virtually almost zero density of the substance throughout the Universe. In my opinion this theory has disproved the Einstein´s General Theory of Relativity, the equation solved by the Russian Alexandr Fridman assumes, that the Universe may either expand or shrink at the contrary. In my opinion, the influence of gravity achieving a certain equilibrium point could be to stop the expansion of the Universe and its contraction. In other words, when there is a balance of attractive forces within the Universe of the above mentioned repulsive force causing the expansion of the Universe, there is, in my opinion, stopping or oscillating volume of our Universe around this steady state.

 

Now I would like to comment further the reasons for the existence of gravitational forces in the matter. Gravitational field is not according to my below mentioned opinion nothing more than the motion field of points of space-time. According to my philosophy:


1) In my view absolute vacuum 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) In my view mass is made up by an infinite number of particles (space-time points) of zero relativistic mass and non-zero velocity less than the speed of light c.

3) In my view light, virtually electromagnetic waves (or light), consist of a finite number of particles (space-time points) of a non-zero relativistic mass, zero rest mass and the speed of light c.

 

In my view the primary cause of the attractive forces in the matter is, that the mass is made up by both the aforementioned space-time points of mass,  moving space-time points, and the aforementioned points of space-time of the absolute vacuum (which must, however, be deduced theoretically because their current existence according to exact sciences has not been proven by any credible experiment), which have zero velocity, they are therefore immobile. One can thus imagine that the absolute vacuum fills the empty space between particles of matter. General characteristic of vacuum in the Universe is the formation of negative pressure, which leads to the aspiration of materials (atractive force of vacuum). In my opinion this underpressure of inert or near still points of space-time of theoretically assumed vacuum  within the mass, but also within interstellar and interplanetary space in our Universe it is the primary cause of the attractive forces in the Universe, because it brings the concentration and rotation of mass within the planets, stars, etc. and of the attractive centripetal forces within it and especially the gravity and it will cause the cessation of the current expansion of the Universe, when the volume of a vacuum in our Universe reaches a critical point, which would mean the balance of the above mentioned repulsive and centripetal (attractive) forces of our Universe. Our Universe is so similar to the large chain carousel, which is in motion, where it will be offset the repulsive force acting on the seats of the carousel through its movement in free space and centripetal force provided by the chain carousel by chains, in our Universe by the above described gravity.

 

The atractive force of the nonabsolute vacuum due to the mass causes on one side the concentration of material into units of greater weight, but it causes also the expansion of the Universe due to the fact, that surrounding of our Universe appears to be composed of an absolute vacuum (see Chapter VI.) Origin of the Universe).

 

Since in my view the mass consists of space-time points, that were stationary before the origin of a Universe, representing an absolute vacuum, which has been granted a non-zero velocity with collision with light and so matter and light originated, virtually our Universe (the surroundings of our Universe are likely points of space-time of zero speed, i.e., an absolute vacuum, and light, i.e. the points of space-time with the speed of light), we can say, that matter, points of space-time of positive speed less than the speed of light, has the desire to constantly return to two of its original conditions, light and absolute vacuum. In my opinion beam generated by radiation of thermonuclear reactions burning stars so it concentrates in the middle of mass of stars the absolute vacuum that formed the sparse mass (imperfect, nonabsolute vacuum) in the space between particles of matter before it. The nonabsolute vacuum has the character, that it shrinks to a single point (an example may be plastic bag, from which we blow the air and which shrinks) as well as mass of burned star, that surrounds the center of the absolute vacuum, it is concetrated in the middle of this unit, i.e. neutron stars or black holes. One can also imagine the connection of this center of black hole formed by an absolute vacuum of our Universe with its surroundings probably consisted of an absolute vacuum (see Chapter VI. Origin of the Universe).   

 

V.) The theory of time travel paradox

   

In my opinion time travel can be visualized as boarding the train that travels at light speed over and over, and because the maximum speed is the speed of light, the clock in the train is still (i.e., they are still on the time point 0 from the emergence of a particular light, in the case of the oldest electromagnetic waves from zero at the time of the Universe), because, if it moved and its speed would be added to the train speed, it would have to be greater than the speed of light, which would be inconsistent with the assumption of a maximum speed of light in the Universe. Train with the speed of light has to travel around, so we could catch up with it and when we get in, we must go the same speed. In practice it is a problem of the light slowing down that has already been successfully resolved by current science (see: http://maartin.blog.cz/0703/cestovani-casem-je-zrejme-mozne-prostrednictvim-rotace-zpomaleneho-svetla ) or accelerate until the speed of light.

 
Now the paradox of time travel:


If we moved into the past, when our parents lived, and we killed them, then we would not have been born in the future, and we could not also move into the past.

 

Now to my experiment to address the paradox of time travel:


According to my philosophy:


1) In my view absolute vacuum 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) In my view mass is made up, by an infinite number of particles (space-time points) of zero relativistic mass and non-zero velocity less than the speed of light c.

3) In my view light, virtually electromagnetic wave consists of a finite number of particles (space-time points) of a non-zero relativistic mass, zero rest mass and the speed of light c.


In my opinion these identical space-time points fill our entire Universe. It is always concerned the space-time points, which differ in the case of absolute vacuum, matter and light with speed, which they gain and lose through mutual collision, virtually mutual contact, and also in terms of quantity. In my opinion every point of space-time is the train with a different speed of time, these points of space-time are either still (which is an absolute vacuum) or with a speed lower than the speed of light c (mass), or they move with the speed of light c (a light), while in the entire Universe as a system the law of conservation of momentum and energy
apply. This means, that if in contrast a collision of points of space-time accelerates one of them, some other points of space-time must slow down.

 
In my opinion relativity of time is represented by a clock, which is placed in the train (where the trains, which are running at different speeds, are as to me all the space-time points). The faster
is the moving train (or a point of space-time) going, the slower goes clock. Slowing faster space-time point through a collision with another slower point of space-time it is faster running time at slowed point and vice versa slower running time at an accelerated space-time point. Note: for example in a collision of two balls, where the first stays and the second hits it, the first ball moves with the same momentum vector as the second ball and the second ball stops, so it will have momentum of first ball.


In my opinion the above time-travel through a cone of light it is the acceleration of a man (or increasing momentum of his or her constituent space-time points), who got in a train moving at the speed of light in the round, while the slowdown of other space-time points in the train that the total momentum and energy of Universe is retained by the physical law of conservation of momentum and energy. It would seem to change a man (or their constituent space-time points) in the train moving at light speed, and another man (or their constituent space-time points), moving at lower speed outside the train.


Space-time represents all worldlines and each wordline represents a summary of points of space-time of zero mass, which represent an infinite number of positions of a single point in Euclidean space in various specific time moments while maintaining the overall momentum and energy of all points in this Euclidean space at some point in time. There are so infinite
variations of history of the Universe, each time travel of a man from present to past would alter also the past and present history of the Universe while maintaining the overall momentum and energy.


Mitigating conflicts, virtually collisions, virtually maintaining a stable energy and momentum of man it is slowing faster and accelerating slower surrounding, when it should be chosen as small as possible collisions that substantially do not alter the momentum and energy of man (see the Universal Ethics:
http://www.filosofie.cz/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=719 ).


If for each point of space-time, from which every living organism is composed, runs a different time, depending on the speed of movement (according to STR of A. Einstein), it means the overlap of an integral living organism in both the past and the future. Therefore integral man may remember past, percept present and he or she is able to predict the future.

 

In my opinion relativity of time can be explained by waves of space-time. De Broglie waves mean that not only light waves (electromagnetic waves, i.e. time- space points of zero weight, the speed of light c and final number) but also mass (i.e. space-time points in my opinion of zero weight, nonzero  speed less than the speed of light c and infinite quantity). These waves can be imagined as a space full of space-time points, point particles of zero mass, which represent the position and momentum of particles of Euclidean space in a certain time point of evolution of the Universe (space-time is the present existence of all those of its past, present and future points), which spontaneously move, collide and supply the momentum (or they wave) while there is a change in velocity of the space-time points, to slow virtually to accelerate the course of time at these points of space-time (see my previous posts). Waving space-time it is to increase the density of space-time points at a certain place of the wave (time here is running slower) and to reduce the density of space-time points elsewhere in this wave (time here is running faster). According to me this space-time wave is the result of positive momentum and energy of the Universe that cannot be stopped, it can only lead to reorganize space-time points nearly not to collide only to touch, that the motion was smooth and continuous (see my topic universal ethics and evolution, see: http://www.filosofie.cz/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=719&whichpage=7 and http://www.filosofie.cz/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=719&whichpage=1 ). 

 

VI.) Origin of the Universe

   

In my view the movement of any body or particle in terms of physics is given by motion of them forming micro particles in the micro world in terms of microscopic physics, from which any object or particle is composed. The position of the micro particles and the momentum cannot be determined by microscopic physics with absolute precision using de Broglie waves and Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle it can only be determined by the probability, with which the micro particles will be located at a certain location area. This was verified by experiment, when photons were launched under the same conditions of input versus slot, when photons fell in different places, but the most probable place of their recurrence was most common.

 

It follows, that the motion of each body or particle is random, because with the exception of external influences it is given entirely by the movement of micro particles which contain. The movement of any body or particle with the exception of external influences it is given entirely by the movement of micro particles, which they contain, it is unique and random, because in my view any object or particle may be divided infinitely before we get to the fictional smallest indivisible particle. Only the movement of the smallest particle is not random, because it contains no sub-micro particles, it is causal. In my opinion these smallest particles of matter are an absolute vacuum, or anything that is immobile.

 

From Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity it implies, if the photon or micro particle of zero rest mass is moving with the speed of light it has non-zero relativistic mass. In my view matter represents an infinite number of particles with zero rest mass and the positive speed, which is less than the speed of light, an absolute vacuum (or nothing) is then only one inert particle (space-time point) with zero rest mass and zero speed. It follows that, in my view our Universe was created from an absolute vacuum, or nothing, that non-zero speed of light has been granted up to the speed by someone or something.

 

Our Universe is characterized by constant conversion of kinetic energy into potential kinetic energy and by the reverse conversion of potential (kinetic) energy into kinetic energy, which means ultimately the conversion of matter into light and light into matter. This is done by radiation of materials and vice versa, by the absorption of photons of light by the material, which increases the speed of particles of matter and thus the relativistic mass due to Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity. I consider the kinetic energy as the motion of matter, or particles with rest mass equal to zero, as photon of light, which has only kinetic energy and zero potential (kinetic) energy according to Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, that all the energy of light is represented by the motion and no energy is represented by its mass, a potential (kinetic) energy, which could be converted into motion.

 

According to the Chapter VII. Physical theory of relativistic energy our Universe originated from a single photon, the point of space of the huge but finite total energy, as evidenced by the maximum speed of light of photons of a zero rest mass in our Universe. In the case of movement of the speed of light of the body of a non-zero rest mass, this movement would have been consumed endless energy, that our Universe probably does not have. It follows that the maximum speed of light, which can be achieved in our Universe, it follows from its final energy. At the same time the photon as particle of zero rest mass and zero dimensions, which implies inter alia, that the rays of light go through space independently one on another, they cannot collide, it can reach any final energy (see Chapter VII. Physical theory of relativistic energy).

 

Therefore it is supposed, that the world, that existed before the creation of our Universe, it was formed by such photons of zero, virtually non-zero rest mass of the huge final, virtually infinite energy of the speed of light and by an absolute vacuum, it is nothing, from which our known Universe was.  Any huge final energy of photons was given by the speed of light and their relatively high but still zero rest mass, because from the chapter IX. Arithmetic and geometry of infinite it follows that zero is not always equal to zero, as infinity is not always equal to another infinity. Universe was created then by the conversion of a single photon of huge energy but the final energy into space, as happens today in the expansion of the Universe. Time, weight and length under Chapter VIII. are characteristics of energy, virtually motion, which implies, that in our Universe they are related to the existence of a single photon, and they are its property, which depends on the observer's reference frame.

 

In my view the emergence of our Universe,  is merely a form of conversion of kinetic energy of a single photon of light with a huge but the final kinetic energy and of zero potential (kinetic) energy (see above) into the potential (kinetic) energy, thus it is  concerned a manifestation of a single photon of light by the slowdown in the matter. In my view this deceleration of a single photon of huge energy is called in cosmology Big Bang and it stays at the beginning of the Universe.

 

In my opinion the slowdown of a single photon of light in mass is the collision of light with great energy with an absolute vacuum, where infinite points of space-time of absolute vacuum were transfered, which according to me (see above) create light, for its surrounding absolute vacuum, formed by an infinite number of immobile space-time points. Thus it seems to dilute the absolute vacuum in light.  

 

In my opinion the conversion of primordial single photon with huge energy and surrounding absolute vacuum (or nothing) into the Universe from pure kinetic energy into potential kinetic energy, i.e. the mass and its movement that is its kinetic energy it allows to describe surrounding of our Universe as a purely kinetic energy, as the light of the huge, virtually endless energy and absolute vacuum (or nothing). In my opinion the movement (clean energy), which set in motion absolute vacuum (or nothing), is God Himself consisting of all this light of the enormous, virtually an infinite energy (the alleged Jesus Christ said: "I am the light of the world", John 8.12, see Chapter point 13 VII.) Physical theory of relativistic energy , x) World of Lighty) Why did God commit evil in the world ) as a counterpart to the absolute vacuum (or nothing, virtually Devil), and it allows also emergence of life, virtually person's life within this single photon of the huge but the final energy and absolute vacuum (or nothing) from those resulting mass in our Universe. It is thus in fact an act of creation in the religious sense.

 

* The concept of the Universe creation 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 of his work the Sum theological about the first agent of movement, according to which everything, what is moving, must be moved by something else.

 

* This my conception of creation of the Universe, virtually the mass from the light and absolute vacuum through their collision, virtually of dilution, virtually slowing light of a huge energy by absolute vacuum of the overall zero energy, the big bang it is based on Jewish, virtually cabbalistic theological description of the Universe formation. According to Jewish cabbala Yitzhak Luria(1534-1570) places at the beginning the God self restriction, caving into itself (cimcum). Cimcum concept is one of the most daring experiments in history to imagine the end of Creatio ex nihilo, creation from nothing to be anything outside of God Himself, God had to create in his infinite, all pervasive being (Ejn sof, virtually no end) an empty space (i.e. absolute vacuum, the Devil is created so by God). While the act of cimcum itself constitutes possibility of creation, the second phase of theosophical creation process, sevirat kelim is linked with its own creative process, which depends on the penetration of the light beam into the substance Ejn Sof into emptied space. In the first phase called World of Pleroma-i.e. fullness of God's light (i.e. electromagnetic waves, virtually light, see chapter: x) World of Light , as the first and highest manifestation of the divine essence, the heavenly man -Adam Kadmon arose, from whose eyes, ears, nose and mouth exploded light of SEFIRA, spheres, (i.e. space-time dimensions), descending emanation of God, which formed initially an inseparable unity. However, because this light lighted as individual, chaotic mixed points (called olam ha nekudot, the world of points, or olam ha tohu, the world of chaos), and creative project assumed from the beginning the existence of concrete topped forms, which should emerge sequentially by a predetermined plan, there were shaped the specific "containers" Kelim, of which aim was the light Ejn sof to hold and to direct the implementation of a particular purpose. Containers, which were equivalent of three top SEFIRA out of 10 SEFIRA (Keter-crown Chochma-wisdom Bina-knowledge,) took their share of light, but one, that was intended for seven lower, exploded suddenly in full force, containers did not hold it and they bursted under its onslaught and they crashed down. Sparks of divine light has reflected partially back to its source, but most of them fell down into the open space and they mixed with fragments of broken containers. So into the world with its creation the evil penetrated, which from these fragments was created and it nested at all levels of the cosmic process. Holy sparks were overlaid and arrested by evil, impure forces called in cabbala klipot (plural of the klip, i.e. bark, husk, shell). Tle evil clung to holiness as a shell to the nucleus, and therefore everything, that exists, it entails that original crack, everything is marked by insufficiency and it required correctio, after which the Messiah should come (see chapter: I.) The merger of spiritual and natural (exact) sciences ).

 

Literature:
Příběhy rabi Nachmana, Argo, 2005, p.29 et seq.

Casaril Guy, Rabi Šimon bar Jochaj a kabala, RI-EL/CAD Press, Bratislava, 1996

Tajemství kabaly(Decoding the Past: Secrets of Kabbalah), USA 2006, 46 min., produced by Towers Productions, Inc. for History Channel, 2006 A&e Television Networks, LLC., 2012 FILMEXPORT HOME VIDEO s.r.o.

 

Discussion:

Comments 

----- Original Message -----

From: "Jan Schneider" <mailto: jschneider@seznam.cz>

To: <mailto: ak-gruza@cbox.cz>

Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 9:38 AM

Theme: Physical theory of probability.

 

> 1. Paragraph 1 - last sentence: Zero weight is merely the absence of potential energy but not mass. See note in which it is said right that the constantly changing mass in photons, and photons in matter. All the weight of the photon is contained in its kinetic energy. The claim in this sentence is incorrect.

 

> 2. Claims about real, physical existence of a point are the same nonsense. Point is just an abstract mathematical thing. Everything is real in the Universe from what and by what the Universe is made up, it has a volume. Even the flat superstring double gate, if any, it must have its thickness to be extremely slight. I cannot imagine anything that would oscillate in theoretically accurate two-dimensional surface. It follows, that all the geometric shapes that are not three dimensional, they are the theoretical and abstract issues and they cannot describe reality, perhaps the course of time or temperature. But probably it is not even that.

 

> 3. The Universe has not other than a quantum nature. It is not possible to be such one, and another one at the same time. The evidence, based on the behavior of light is an illusion. Either the photon trajectory is not continuous. Therefore, operations with infinities, absolutism and the links in describing the nature of the Universe and its matter are inadmissible. Between abstract mathematics and reality are differences that cannot be ignored. Mass in its micro is not complicated, because God liked it so, but in order to exist. And its existence is conditioned by a lack of even one infinity. Universe must be always tough in any of its scale! Principle of probability is omnipresent.

 

> 4. Axiomatic admission of completely empty space is a direct path to hell. As it is four-dimensional, it is more logical axiomatic to allow space in its possibly infinite size, in which time is present. To do this, it shall be present a dynamic structure. This can be ensured only by the structure of physical vacuum. The assumption, that the structure creates a mass through their vibrations under precise conditions, while it is ensuring its quantum nature, it is the only possible explanation. Where else does the physical vacuum end and a totally desolate space begin? If I agree with it that the quantum foam can be created only by the law rather than structure, which behaves according to this law so, where the law is, that the presence of quantum foam ends with the edge of space. Logically, this foam had to be presented in each area in all its size. It follows, that the existence of absolutely deserted space is so unlikely, that its existence is necessary to prove at least by one but strong, evidence.

 

> 5. In the text we assume the existence of photons prior to the Universe. If I should take it, the space must be full of photons of zero mass. Occasionally some created Universe. This is what we expect, if zero photons are also in an area of our Universe. I guess there are not probably any, if in milliards of years it did not cause any further.

                                                                                                                                                             Jan Schneider

 

Author´s reply:

   

Dear Jan Schneider,

 

In my opinion assuming, that from the photon the Universe may arise, namely that the photon is converted into the new mass of the Universe, it is that the photon has a sufficiently great energy. The fact, that the speed of a photon of light can have any energy, arises from the Special Theory of Relativity, the energy of the photon beam E = c2*m0/ √ [1 - (v2/ c2)] = c2* 0/0 = any number plus or minus, i.e. matter or antimatter, finite or infinite, where E is the relativistic energy, m0 rest mass of photon is equal to 0, the speed of light c, v the photon speed equal to the speed of light c. The conversion of a photon of speed of light of less than enormous energy needed for the emergence of a new Universe, into the mass, not quite of a volume of the new Universe, in our Universe there is also common fact in the photon absorbing material. I believe, that in our Universe a photon of the speed of light with sufficient, virtually great energy for the creation of a new Universe does not exist, if such a photon of light speed with such a great energy were there, so it could also create a new Universe.

 

The fact, that the photon is only composed of kinetic energy, resulting from the Special Theory of Relativity, where the kinetic energy of the photon Ek= E-m0c2= E-0c2= E, where E is the relativistic energy of the photon beam according to the relationship see above, m0 rest mass of photon is equal to 0, c speed of light.

 

Best regards

 

In Hustopeče 15/3/2007, Dalibor Grůza,

 

 Comments 

----- Original Message -----

From: "Jan Schneider" <jschneider@seznam.cz>

To: "JUDr. Dalibor Grůza Ph.D." <ak-gruza@seznam.cz>

Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 3:41 PM

Theme: Re: physical theory of probability.

 

Thank you for your reply. I admit, that I was not expecting an answer. I am neither a physicist nor a mathematician. I'm only one, of those, who is very interested in these things, because my head is full of questions.

 

To understand your text does not make me any trouble. What I have trouble with is, that your theory has not the character of complexity.

 

Its history does not start from the beginning, nor it is convincing, that the previous logical result in history is really possible. According to your explanation and the theory before the Universe there is the existence of an unspecified number of photons of unusual features that may exist in space - non space (Where did they exist? In a vacuum or in the desolation without dimension and time?). In this set of urphotons occurred some, for which the potential energy is so high, that the Universe is created by their explosion. The existence of these photons is strange, because they were somewhere, and still they are somewhere, and they are alone without their partner - the mass. Clearly Einstein's formula is correct, but if you want to use this, you must find the other, which shows in your theory the possibility of existence photon as a whole in itself, not forming only in timeless of being and terminating only in the merging of some Universe.

Regarding your quoted formula. If the formula is something allowed in theory, this is not the proof at all, that something may also be, even if it is so famous formula like this one. It is one thing.

 

The second one is. How does your claim go together, your idea of combining extremely low temperatures at distances of billions of light years from Earth, with the temperatures measured by using vacuum spec. instruments on satellites at distances that achieved supposedly little time before transparency of the Universe? From what I know the microwave background radiation is thermally homogeneous throughout the Universe.

 

Dear doctor, I would not like you to think, that I want to harm your, admittedly with great effort elaborated theory, but I cannot help myself, from my perspective it is not perfect. Many claims based only on the mathematical or other theory must be experimentally examined and proved. Theory of relativity was believed, until it was demonstrated that the light rays actually curve round some strong gravitational bodies and gravitational lenses were discovered.

 

Thirdly. Only a small incendiary question. Can really be a photon, which has the ability accumulate enough energy to keep up the entire Universe? What the particle would it be and by who would it be created?

 

Jan Schneider

   

VII.) Physical theory of relativistic energy

 

1. A real existing stationary or moving point of space-time is possibly photon, particle of zero rest mass, velocity equals to or less than the speed of light.

 

To point 1:

1.1 According to current knowledge of physics micro world photons are a special kind of particles that have zero rest mass.

1.2 Track (trajectory) of moving or stationary point of space, photon over time is consistent with the existence of a continuous space-time by Einstein's theory of relativity.

1.3 In the event, that the photons, possibly points of space, i.e. particles of zero rest mass are moving at light speed c, according to relation for the relativistic  mass from Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity: m = m0/ √ [1 - (v2/ c2)], where v is the speed of the photon is equal to c, c the speed of light, m0 rest mass of particles or bodies, m relativistic mass, these photons have non-zero relativistic mass and thus non-zero energy from Einstein's relation for the energy E = mc2. Even in this case, however, they are concerned moving points of space, which derives from the knowledge of physical field called optics, which is based on the observation, that the rays, that intersect each other, they do not affect and they are running through the space independently one on another. This finding is confirmed by experience in physics called the principle of independence of light rays operation. This corresponds to a description of the photons forming the light rays as points of space-time, because that would explain the above principle of independence of operation of light rays.

1.4 In the event, that the photons, i.e. particles of zero rest mass are at  rest, or moving in a lower speed than the speed of light, these particles have zero rest and relativistic mass and zero energy, all according to the above Einstein relations for relativistic mass m = m0/ √ [1 - (v2/ c2)] and energy E = mc2. As zero weight means the absence of matter, which I think is needed for the emergence of any complex spatial  (the positive dimension) particle or body, we can say, that zero rest and relativistic mass and zero energy corresponds to moving or stationary space-time point, which also meets the mass and energy requirements.

 

(see also. http://physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=16 )

 

2. The real existing points of space-time, probably photons are the basis for all kinds of matter (or antimatter), light and vacuum.

- Light, virtually electromagnetic waves (or further light) is the movement of real existing points of space-time with the speed of light with a positive (relativistic) mass.

- Matter (or antimatter) is an infinite number of moving real existing points of  space-time, where the speed is lower than the speed of light, with an overall positive (relativistic and rest) mass.

- Absolute vacuum (absolute emptiness) is only one inert particle (space-time point) with an overall zero (relativistic and rest) mass, possibly spread out the space-time as nonabsolute vacuum.

 

To point 2:

2.1 In my view the same point of space-time of the absolute vacuum is, the basis of all physical quantities, in particular I am referring to basic physical quantities time, length (or space) and weight of the relationship for the momentum p = m*v. For the relativistic mass of space-time point of the absolute vacuum it applies m = m0/ √ (1-v2/ c2), where m0 the rest mass of space-time point of the absolute vacuum is equal to 0, for which the density ζ = 0 and the volume is also V = 0 (where the length a = 0, width b = 0, height c = 0), v is the speed of space-time point of the absolute vacuum, which is equal to 0, for which the trajectory s = 0 and time t = 0, and c is the speed of light. From the infinity of space-time points of absolute vacuum all matter, antimatter and electromagnetic waves such as light are made, the mass density is given by these points, the time period is given by the distribution of points in time and length which is due to distribution of such points in space. When non-zero values of the weight, length and time, it is always concerned the infinite points of space-time of absolute vacuum, but still it will be a different dense infinity. (see point 12. of this chapter )

2.2 In my opinion total energy, as well as the total relativistic mass, which is always the same as seen by the observer or in terms of the moving body it is determined by the number of space-time points of absolute vacuum that are forming resting or moving object in time. In my opinion space-time means, that variables such as space, i.e. length, width and height can be changed in time and vice versa. An example is the contraction of length and time dilation at an increasing speed according to STR, where at the constant energy and relativistic mass the space-time points of absolute vacuum forming the length of the space can be transformed into space-time points of an absolute vacuum forming its time. In other words in terms of the moving body there is a contraction (shortening) the length (dilution points of the absolute vacuum of space-time in length of the body) and dilation (extension) of time (concentration points of space-time of absolute vacuum in time, that it takes longer), at a constant energy and relativistic mass in terms of the observer and the moving body. Growth in mass of a moving body over the body at rest is related to the above-mentioned concentration (growth) of space-time points of the absolute vacuum in time, namely the above mentioned time dilation in terms of moving body, when in terms of both observers and in terms of moving body it increases total number of space-time points of absolute vacuum forming the moving object in time due to increased density of points in the dilated time. The fact, that at the accelerating movement of the body they regroup the space-time points of absolute vacuum forming the length from its view into space-time points of absolute vacuum forming time of its view (it is concerned length contraction and time dilation), it is probably due to the curvature of space-time, i.e. due to the influence of the maximum attainable speed light in the Universe.

2.3 I propose an experiment to prove this theory of space-time points of absolute vacuum as a common base of materials, light, virtually electromagnetic waves, time and length, virtually space (sort of ether), it should speed up the vacuum to light in the giant accelerators capable of achieving the accelerated particles in this case the speed close to the speed of light, there should be converted the vacuum into light and it would be confirmation of the above theory. Another experiment, if an object moving at a certain speed will send a beam of light, then the space-time points representing the time and track of the object A are transformed into space-time points, representing a further light ray going parallel and immediately adjacent to the first light beam. It should be the absorption of speed for the width of the light beam. Conversely, if I lit a light beam against the moving object B, it will narrow in terms of object B the light beam. The creation of parallel and immediately adjacent beam in energy level it is reflected as an increase in its energy, virtually the multiplication of energy (relativistic mass) of photons, virtually emergence of new photons. Narrowing of beam of light is in contrast a decrease in energy (see Doppler effect). The third physical experiment, that can be proposed to demonstrate the theory of relativity as the aforementioned theory of transformation of space-time points of vacuum, is to compare the contents of space created by photons of light impacted on a screen from stationary and moving object, the content of area on the screen falling light from an object moving against the screen is probably bigger.

 

(see: point 12 of this chapter, http://www.filosofie.cz/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=728&whichpage=8, http://www.filosofie.cz/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=932,http://www.filosofie.cz/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=933 )

 

3. Moving or stationary real existing points of time and space are continuous, as well as their movement is continuous. These points together are not colliding only touching and filling the entire space-time.

 

To point 3:

3.1 This finding is based on knowledge of space as a continuum, which reflects also the modern insight of Einstein's relativity theory of space-time as a continuum.

 

4. Movement of real existing material particles and bodies (of the non-zero relativistic mass) is discontinuous. They are colliding into each other and thus they can transmit momentum.

 

To point 4:

4.1 This finding is based on the discrete nature of vacuum, matter and light, when these kinds of groups of points can coexist without one continuously passed in the second in terms of their energy or momentum. These particles and bodies collide together commonly.

 

5. Continuous nature of all real existing space-time points and their movement is the cause of all kinds of physical force fields.

 

To point 5:

5.1 In my view, force fields do not cause movement of particles and rigid bodies within the force fields, but the movement of particles and rigid bodies within the force fields is the cause of the force fields.

5.2 Movement of real points of existing particles or bodies as a source of gravitational field or particle and body with a charge as a source of electric field it is transferred to the surrounding of real existing points of matter and light, virtually electromagnetic waves and vacuum through the touch and causing continuous (joint) movement of the real existing points as sources of force field and its surroundings. In other words high or low momentum of the movement towards certain direction of real existing points of particle or body as the source of the force field is transmitted through the touch of the continuous space of points to the real existing points of the material, lights, virtually electromagnetic waves and vacuum around the source of force field and the real existing points begin circling around the source of force field. In this circular motion arises kinematic centripetal force, to which the Fd= mad= mv2/ r, where m is the mass, ad centripetal acceleration, v the speed, r the radius of the circle. The centripetal force causes the emergence of force field acting on each real existing point of vacuum, light and matter around sources of force field. Also according to classical physics in artificial satellites orbiting the Earth there is the centripetal force of gravitational force.

5.3 Gravitational or electrical force field is in fact the continuous (joint) system of movement of particles or bodies as the source of this movement system and particles and bodies around.

5.4 Absorption of the moving surrounding points of the space by the  mass is the cause of the gravitational force, that attracts the mass, waves and space.

5.5 The phenomenon can be expressed mathematically by the relation for the balance force F1=∆E/s=[(E1-E2)V1/(V1+V2)]/s for two neighboring momentum fields, virtually material bodies, virtually particles (hereinafter momentum field) of physical macrocosm, where F1 is the repulsive force of the first momentum field if positive value and the attractive force of this momentum field if negative value, ​​∆E the change in the total relativistic energy of the observed momentum field, E1, 2 is the total value of the relativistic energy of selected momentum fields, V1, 2 is the volume of the momentum fields, s the distance between centers of neighboring particles, virtually material bodies, virtually neighboring momentum fields, ∆t the time of interaction between momentum fields and t the total time of counterbalancing of particles momentum due to collisions of particles. Thesis is based on the fact, that ∆E=∆W=F*s, where W is the work, virtually energy, that one needs to restore balance by  a force F (hereinafter the balance force) acting on the trajectory s needed to restore the balance due to particles collisions during time t. Thesis is based on the fact, that there is equalization of E1 and E2 at time t, otherwise the second part of the above formula for the balance force does not apply and the first part of this formula applies only, which is caused by overpressure, virtually underpressure due to the neighboring momentum field. Forces caused by overpressure, virtually underpressure of neighboring momentum fields are so according to the Philosophy of Balance of Physics the reason of all motion in the Universe.

 

6. The nature of the photon as space point and the final energy of the Universe as an isolated power system is likely to cause the maximum speed of light c for material bodies (with non-zero rest mass) and photons (zero rest mass) in space-time.

 

To point 6:

6.1 According to Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity the speed of tangible objects (of non-zero rest mass) equal to the speed of light requires an infinite energy, which derives from the equations for the relativistic mass m = m0/ √ [1 - (v2/ c2)], where v is the velocity of material body equal to c, c the speed of light, m0 rest mass of the body, m relativistic mass and for energy E = mc2 because m = m0/ 0 = m0/ (x / ∞) = m0* ∞ / x = ∞, where x and m0 are nonzero final negative or positive numbers.

6.2 The body of a non-zero rest mass is composed of an infinite number of points of space, probably photons, particles of zero rest mass. Movement of the body of the speed of light means that each point of space, the photon should move probably at the speed of light. Due to the positive energy of each point of space, probably the photon, that moves at light speed, it would be at infinity of the points of space forming body necessary the infinite energy of the body to move the speed of light. Given that the Universe is probably the final rest mass and its velocity is less than the speed of light, i.e. the final energy as an isolated system, it can be assumed, that even the total energy of the Universe has not succeeded in setting the body of a non-zero rest mass in motion of the speed of light.

6.3 According to Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity the speed of light of photon (of zero rest mass) means any final energy E = mc2, which follows from the equation for the relativistic mass m = m0/ √ [1 - (v2/ c2)], where v is the speed of the photon, it is equal to c, c the speed of light, m0 rest mass of photon, it is zero, m relativistic mass, since m = m0/ 0 = 0 / (- + x / ∞ )=(-+ x / x )/(-+ ∞ / ∞) =- + x */ x * ∞, where x is nonzero final positive or negative number. Relativistic mass m is equal to any positive or negative number depending on the result of shares and the type of infinites in this share.

6.4 The above evidence of any photon energy with the speed of light follows also from a theory of the photon as a point of space-time. Any photon of light speed has non-zero energy and it is probably the point of space of this speed and energy (see point 1 of this chapter). The final number of points of the space side by side is the point of space again, otherwise the number of points would have to be infinite. It follows, that a photon of light speed as a point of space consisting of any final number of photons of the speed of light, probably the points of space it has any final energy again. Given that the Universe has probably the final rest mass and its velocity is less than the speed of light, i.e. the final energy as an isolated system, it can be assumed, that even if the photon used energy of the whole Universe, it would achieve only the speed of light not higher speed. This corresponds to the emergence of the Universe from a single point of space, probably a photon (see point 10 of this chapter).

 

7. Movement of all real existing material particles and bodies (with the non-zero relativistic mass) aims to create continuous motion similar to continuous movement of real existing space-time points. Then to the constant movement of material particles and bodies, where they do not almost crash anymore, and their momentum will be sustained by the law of conservation of momentum (the evidence is already present homogeneous structure of the Universe in terms of large spatial sections and final energy of the Universe as an isolated system, which in my view derives from a maximum speed of light).

 

To point 7:

7.1 The collisions of particles and physical objects (of a non-zero relativistic mass) is to offset their momentum, according to the law of conservation of momentum and under the third motional law of action and reaction, whereby the forces, with which two bodies are acting on each other, are the same size, each of the opposite direction and they simultaneously create and disappear.

7.2 Motion effectiveness of same great powers of action and reaction may not be the same. If for example, two balls of different masses collide, the action force starts the ball with less mass to move with greater acceleration than the heavier ball, which has the force of the reaction. Acceleration of bodies, that interact each other by action and reaction, depends not only on the force, but also on body weight, which results from the second motion law a = F / m, where a is acceleration, F is the force and m the weight.

7.3 Collisions of micro particles, of which number is somewhat probably random, which are forming bodies of macro world, and thus they form the basis of collisions in our world (in macro world in terms of physics), they are a matter of chance and probability. Taking only two micro particles, and after each collision according to de Broglie waves and Heisenberg uncertainty principle further movement can be determined only vaguely based on probability, which therefore applies also to their next collision. By more or low 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 in my opinion evolution is directed to the termination of collisions and evolution from a less to more probable state of nature.

7.4 The final result of collisions of material particles and bodies (of the non-zero relativistic mass) will be almost continuous movement of these massive particles and bodies, where they will move almost without mutual collisions, they will not loose nearly the momentum and their momentum is almost invariable under the law of conservation of momentum. In my view also other ways to exchange energy are caused by the collision of material particles and bodies, and even subatomic ones and light, virtually electromagnetic waves.

 

8. The reason for the gradual formation of almost continuous movement of real existing material particles and bodies (of the non-zero relativistic mass) is a continuous movement of existing space-time points allowing them regrouping and thus the transmission of momentum from the collision of material bodies and particles.

 

 

To point 8:

8.1 In my view all types of energy exchanges in the physical movement are caused by regrouping of moving particles of zero mass, space-time points, probably photons, when increase or decrease in the total energy of material particles or bodies it is nothing other than increase or decrease in the number of intangible particles, space-time points, probably photons or their speed (see section 1.3 and 2.1). It is always essentially redistribution of momentum, which implies the connection of laws of conservation of energy and momentum.

 

9. Binding energy of nucleus (nuclear energy) is the movement of particles forming the nucleus of high momentum, which is not given by a rest mass of loose particles of atomic nuclei but by the speed, at which these particles move in the nucleus.

 

To point 9:

9.1 In my opinion the total energy of any body or particle means an infinite number of points of zero rest mass or velocity of points of space. In the case of binding nucleus energy this energy is not given by a rest mass of loose particles of atomic nuclei, therefore it must be given by high speed of movement of the constituent particles.

9.2 Force fields do not cause movement of particles and bodies within the force fields, but the movement of particles and bodies within the force fields is the cause of the force fields (see section 5). It follows that the nuclear force represents a closed movement of space-time points, probably photons forming particles of atomic nuclei with high speed inside the nucleus of an atom.

9.3 In the case of nuclear reactions it is a clash of another particle into the nucleus to change direction of closed movement of the space-time points, probably photons forming nucleus of low weight and high speed, i.e. big momentum to the movement toward an open movement outside the nucleus and the release of a large amount of energy. Prerequisite of a change of space-time point movement forming the nucleus is that the particle-projectile has sufficient velocity, i.e., momentum and energy.

9.4 The above findings are also applicable for other binding forces of matter.

 

10. Space-time, thus our four-dimensional world was created from a single real existing space-time point, probably from a single photon of the enormous energy by increasing its volume and its distribution to more real existing space-time points, probably photons (widening of the Universe) of the form of particles and antiparticles of matter and antimatter, lights and vacuum (see section 1.3, 2.1 and 2.2).

 

11. Space-time, thus our four-dimensional world is a finite amount of energy of speed less than the speed of light, which is characterized by its components i.e. time, space and weight, of the final and nonzero value of these variables. In the case of infinite values of variables of time, space and weight of above defined our Universe it would be an infinite amount of energy of our Universe.

 

To point 11:

11.1 Given, that our entire Universe arose, in my opinion, from a single point of space-time, thus a single photon of zero mass, a single particle of zero mass (see point 10) pulling it into the space, which is in my view the evidence of energy transformation into space, I believe, that time, weight and space cannot exist in isolation but only as a component of energy. This also follows from Einstein's relation for the relativistic energy E = mc2, when we express through it the energy of the Universe.

11.2 The final amount of energy in our Universe as an isolated system, shows the maximum speed of light, which can be achieved in its framework, out of bounds of the speed of light the infinite energy would be consumed, which our Universe does not have (see the point 6).

 

12. Given the photon, the point of space of the speed of light it is true time dilation, i.e. the relativistic time is still at zero, length contraction, i.e. the relativistic length is zero, the increase in weight, i.e. relativistic mass can be nonzero, when the rest mass must be zero. The amount of energy is correspondent to the expression of the number of points of space-time and its components, which are time, size and weight, they are the only forms of energy, where energy can be converted into any of these forms as a rearrangement of points of space-time. In the case of photon of zero rest mass and the speed of light or of a body of non-zero rest mass and velocity less than the speed of light it is always concerned the energy, which corresponds to an infinite number of points of space-time, it always depends on the size of infinite numbers.

 

To point 12:

12.1 The evidence of energy transformation in space is probably widening the Universe from a single primordial point of the Universe of the huge energy (see point 10), the evidence of energy transformation into the mass is absorption of the photon by matter, which thus acquires material form, the proof of the energy conversion in time is different time depending on the different velocity of reference frame.

12.2 Different numbers of 0 value are illustrated by the dimension of space point, which is zero. However, the dimensions of two points side by side is also zero, to achieve non-zero dimension of a segment consisting of points arranged in a row we need an infinite number of points. I.e. a segment consisting of a variable final number of points will always have a length of zero, but it will have in any case a different length of size 0, i.e. different values of  0. Infinite number of different value is illustrated by the abscissa and line, square and plane, cubes and unrestricted space with relation to a point of space, these units are always filled by infinite points of space, however each of these departments always concerns the infinite number of different size, where the increasing infinite number will be concerned gradually with the number of points required for the emergence of an abscissa, line, square, plane, cube and unlimited space.

12.3  In my view A point of absolute vacuum of space-time is the base of all physical quantities, in particular I am referring to basic physical quantities as time, length (or space) and the weight in the relationship for the momentum p = m*v. For relativistic mass of space-time point of the absolute vacuum applies m=m0/√(1-v2/ c2), where m0 the rest mass of space-time point of the absolute vacuum is equal to 0, for which the density ζ = 0 and the volume is also V = 0 (where the length of a = 0, width b = 0, height c = 0), v is the speed of space-time point of the absolute vacuum, which is equal to 0 for the trajectory s = 0 and time t = 0, and c is the speed of light. From the infinity of the same points of space-time of the absolute vacuum all the matter and light is made up, the mass density is given by the density of points in the matter and light, time is given by the distribution of points in time and length which is due to distribution of such points in a space. When non-zero value of the weight, length and time always concerns the infinite points of space-time of absolute vacuum, but still it will be a different dense infinity. Dilatation virtually contraction of time, virtually length is given by the density of points in time, virtually space.

12.4 Absolute vacuum, mass, electromagnetic waves (or light) consisting of space-time points of an absolute vacuum can be displayed as a four-dimensional film, where individual points (of some coordinates) of a three-dimensional photo snap have different properties. In the case of absolute vacuum thus a certain point (of certain coordinates) of all the infinite three-dimensional photo snaps of film projected behind another consists of only a finite number of  space-time points of absolute vacuum, which are so still, time runs very fast, because this is only a finite number of space time points of absolute vacuum that lasts only a zero moment (zero times the final number is again zero), and total relativistic mass is zero, because it consists solely of final number of space-time points of absolute vacuum spread in space time(relativistic mass of the space-time point of absolute vacuum, m = 1/∞5= 0 kg). For mass each one particular point of three-dimensional photo snaps (of certain coordinates) projected behind another consists of an infinite number of (∞1) of space-time points of absolute vacuum, which is so apparently moving, the time is running according to density of space-time points of the absolute vacuum of continuous  infinity of three-dimensional photo snaps projected one behind another in second assuming, that the film is as smooth as a fact, and its relativistic mass is zero but different from the weight of point of three-dimensional photo snap of absolute vacuum (relativistic mass of points of three-dimensional photo snap of mass at zero time interval m= final non-zero x/∞4=0 kg), with different dense infinity of points of non-zero three-dimensional volume of a subject displayed on a three-dimensional photo snap projected one behind another it gives (relativistic) mass m = final non-zero x / ∞ =0 kg and all photo snaps, projected one behind another, give a (relativistic) mass m = final non-zero x kg. For electromagnetic waves of a photon of zero rest mass and the speed of light a certain point (of certain coordinates) of a three-dimensional photo snap is consisted of a different dense (∞5) infinite number of space-time points of absolute vacuum of (relativistic) mass m = final non-zero x kg, where the (relativistic) mass of three-dimensional object on a three-dimensional photo snap is m = variously dense kg, the time, virtually film is composed of a single two-dimensional photo snap, which takes zero time and zero length, but it contains in itself all other film. For a photon of non-zero rest mass and the speed of light a certain point (of some coordinates) of a three-dimensional photo snap is composed of different dense infinite number (∞6) of space-time points of absolute vacuum of (relativistic) mass m = variously dense  ∞ kg.

 

13. Relationship of movement of rest system, or of system of a lower speed than the speed of light, i.e., our Universe and reference system of the speed of light, i.e. photons of light speed it is relative, it is not to determine, which system is to the other in rest and that moves to the other at the speed of light. In terms of the reference system represented by the amount of energy at speed less than the speed of light, i.e. our Universe the reference system represented by energy of the speed of light creates photons, i.e. space-time points moving at a speed of light. In terms of the reference system moving at a speed of light, i.e. photons of the speed of light in our Universe an absolute vacuum in our Universe is the reference system moving with the speed of light, i.e. photons of light with the speed of light in terms of the Universe of light, as well as our matter is its waves with speed less than the speed of light  and our waves with speed less than the speed of light are its mass.

 

The point 13:

13.1 When the two reference systems are moving away with the speed of light, it cannot be determined, which of them is in rest to the other and that moves to the other at the speed of light, it will always depend on the choice of reference system, from which the observer looks at two systems moving away with the speed of light. In my opinion so this movement will be relative, and from view of both systems it will be perceived the system moving with the speed of light as a light beam, virtually electromagnetic waves and its system as unlighting matter, it will always depend, on which of these two reference systems an observer of movement of the two reference systems will find. In both cases the observer is located in one of these two reference systems moving away with the speed of light and he or she will perceive their own reference system as large and the material world and the second reference system moving away with the speed of light as electromagnetic waves such as light. Therefore an absolute vacuum, which is still in terms of resting system, is the electromagnetic waves (or light) in terms of light. Photons of light speed in terms of resting system are an absolute vacuum, which is still, in terms of light. Mass in terms of resting system is waves of the speed less than light in terms of light and waves of speed less than light in terms of a rest system are the mass in terms of light. In the form of synthetic (i.e., composition) processes (e.g., origin of life on Earth) and in the form of analytical (i.e. degradation) processe leads to cycles of energy between the Universe of light, the Universe of higher speed than the speed of light and our Universe, my philosophy limits energy cycle of living matter between these systems.

 

14. If we use for the Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity relations underlying assumption, that in the other Universe of the higher speed than the speed of light the speed of movement exceeds the speed of light, this leads to the following relativistic relations in Universe of the higher speed than the speed of light. [1-(c2+x)/c2)]=(-x/c2)=i(x/c2), for x>0, where i is the complex unit, which forms the denominator of relativistic relations for time, length and weight. Then under this assumption the result of our ratio for the length and time is ∆t, l=∆t0, 10*i(x/c2), where ∆t0, 10 is difference of the resting time and length and ∆t, l is the difference of the moving time and length of a speed greater than the speed of light c by variable x, in the- Universe of the higher speed than the speed of light for mass m=m0/i(x/c2), where m0 is the rest mass and m moving mass of speed greater than the speed of light c by variable x, i is the complex unit. Thus increase in the length and time in our Universe is reflected as a decrease in other lengths and other time in the Universe of greater speed than the speed of light and weight gain in our Universe as an increase in other mass in the Universe of greater speed than the speed of light due to the reduction of above x representing the velocity (i.e, one of the forms of energy, virtually relativistic mass, virtually movement composed of time and length except weight) due to the law of conservation of energy. This leads to the concepts of other time, other length and other weight representing a different mass of the Universe of greater speed than the speed of light and of our Universe. Bridge between the Universe of greater speed than the speed of light and our Universe, between the mass and other mass in both dimensions is light, i.e. particles, possibly of non-zero rest mass moving at the speed of light, it is a God´s Universe (dimension), possibly of infinite energy.


(see http://www.filosofie.cz/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1109 , http://www.filosofie.cz/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1119)

       

VIII.) Time, weight and space

   

Time and space are movement characteristics characterized by physical equations for momentum p = m*v, where p is the momentum, m the mass and v velocity, while representing motion with zero values of the other movement. If we want to understand all Being as movement i.e. waves or energy, then the time and space are characteristics of Being and Being is a form of space and time. In other words, space is a form of time and time is a form of space and both are the motion.

 

We measure time through a certain form of movement, which is called a clock, in the event, that there was no time, which is not possible to measure, there would be no movement, which we determine as the standard of the time, there would be only one permanent moment-motion, which is eternal, which corresponds to the total movement (i.e. all Being) with a zero value of time. All would be still and forever, there would not be death or birth, formation or termination, everything would be fixed.

 

Space is an attribute of movement, but a mass is particles in motion again ultimately of a zero weight and so in the form of zero values of other variables of movement in the physical relationship for the momentum mV* vV= m * v, where mVVV are variables of the transformed movement m * v, where t = 0, ζ = 0, V ≠ 0, s ≠ 0 and while t is time, ζ is the density in kg / m3, V is the volume and s the trajectory. The volume and length would be so endless. That would be a distraction of each physical body into an infinite space, the momentum, virtually energy would be maintained, but the weight would be equal to zero. If there is no space, there would be movement on a single trajectory, even if there is no length of the movement, it would be movement as a single point with infinite time.

 

From the fact, that space and time are characteristics of movement and according to the Philosophy of Balance in terms of exact sciences our Universe is the movement, so the space and time are part of movement, from which every movement is composed in the material world. From the possibility of the transformation of movement, then the possibility follows to transform the speed on the weight and the weight on the speed. In other words it is possible to light out matter in the form of light and that the light fleshed out as the material absorbing a photon by the mass, in which the speed of movement of particle increases, which absorbs a photon of light and thus the relativistic mass of the matter increases, while the system is maintaining the overall momentum virtually energy. At the same time it is in my opinion to change the weight and length in time and vice versa, while maintaining also the overall momentum, virtually energy. This follows from the fact, that every movement characterized by three variables, namely mass, length and time, each material system is a motion system, thus a movement characterized by its momentum, namely speed, virtually weight, length and time, i.e. value of speed.

   

IX.) Arithmetic and geometry of infinite

   

In case of non-negative number ∞ in terms of Philosophy of Balance it is the whole, which includes lower values in the field of arithmetic of non-negative numbers. Laws applicable to calculations of ∞ are to apply to sub-form as well as in numerous operations with lower numbers, which follows a logical consistency (context and similarities) of all mathematical operations.

 

Calculations in the field of arithmetic can be projected geometrically by objects of  identical dimension, by points in geometry of zero dimension, by unit abscissas in the geometry of the line or the first dimension, by unit areas in plane geometry, thus of a second dimension and by unit spaces in three-dimensional geometry. The number of objects equals to ∞ then a whole in terms of higher dimension, it is again an infinitely small part of this dimension.

 

Arithmetic of ∞ numbers can be displayed geometrically again, as it follows from the nature of geometry as a special field in relation to mathematics. Geometry shows the general concept of number in geometric objects and their relationships in geometric relationships. General laws of arithmetic apply in geometry again and the laws of geometry are in a general form applicable in arithmetic, which follows from a logical connection (connection and similarities) of mathematics and geometry, virtually of all events in the world.

 

Number ∞ is a complex whole, therefore the result in the case of diverging sequences of infinite number of mathematical operations primarily growing. Among the growing mathematical operations of arithmetic are addition, multiplication and exponentiation, where the original one of these three operations, which is composed of two others, is the addition. On this basis, it can be defined basic number ∞, which is an infinite number of sums of the numbers 1, then ∞j= 1 +1 +1 + ... (basic divergent sequence), which we can display geometrically as the number of lines of the 1 meter in an endless line. All the other figures of the value ∞ are composed from this base. Number of basic infinite numbers in a particular number we find  ∞ / ∞j and number of specific ∞ is obtained by multiplying, this number of the basic infinite numbers and ∞j again.

 

Arithmetic of number displayed in geometry exceeds a single dimension and it leads to a higher dimension at the growing mathematical operations, virtually to a lower dimension at declining mathematical operations, which are the mathematical inverse (inverted) operations of the above mathematical growing operations a subtraction, division and radix. Geometric view in the first dimension of ∞ number of growing mathematical operations of non-zero final numbers that can be viewed as a segment, it is a straight line, irrespective of the number ∞j in a particular number , which multiply, unless their number is infinite again, and regardless of the length of the segment. In this sense one can speak of same value and different density of all numbers ∞ no matter, how many ∞j in itself it contains. The line is already an object of two-dimensional space with zero width. Nonzero width of the line we get by multiplying the countless number ∞, thus 1 * ∞2.

 

 By last above reasoning we get to the specific issue of arithmetic of infinity, i.e. counting operations with number and number 0. Zero is a real basic number in the field of arithmetic of numbers. In the geometric view of the second dimension it can be imagined as a line, a plane of zero width and area. The last consideration in the preceding paragraph shows that the flat strip of width 1 divided ∞j equals to 0, or line of width of 0. In other words 1 / ∞j equals to 0, where the number 1 represents a segment of length 1 and 0 point of this segment or the number 1 flat strip of width 1 and the line number 0 or number 1 three-dimensional space with dimensions of a = 1, b = 1 c = ∞ and number 0 flat strip of width 1, etc. If a particular infinity is ∞ = 2 * ∞j, virtually ∞ = 1 / 2 * ∞j, the size of the segment will be doubled, virtually the half the size.

 

From the foregoing it follows, that value of the numbers 0 and ∞ in terms of multiple dimensional space and its arithmetic may be different according to the number of basic numbers 0, which is 1 / ∞j, and the number of basic numbers of ∞j in them. Different values will also take their above mathematical increasing and decreasing operations. Furthermore, if the number of units in number is equal to ∞ again, it is concerned the geometric objects in space of a higher dimension again.

 

Number 0 in arithmetic and point in three dimensional space in geometry correspond essentially to the concept of the photon with the speed less than the speed of light in physics i.e. space-time point, which proves consistency and similarity of these disciplines. In terms of Philosophy of Balance all the points of space-time, particles of zero mass, photons, of which the speed is lower than the speed of light, they are all the energy of the material world together with all points of every conceivable space, thus all existing energy, God in my conception. From the above differences of different numbers zero it implies, that each point of space-time has a different energy, which is equal to the number zero, if the speed of movement is not equal to the speed of light. According to the different zero-energy of space points their groups in infinite number create either the different types of materials, of different weight, or vacuum, absolute or nonabsolute emptiness. Each of these points represents the various potential new Universe, a lower dimensional space composed also from infinitely many points in this space of lower dimension, which are of zero energy of different numbers of zero value in terms of space-time again. They represent the energy of God in my concept, which may give a rise to an infinite number of new worlds similar to our material world but in space-time of less or higher dimensional space.

 

X.) The relationship of conservation of momentum and energy

   

For a description of the movement as a category of exact sciences in the Philosophy of Balance, it must be selected a relationship, which provides the simplest context of all basic variables perceived by our senses, thus the weight, the trajectory and time or speed. This simple relationship describing the movement of an indivisible whole will be an essential element, the basis of expression of the whole and every part of the movement, namely the physical reality. All other relations describing the motion are an extension of this basic form of this relationship. This fundamental relationship of the motion is the equation for the vector of momentum p =m* v =m * s / t, where p is the momentum, m mass, v speed, s trajectory and t the time. All other relations describing the various types of physical motion are then derived from this basic relationship. Here I am thinking primarily of mechanical power relations, but also the total energy in relativistic physics, but also the relationship of thermodynamics, electricity and magnetism, optics and physics of micro world, where it is concerned the kinds of a physical movement.

 

From this context of the physical movements it follows such as the link of the law of conservation of momentum with the law of conservation of energy, hence the law of conservation of mechanical energy and the law of conservation of electric charge. The relationship of conservation of momentum and energy can be demonstrated from the relationship derived in relativistic physics, specifically in the Special Theory of Relativity. Assuming a particle of zero mass, then its entire energy represents the mechanical energy. Mechanical energy consists of kinetic energy and potential energy. Potential energy is the other kind of energy, whether mechanical or other, such as heat, which can be converted into kinetic energy. Total quiescent photon energy is Ef0= mf0* c2, mf0= 0, mf0 is a zero relativistic mass of the photon at rest and c the speed of light. The total kinetic energy of the photon is Ekef= Ef -Ef0= mf c2- mf0c2= mf c2-0 = mf c2, where Ef  is the total relativistic energy of the photon of the speed of light, Ef0 relativistic energy of the photon at rest, mf relativistic mass of photon at the speed of light, mf0 relativistic mass of the photon at rest, the kinetic energy of a photon of light speed is equal to the total photon energy. Potential energy of a photon of light speed is equal to 0 and the photon energy of the speed of light is represented by only its kinetic energy. The momentum of a photon of light speed c according to the relationship pf = mfv= mf c, where v is the velocity vector of the photon, which is equal to the speed of light c, mf relativistic mass of photon with the speed of light. Since c is constant, we can say, that the rate of movement in terms of the photon momentum pf differs from the total energy of the photon Ef, virtually from the kinetic energy of the photon Ekf only about times of the speed of light c, which is constant. A similar relationship we achieve in the case of classical physics equation for the kinetic energy Ek= mv2, where m is the mass and v the velocity scalar and the relationship of classical physics for the momentum p = mv, where m is the mass and v the velocity vector, where these relationships differ only by a multiple of scalar v, i.e. speed. In both cases the equation for kinetic energy can be derived from an equation for momentum, it can therefore be said, that the law of conservation of momentum is probably directly related to the law of conservation of kinetic energy.

 

The aforementioned theory of the relation of law of conservation of momentum and the law of conservation of energy, virtually the law of conservation of kinetic energy at the points of space-time, obviously photons can be generally justified by the fact, that both the momentum and energy are mathematically the rate of movement, while the energy exchange is always a clash of moving material particles of nonzero mass, ultimately, always of moving touching particles of zero mass, space-time points, which create by their groups all kinds of material particles, through which the transfer of both momentum and kinetic energy is caused and the law of conservation of momentum and kinetic energy apply, if in this conflict the potential energy is not changed, which represents in my concept all other types of energy convertible to kinetic energy. In my opinion these other energy is also at points negligible due to the high speed movement of space-time points, i.e. particles with zero mass, often approaching the speed of light, as evidenced by the movement of photons of light speed. The increasing speed of movement is in my view, characteristic for the particles of low mass. In other words the lighter particles have a higher speed of movement. Examples include photons i.e. particles of zero rest mass, perhaps space-time points reaching the speed of light. Therefore in my opinion the momentum density and energy density are directly related, therefore the momentum per unit of space or energy per unit of space, if I refer to the energy of points of space-time, probably photons, because in this case in my view, it can be neglected as low other than kinetic energy.

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

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

 
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 )

 

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, p
1,2,3 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 p
1sooner 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 p
1,2,3)


1) The imminent clash of all or only some of the living organisms of momentum vectors p
2.3 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 (p
2=- 2) -> <-----(p3= +5) o


2) The threatening conflict of all or only some of the living organisms of momentum vectors p
2.3 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 v
1,2,3= 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 p
1 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 )

 

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 )

 
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 = m
0/ √ (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 , http://www.filosofie.cz/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=680 )

 

b) Could something be created from nothing

   

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 world

   

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)

   

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

   

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

 

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 criminals

 

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

   

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?

 

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

  

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

   

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.) ab

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 = m1vit 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 )

 

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 )

 

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 )

 

l) Is humanity directed to the salvation or the destruction?

   

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 )

 

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 )

 

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

 

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

 

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 )

   

o) Live and dead

 

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

   

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?

 

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.

Literatu
re
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 )

 

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?

   

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 )

   

s) We cannot eat anything that has to be killed

 

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 ,)

  

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 )


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 )

 

t) Issue of sex

 

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.


Testosterone is also produced by the adrenal cortex in women, but the amount in women is around ten times less than in men. All of these anabolic hormones have their effect varies by type of tissue. Since the primary, by nature programmed task of women is to bear children and not to make heroic physical performance, the anabolic effect of female hormones
is designed particularly in fat tissue.


(see
http://www.kpo.cz/fyziologie/fyziologie05-3.htm )


In other words, the stronger woman should have higher testosterone level as the weaker man it should prevail for her, therefore the features of male behavior in relation to the weaker male and in the case of the weaker man the female elements of behavior in relation to this strong woman, which as to me is in the contradiction with natural sex. Yet I would be interested in your experience, whether such marriage may work in a natural sex.

 

Reaction by Miloslav Bažant:

 

Dalibor.

Clarify our terms. What do you consider to be the strength? From your lines, you mean physical strength. That would be something different than I expected. I thought more on the strength of personality. He may be a man strong as Hercules, and still a woman as a bit can manage him and it just may be the opposite. Man as a penny jackknife can arbitrarily control the woman who can lift the rack wagon. It's not too much on physical strength and not too much on hormones, but rather about characteristics. It could be true at the racetrack, but not in the love. Do you remember the film with Helen Růžičková as an Amazon and a man who was weak? Such a marriage is more often and they are better than perfect. So I tell it to you simply. "Forget the theory. When you find the right one, you know it." If you choose according to recognized standards, you do not have to find what suits you and then you run away for under the standards ugly, where you are happy. Listen to your heart and not to the advice of others.


MB
 

My answer

 

Slávo,

higher levels of testosterone is associated both with human characteristics (increasing ambition, aggression and it encourages aggressiveness), and with greater physical strength of man (i.e. the formation of muscle mass) and the development of male sexual characteristics of humans (e.g. at puberty). Therefore, the wife should always have a lower testosterone level than her husband, greater strength of man means in my opinion, a higher level of testosterone in his body.


At the same time, I would not want to deny myself and I think, that I agree with you that the marriage should ideally be established as a ideal society on a permanent real and free unanimous agreement, not to rule and subordinate. This does not mean the same proportion of both spouses in the design and content of the agreement; the stronger husband will always have a larger share. According to me the husband-man should be mainly moderator of such an agreement, then the leading factor. Where comparison, rabbit must agree with the lion, not the lion with rabbit. In case of impossibility to reach an agreement between the spouses, which should be paramount and
both spouses should always try it, that one or the other retreats, the stronger man should have the final say.

 

Reaction by Miloslav Bažant:

 

Dalibor.

To your analogy I really laughed. Thanks. The bunny speaks, it will be voluntarily eaten. That is good. I would say, that generosity belongs to stronger one.