The Age of the Universe is a Function of Time

jonathan wrote:



Uh oh, I feel a rant sweeping over me.

To be honest with you, there's a reason for that. The conventional
world has it /all so/ exactly backwards. The only way to figure things out
is to inverse everything conventional. And rigorously so.
Which means of course I should strive to make my internet 'alt'
as close as possible to the inverse of the real world 'me'.



In other words, you've been telling us Great Big Fibs about yourself.

Creating a mirror image of yourself creates the two opposite
extremes which allows the sane or complex middle to be seen.....objectively.
Then we can combine equal measures of both opposite extremes into
a new and better you. An objective form of self analysis.
Which would seem to be a contradiction in terms, but it's not.

In this way we can make the subjective.... objective.

Which produces a simple, fixed or easy solution. It makes
what's normally hard....easy.. Inverse the input, and the
output is also inversed. What is more art than science
becomes ....more science than art.

Connecting the system specific extremes in possibility
space is the way nature creates all order in the universe.
Living or non-living. But the first order of business is
to define those opposite extremes, to understand yourself.
Then, and only then, it's possible to understand the real world.

Reality is best understood through subjective methods.

But first we must all train or tune our subjective abilities to
each other. So the truth of the universe can not only
be fully expressed, but understood by others.

Until everyone objectively understands themselves, we cannot
begin to comprehend the truth of our existence.

Remember, in the bizzarro world of complexity science, fundamental
law flows from the most complex the universe has to offer, not
the other way around. Truth flows from observing life, not particles
and there's no easier or more complete example to study then yourself.

If you want to understand the big bang, creation or even God
just look in a mirror.




Well, you can say what you want, but after that, I'm fairly sure you've
had some experience with drugs... the question is, were they illegal
ones or something that was prescribed? :-D

Pat

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...


jonathan wrote:



Uh oh, I feel a rant sweeping over me.

To be honest with you, there's a reason for that. The conventional
world has it /all so/ exactly backwards. The only way to figure things out
is to inverse everything conventional. And rigorously so.
Which means of course I should strive to make my internet 'alt'
as close as possible to the inverse of the real world 'me'.



In other words, you've been telling us Great Big Fibs about yourself.

Such as?

Is this dishonest? If I tend to be inhibited in the real world, then
I should try to be equally uninhibited here. If in the real world
I'd normally react negatively to some statement, then in here
it'd be positive to the same degree. And so on.



Well, you can say what you want,
but after that, I'm fairly sure you've
had some experience with drugs...

I fail to see what that has to do with anything.


the question is, were they illegal
ones or something that was prescribed?


Why do you ask? People so badly want to pigeonhole
everyone else. They want to know if they have a degree, or
smoke dope, or are rich, fat and on and on. So they
can decide whether to listen to or dismiss some opinion.
This only shows the insecurity inherent in our beliefs.
We look to others, to authority, to tell us what to
think and how.

Words should stand and fall on their own merit.

Who spoke them shouldn't even be considered.
Cyberspace in an entirely platonic world. The minute
anyone tries to make it a microcosm of reality all
the new possibilities this medium offers are lost.

And these new freedoms and abilities are lost only
because of vanity. People want credit for what they
said and did, they want to attach their real world
names, titles and rank.

For the sake of vanity, the magnificent New World
is returned unopened.





Jonathan

s



:-D

Pat

jonathan wrote:

In other words, you've been telling us Great Big Fibs about yourself.



Such as?

Is this dishonest? If I tend to be inhibited in the real world, then
I should try to be equally uninhibited here. If in the real world
I'd normally react negatively to some statement, then in here
it'd be positive to the same degree. And so on.



In short, you really don't have any opinion, but merely two different
appearances of one that you express to two different groups of people.
You are a null.



Well, you can say what you want,
but after that, I'm fairly sure you've
had some experience with drugs...



I fail to see what that has to do with anything.



Well, they do tend to alter one's behavior and perception of things; or
as W.C. Fields said:
"A man who overindulges lives in a dream. He becomes conceited. He
thinks the whole world revolves around him; and it usually does."




the question is, were they illegal
ones or something that was prescribed?




Why do you ask? People so badly want to pigeonhole
everyone else. They want to know if they have a degree,


BA in History/PoliSci, minor in English.

or
smoke dope,


Nope.

or are rich,


Not by a long shot.

fat


Yup.

and on and on. So they
can decide whether to listen to or dismiss some opinion.



And amazingly, I mention the above facts to both people I talk to and in
newsgroup postings.

This only shows the insecurity inherent in our beliefs.
We look to others, to authority, to tell us what to
think and how.



I think the fat part is more related to beer and cheese than any desire
to satisfy an authority figure.


Words should stand and fall on their own merit.



True to some extent, but if you know that the person writing them has
admitted that he doesn't really have a fixed opinion on anything that he
is ready to share in a straight-forward and consistent manner with
anyone else, then you should be suspicious of his own belief in what he
has said or written, and his motives for doing so.
This sounds more like a quest for some type of personal empowerment at
the expense of others by pulling the wool over their eyes and
congratulating oneself on one's cunning.

Who spoke them shouldn't even be considered.



If it were Charles Manson, I'd be somewhat careful about the ideas.
The same goes for Marilyn Manson.

Cyberspace in an entirely platonic world. The minute
anyone tries to make it a microcosm of reality all
the new possibilities this medium offers are lost.



Like truth apparently. We sure wouldn't want to shackle it down with
that, would we?

And these new freedoms and abilities are lost only
because of vanity. People want credit for what they
said and did, they want to attach their real world
names, titles and rank.



And if it s a worthwhile idea, they should indeed take credit for it,
and be recognized for having originating it by others.

For the sake of vanity, the magnificent New World
is returned unopened.




You are a very silly person, and I'm not going to read your postings
anymore.

Pat

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...


jonathan wrote:

In other words, you've been telling us Great Big Fibs about yourself.



Such as?

Is this dishonest? If I tend to be inhibited in the real world, then
I should try to be equally uninhibited here. If in the real world
I'd normally react negatively to some statement, then in here
it'd be positive to the same degree. And so on.



In short, you really don't have any opinion, but merely two different
appearances of one that you express to two different groups of people.
You are a null.


It is you that is invisible. Conforming, blending in. Just like
everyone else.

Invisible and hence inconsequential.

By deliberately being indeterminate, null as you say.
I become visible. Since this detachment from reality
allows complete freedom, and with it, complete
honesty. The kind of freedom and honesty the real
world never would allow.




True to some extent, but if you know that the person writing them has
admitted that he doesn't really have a fixed opinion on anything that he
is ready to share in a straight-forward and consistent manner with
anyone else, then you should be suspicious of his own belief in what he
has said or written, and his motives for doing so.
This sounds more like a quest for some type of personal empowerment at
the expense of others by pulling the wool over their eyes and
congratulating oneself on one's cunning.

Who spoke them shouldn't even be considered.



If it were Charles Manson, I'd be somewhat careful about the ideas.
The same goes for Marilyn Manson.



And if Einstein were a creep, would his equations suddenly
become invalid? Of course not, mathematics is simply
shorthand for plain English. Math is the simplified version
of communicating relationships and ideas.

Those that refuse to use the spoken word with the
same consistency are admitting that they're
.....oh see below.



Cyberspace in an entirely platonic world. The minute
anyone tries to make it a microcosm of reality all
the new possibilities this medium offers are lost.



Like truth apparently. We sure wouldn't want to shackle it down with
that, would we?


Truth is an illusion. Valued most by those that need something
tangible to hold onto. From the instinctive fear of uncertainty.

Truth is for animals.

Uncertainty, and the math is clear on this, is where life, intelligence
and reality exists. Uncertainty shouldn't be feared at all, but
optimized and sought after at all times.
It's where beauty and nature lives.
It's where the answers are found.

So it's where I live when on the internet.




For the sake of vanity, the magnificent New World
is returned unopened.




You are a very silly person, and I'm not going to read your postings
anymore.


Before I continue, I should begin by apologizing in advance to cavemen everywhere
......oh never mind.




a



Pat

jonathan wrote:



In short, you really don't have any opinion, but merely two different
appearances of one that you express to two different groups of people.
You are a null.




It is you that is invisible. Conforming, blending in. Just like
everyone else.

Invisible and hence inconsequential.




You are certainly visible, as you have at least two different addresses
you post from, as now I've had to killfile you twice.
That's one mark of a certified troll.

Pat

jonathan wrote:

Why do you ask? People so badly want to pigeonhole
everyone else. They want to know if they have a degree, or
smoke dope, or are rich, fat and on and on. So they
can decide whether to listen to or dismiss some opinion.
This only shows the insecurity inherent in our beliefs.
We look to others, to authority, to tell us what to
think and how.

Words should stand and fall on their own merit.

Who spoke them shouldn't even be considered.

Do you read each and every piece of spam or junk mail carefully
on the chance that it might contain interesting ideas or
lucrative offers?

In the real world it is not possible to thoroughly evaluate
everything one might read or hear. In the real world we have to
rely on the judgement of others in the form of reputation and
credentials. Stephen Hawking probably knows more about cosmology
than someone named jonathan on usenet. Dr. Miller probably has a
better idea about how to cure my ulcers that my Great Aunt Sally.
In the real world we have to rely on inductive reasoning. The
convicted sex offender is probably not the best choice for a day
care worker. The disheveled guy who was 20 minutes late to an
interview isn't the person we want for the job. The crack addict
probably isn't the guy you want marrying your daughter. The guy
who thinks it unfair that people rely on things like reputation,
credentials, appearance, personal habits, and past performance to
make judgements likely has a poor reputation, lousy credentials,
etc.

Jim Davis

"Jim Davis" wrote in message
. 160.156...
jonathan wrote:

Why do you ask? People so badly want to pigeonhole
everyone else. They want to know if they have a degree, or
smoke dope, or are rich, fat and on and on. So they
can decide whether to listen to or dismiss some opinion.
This only shows the insecurity inherent in our beliefs.
We look to others, to authority, to tell us what to
think and how.

Words should stand and fall on their own merit.

Who spoke them shouldn't even be considered.

Do you read each and every piece of spam or junk mail carefully
on the chance that it might contain interesting ideas or
lucrative offers?

In the real world it is not possible to thoroughly evaluate
everything one might read or hear. In the real world we have to
rely on the judgement of others in the form of reputation and
credentials. Stephen Hawking probably knows more about cosmology
than someone named jonathan on usenet. Dr. Miller probably has a
better idea about how to cure my ulcers that my Great Aunt Sally.
In the real world we have to rely on inductive reasoning. The
convicted sex offender is probably not the best choice for a day
care worker. The disheveled guy who was 20 minutes late to an
interview isn't the person we want for the job. The crack addict
probably isn't the guy you want marrying your daughter. The guy
who thinks it unfair that people rely on things like reputation,
credentials, appearance, personal habits, and past performance to
make judgements likely has a poor reputation, lousy credentials,
etc.

Jim Davis


Cosmology isn't a real science until someone travels to the place to tell
if what we see and/or detect of it from Earth is real. Looking out from
Earth is like having a single cyclopsian eye on the Universe. Our telescopes
are not self-teleporters and instant communicators from a distance. They
don't telescope and look through a wormhole at we point them toward sending
back pictures [from on the spot] through a wormhole: They don't quantum
tunnel in any way, shape, or form, to any distant reaches of space and time.

GLB