This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

This page contains material that an anonymous user at IP 211.28.76.110 copied from my talk page to Talk:Time Cube, but which then made that page 38 kilobytes long (like this page still is). After some reflection I have moved it here. If anyone wishes to continue discussion on any (relevant) point raised, I suggest that be done on the main talk page, quoting this page in need. See the history of my talk page for exactly who said what when, but it appears to be a dialogue between me and an anonymous supporter of the theory, using various IP addresses in the 211.28.x.x range. This user didn't sign or date anything, but the indents plus my signatures make most of it clear. Andrewa 05:47, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Copied from User Talk:Andrewa

Copied from VfD debate on Time cube:

Keep. Significant crackpot theory based on the false premise that the cube is closely related to the number four. Andrewa 05:46, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Andrewa, you have not taken into account that the Time Cube ROTATES. Are you aware that all gravitational bodies (galaxies, stars, planets) originate from rotational vortices, and that their rotation causes dilation along their rotational axes? Imagine a Cube-like room rotating -- between the opposite parameters of Ceiling and Floor (like North and South poles), the 4 walls and 4 corners rotate; and in 1 rotation, each corner rotates through the other 3 corners before returning to its initial position. 4 Time Corners for each of the 4 Space Corners sum to 16 SpaceTime configurations, in only 1 rotation; this 4/16 Rotation Principle constitutes absolute, unrefutable proof of 4 simultaneous days in a single rotation of Earth.
  - I'd like to continue this conversation, but here isn't the place for it. Perhaps on my user talk page? Andrewa 03:34, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    - I'll discuss it here if you like, or alternatively you can use the Time Cube forum that I linked to on Talk:Time Cube.

OK. I'm not interested in joining an external discussion group. So let's try here.

1. What you describe as a rotating cube doesn't rotate as a cube at all. It rotates around only one axis of symmetry. If this is the only rotation considered, then this ignores one of the essential symmetries of the cube, and is where the (invalid) connection between four and the cube seems to come from.

If you stopped the Earth rotating, the rotational dilation would cancel out and it would become a perfect sphere. A sphere is like a fully rotated Cube. A Cube is the perfect form in the Cartesian 3-dimensions, but of course since you can rotate these 3 dimensions to infinite possible alignments, the actual perfect form is a Sphere. And of course if you have a stationary sphere, you can set it rotating about any axis you want. But all gravitational bodies are formed through rotation, and generally continue to rotate after their rate of accumulation has evened off, thus the Rotating Cube.

Hmmm. You don't seem to have answered the objection.

Yes I did. It's a perfect Cube when it's not rotating. Therefore when it is rotating, we must think of it as a rotating cube. And the rotation is a fundamental Cubic property, since as I said, all gravitational bodies are formed through rotation.

This seems to me to be a jumble of disconnected concepts.

I must question your motives for writing this. Since you have not asked for clarification on any specific concepts I've mentioned, I can only conclude that you are trying to discredit Time Cube by dismissing what I've said as nonsense. Obviously you have no actual substantiated anti-Cubic arguments, otherwise you would have stated these arguments.

My motives are quite above board, and I've stated them.

How about you clarify your specific motive for writing "This seems to me to be a jumble of disconnected concepts." Then other people can make informed judgements as to whether your motives are really "above board".

The specific motive is that this is my reaction to what you have written. That's all I said. What's the problem?

If this is really your motive, then there's no problem. But from my perspective, there are 2 possibilities -- you might have the motive you have stated, or you might actually be trying to give other people a bad impression of Time Cube. That is the problem -- I can't know for sure whether or not you're being honest.

If you are trying to impress other readers of this page I wouldn't bother. There may not be any.

Again, I don't know whether or not you're being honest here. It's entirely possible that you WOULD bother, and that you wrote "This seems to me to be a jumble of disconnected concepts" in an attempt to "impress other readers of this page".

IMO you have still not answered the arguments I have already put. They are not so much "anti-Cubic" as questioning your own reasoning. See below.

In the context of Time Cube debate, how can any argument really be anything other than Pro-Cubic, Anti-Cubic, or irrelevant? I have added a new explanation of the answer to question 1 further down the page.

It can be an honest attempt to evaluate your claims, and that's exactly what it is. And dare I say, it seems to be unwelcome, doesn't it?

Two steps in evaluating claims. First you clarify the claims, then you reach a conclusion -- in this case, either Pro-Cubic or Anti-Cubic (or maybe somewhere in between, if some of it is right and the rest is wrong). But if you were trying to clarify the claims, then you would have used QUESTIONS, not ARGUMENTS. And you said above that you have been using ARGUMENTS -- "you have still not answered the arguments I have already put" -- so again, they must be either Pro-Cubic, Anti-Cubic, or irrelevant.

So, can you explain how an ARGUMENT can serve the function of a QUESTION? If my assumptions in regard to the evaluation of claims are wrong, then can you correct them and justify your correction? If not, then again, can you explain how the ARGUMENTS (not questions) to which you were referring, can, in this context, be anything other than Pro-Cubic, Anti-Cubic, or Irrelevant?

And what you have said just raises more questions. Yes, the cube has a special relationship to linear, orthogonal cartesian coordinates in 3-space, and so has the sphere. So, is your theory specific to this coordinate system? If so, do you reject multi-dimensional theories, such as superstrings, and coordinateless systems, such as general relativity?

Cubic Time has 3-dimensions, just like Cubic space. The linear time dimension is linked to the linear space dimension (linear rotational axis); this explains the space-time relativity of linear time dilation at different rectolinear velocities. This leaves two remaining dimensions of Time, and two of Space; and of course, these are the dimensions in which the 4 Space and 4 Time Corners exist. If you would like further clarification on the 4/16 Rotation Principle, a graphical explanation can be found on the Time Cube forum that I mentioned earlier.

See above.

2. I assume when you say 'sum' you mean 'product'? The sum of four and four is eight. Their product is sixteen.

Correct, I was thinking in terms of counting the 16 spacetime configurations.

Hmmm. Then it seems that you were misusing mathematical terminology. I'd be careful of this. It makes it seem as if you don't know what the terms you are using mean.

In fact, while I'm assuming you are on the level (really I am), the tone of your posts does sometimes remind me a bit of Henry Root, or even Candid Camera.

I suggest that you write in plain English, avoiding technical jargon unless you know what it means and are using it accurately. Otherwise, mistakes like this will seriously affect your credibility, and the theory won't get a fair hearing regardless of its merits.

You misunderstand me. There is a difference between "4 Time Corners for each of the 4 Space Corners sum to 16 SpaceTime configurations", and "4 Time Corners by 4 Space corners multiply to 16 SpaceTime configurations". But I suspect that you were not interested in why I used "sum" instead of "product", and that you simply took the opportunity to discredit me with the "ad hominem" attack above.

Then I suggest you read our article on ad hominem. This is not such an attack, and I'm sorry you see it as any sort of attack. I am examining your arguments on their merits. I am drawing some unfavourable conclusions, and I'm giving you every opportunity to discuss the weaknesses I find, and you are ignoring these opportunities. That's not ad hominem. If I were now to attack some other belief that you promote, and say or imply that it is baseless too simply because you hold it, then that would be ad hominem. Since you choose to remain anonymous, I would be very restricted in what I could attack in this way even if I wished to, which I don't.

Algorithmically speaking: FOR each of the 4 space corners {ADD 4 Time Corners to the total number of SpaceTime configurations}. This uses addition and iteration to achieve the same result as multiplication.

Fair enough. A pattern is emerging, see below.

The pattern is that when people make what may be a false or deceptive argument, or subversive rhetoric, I point that out in order to prevent brainwashing. I hope you don't have a problem with this.

I do the same. Hmmm, false and deceptive argument, subversive rhetoric, brainwashing? Care to elaborate?

Elaborate? I think everyone knows what those things are, and if they don't, they can use a dictionary. So how about if you're going to say something, you say it EXPLICITLY. After all, if you insist on only saying it implicitly, then might it not be false or deceptive argument, or subversive rhetoric?

Reread the original sentence and you will see that this meaning is quite obvious. So the question is, why did you not recognise this in the first place? Are you too dumb to understand it? Or were you blinded by your urge to seize upon something that you could use to discredit me by giving the impression that I am ignorant?

And your comments are indeed "ad hominem" (against the man), because they are directed against me rather than against Time Cube. I am not fooled by your fake objectivity in what you wrote at 12:45, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC). You effectively changed the subject from clarification of the Time Cube theory, to "ad hominem" attacks. So tell me, what was your motivation for this subject change?

Against the man is indeed the translation of the Latin, but it's not the English meaning, any more than any argument which affirms something is modus ponens. If you really think that I am trying to fool you, then I'm sorry but you are just fooling yourself. I'm also sorry if that's blunt.

Firstly, the definition in the ad hominem article is "replying to an argument or assertion by attempting to discredit the person offering the argument or assertion". What you wrote gave me the impression that you were trying to discredit me by making me look dumb (claiming that I lack basic mathematical knowledge, and that I don't know the meaning of what I'm saying), thus attempting to discredit my arguments. That is indeed "ad hominem".

My turn to suggest a rereading. I was trying to be helpful by pointing out that, by your careless use of technical terms, you are making yourself look foolish IMO.

I would say that your O(pinion) is somewhat misinformed. Have I not shown that my use of the phrase "ad hominem" was justified? You haven't refuted this justification, so here it is again:

...the definition in the ad hominem article is "replying to an argument or assertion by attempting to discredit the person offering the argument or assertion". What you wrote gave me the impression that you were trying to discredit me by making me look dumb (claiming that I lack basic mathematical knowledge, and that I don't know the meaning of what I'm saying), thus attempting to discredit my arguments. That is indeed "ad hominem".

Secondly, you didn't really respond to what I said; you merely disputed my use of the phrase "ad hominem". So here it is again, with "ad hominem" removed:

...your comments are indeed "against the man", because they are directed against me rather than against Time Cube. I am not fooled by your fake objectivity in what you wrote at 12:45, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC). You effectively changed the subject from clarification of the Time Cube theory, to comments directed against me and unrelated to Time Cube. So tell me, what was your motivation for this subject change?

There was no subject change.

Right, so please explain how the following quotation applies to Time Cube:

"Hmmm. Then it seems that you were misusing mathematical terminology. I'd be careful of this. It makes it seem as if you don't know what the terms you are using mean.

"In fact, while I'm assuming you are on the level (really I am), the tone of your posts does sometimes remind me a bit of Henry Root, or even Candid Camera.

"I suggest that you write in plain English, avoiding technical jargon unless you know what it means and are using it accurately. Otherwise, mistakes like this will seriously affect your credibility, and the theory won't get a fair hearing regardless of its merits."

Or explain how the following quotation DOESN'T apply to Time Cube:

"I assume when you say 'sum' you mean 'product'? The sum of four and four is eight. Their product is sixteen."

(And just in case you don't see what this has to do with anything -- If one of those quotations has nothing to do with Time Cube, whereas the other does pertain to Time Cube, then you must have changed the subject, correct?)

(Also, how do you think a magistrate or judge would react if a defendant said, "If you really think that I am trying to fool you, then I'm sorry but you are just fooling yourself"?)

I wouldn't say that to a judge. But I did say it to you, and it's true.

Well Andrewa, of course judges have strict standards in regard to believing claims. And in fact, I would say that only a gullible dummy would NOT uphold such standards. So do you consider me, and anyone else who reads this page, to be a gullible dummy?

3. You talk of 'absolute, irrefutable proof'. This sort of proof is not the realm of science at all, but of religion. Science holds all things open to doubt, indefinitely. I'm happy to talk in either frame of reference, both are valid, but it's important not to confuse them. Andrewa 12:53, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well it certainly hasn't yet been refuted, and bear in mind that Gene Ray offers $10,000 to any academic institution or professor to disprove the Time Cube (and $1,000 to anyone else). Many people think they have disproved the Time Cube with an "infinite days" theory, however by their logic I could claim that space has infinite dimensions since the perpendicular 3-dimensions can be rotated to infinite alignments, as I said above. So that's really just a misunderstanding.

Interesting, but it doesn't answer the objection. You stated not that it hadn't been disproved, but that it was 'absolute, irrefutable proof', that is, that it couldn't be disproved. Was this just careless talk?

This isn't politics. I'm genuinely interested in giving your beliefs a hearing. Andrewa 12:45, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

From the point of view of Gene Ray and myself, it is absolute and irrefutable because we are not aware of anything that cannot be explained by Time Cube, nor are we aware of any valid refutation. So it is justified for us to make this assumption unless someone legitimately refutes Time Cube; but as I said, nobody has yet been able to do this.

I'll leave it to Gene Ray to explain his beliefs if he wishes. I'm still willing to hear yours.

You are entitled to believe whatever you choose. I have invited you here to provide any logical justification you care to advance for this particular belief.

IMO the best you have provided so far is the offer of $10,000 for a refutation of the theory. How is this money to be claimed? Who decides whether it has been earned? Andrewa 19:58, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Gene Ray is offering the reward, I am not affiliated with him. I am only answering specific questions, and I have answered all of your questions on this page. I looked at your website and it appears that you have religious beliefs, so maybe you would like to know how Time Cube disproves God.

I certainly do have religious convictions, in fact I mentioned previously that your beliefs on the Time Cube seem to be dogmatic rather than rational. Yes, let's discuss this. See below.

IMO you have not answered my questions at all. Food for thought, certainly. Andrewa 16:22, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well I have answered question 2, as that was just a misunderstanding which I have clarified.

You eventually agreed that you didn't mean "sum" at all in the technical sense, yes.

Wrong. I initially replied "correct" to question 2 because I thought you were confused about whether the overall principle I was describing was that of addition or multiplication. But when you then asserted that the phrase was technically incorrect, I first hinted at why it was actually technically correct, expecting you to work it out yourself (unfortunately that didn't happen); then I explained exactly why it was technically correct. Here is that explanation again: "Algorithmically speaking: FOR each of the 4 space corners {ADD 4 Time Corners to the total number of SpaceTime configurations}". This is a technically correct algorithm, right? So how does my initial sentence, "4 Time Corners for each of the 4 Space Corners sum to 16 SpaceTime configurations", fail to represent that algorithm? Furthermore, how does YOUR corrected version, "4 Time Corners for each of the 4 Space Corners MULTIPLY(Product) to 16 SpaceTime configurations", represent this algorithm better than the original phrase?

As for this question 3, again, it is perfectly rational to assume that a theory supported by evidence is true, unless you know of evidence that disproves the theory.

Hmmmm... But there seems no evidence for this particular 'theory'. In particular, science favours validated predictive theories. Has this theory made any testable predictions?

Yes, including but not limited to: The universe is perpetual, involving cycles of galaxies collapsing into black holes, which then evaporate into dust clouds from which new galaxies may be formed; and macro/micro phenomena in the Universe form harmonics, EG. Male and female represent the electron and proton respectively, in that sexual reproduction evolved as a consequence of the same laws that govern the formation of atoms. (I don't know if today's science has the actual means to verify these predictions, but nonetheless I think they are at least POTENTIALLY observable.)

If not, then Einstein was irrational, and by your standards religious, to believe the equation "e = mc^2"; instead it should be "(e = mc^2) || (e != mc^2)", to account for the possibility of there being evidence disproving it that Einstein wasn't aware of.

Nonsense. Relativity is a validated predictive theory.

Good, just clarifying that it is perfectly rational to assume that a theory supported by evidence is true, unless you know of evidence that disproves the theory. And predictivity is not necessary; what is necessary is that the theory explains the evidence to which it applies (in the case of a Theory of Everything, all evidence known to humanity) and that it is favoured by Occam's Razor.

Clearly this is meaningless; scientific thought requires the assumption that substantiated theories are true unless disproven.

So, what is the substantiation? With relativity it was the deflection of light in a gravitational field.

See the phenomena I mentioned above, and also the 4/16 Rotation Principle. Can you refute this proof of 4 simultaneous days in a single rotation of Earth?

Therefore Gene Ray is justified in assuming that Time Cube is absolute and irrefutable; he says this in order to contrast it with Academian beliefs, which are not absolute, in that they can't account for 4/16 rotation principle; and are not irrefutable, as they have been refuted by Time Cube.

At the risk of being accused of more bad motives, this is another jumble, this time of poor logic. I'm afraid I can't be bothered sorting it out for you. Andrewa 11:25, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well then, here it is unjumbled:

Gene Ray assumes that Time Cube is absolute and irrefutable.
This assumption is justified, as Gene Ray knows of no evidence that contradicts Time Cube, nor of any evidence that cannot be explained by Time Cube.
Many Academic/Religious beliefs are NOT absolute and are NOT irrefutable. (They cannot explain phenomena/evidence that Time Cube can explain, meaning that they're not absolute; and Time Cube refutes/disproves these beliefs, meaning that they are refutable).
When Gene Ray makes statements similar to "Time Cube is absolute and irrefutable", he is contrasting Time Cube with Academian beliefs, since Academian beliefs are NOT "absolute and irrefutable".

A summary

IMO a pattern is emerging in the above. I am unable to understand the answers provided. There are several possibilities here, and they are not mutually exclusive.

- It may be that I am "dumb", as was suggested above, or more kindly that I don't understand the subtleties of the arguments put.

Rephrasing it yourself isn't making anyone feel treated more kindly, so maybe you're trying to make yourself look smart, as opposed to dumb?

Disagree with the first clause, rephrasing can make a world of difference.

The first clause is "Rephrasing it yourself isn't making anyone feel treated more kindly". You disagree with this, so tell me, who is feeling treated more kindly due to your rephrasing of the word "dumb"?

- It may be that I am dishonestly trying to discredit the theory, as has also been suggested above. I know I'm not, but it's not obvious how to reply.

It's quite obvious to me -- simply clarify your motives, and either refute my arguments or acknowledge that they are the Truth.

I think I've been as clear as I can be about my motives. As to your arguments, you have yet to present any coherent ones IMO.

- It may be that the theory is being promoted here as a hoax. I suggested this as gently as I could above and got no reponse. Please note that this wouldn't necessarily mean that Gene Ray was insincere, just that his theory was being promoted by others who are.

This is not a hoax, although Academia/religion would like you to think so as it would immunise you against gaining awareness that Time Cube is truth and that they are liars. They would also like you to believe what you've written below.

So you say. But the evidence is accumulating.

Also accumulating are my refutations of your supposed evidence.

- It also occurs to me that there may be substance use or abuse involved. I've never smoked anything myself, but I have played in bands with guys who couldn't face an audience without a small puff beforehand. Some of the comments above remind me very much of the way they talk when they are stoned. Sadly, some of these guys now have permanent damage, and always talk like this (and it affects their playing too).

I didn't think you would sink this low. This is an "ad hominem" attack that contradicts your statement that "I would be very restricted in what I could attack in this way" -- I would say that the human imagination is rather unrestricted.

It's an honest observation. Have you any experience of such situations? I once had my lead guitarist play the same three notes for 90 minutes. He thought he was Jimi reincarnated I think. Fortunately the party was such that it went down guite well. We got paid.

Was this a Christian band? Let's just clarify that you are merely speculating here. Your supposed observation that my writing style mimics the speech patterns of drug addicts doesn't really constitute actual evidence.

While I was not intending to reply to any of your latest round of detailed observations, see below, I think I should reply to this one question. I was the only Christian in this particular band. It was a secular four-piece, two of us "heads" and two of us "straights". The guitarist was excellent and has since given up the weed, but this night the lead singer was running late, and by the time he arrived the guitarist had nervously smoked their whole stash. Our first song was the Joe Walsh classic Turn to Stone, and the set we had planned then segued to the Cream classic White Room, but instead our guitarist started the intro to another Cream song, Crossroads. We started this intro with a fast three note turn on the guitar, which he ad-libbed as to the length. On this occasion he played it non-stop for 90 minutes, and as noise regs didn't allow another song (it was getting late) we then played the coda of Crossroads and that was it. Ah, memories! Andrewa 19:51, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

- Most interesting IMO, there's a consistent pattern of using (I would say abusing) technical terms in non-technical ways, which I find confusing. This is most obvious I think with ad hominem, but sum is also so used. I wonder whether the same might be true of the term cube itself? This would explain a lot.

What the hell are you talking about?

An interesting turn of phrase. I must remember it.

FYI Andrewa, people use phrases such as "What the hell are you talking about?" when they want to draw attention to the fact that the person they're talking to is saying something nonsensical or ridiculous. I've already explained why this applies to your accusation that I was using the phrase "ad hominem" incorrectly -- you have not replied to the question "...isn't it a bit of a stretch to suggest that deficiencies in knowledge of phrases related to "logic and critical thinking" could be related to a failure to grasp geometrical concepts?" And I have explained again under question 3 that I was using the term "sum" correctly, contrary to your claims.

Do please explain exactly why you find "What the hell are you talking about?" interesting, and why you are keen to remember it.

You replied "Fair enough" to my explanation of why I used "sum", which I took to mean that you acknowledged that I was using it correctly.

No. It meant I now understand why you are using it incorrectly.

But I'm using it correctly -- see my explanation under Question 3. Here's the technically correct phrase again: "4 Time Corners for each of the 4 Space Corners sum to 16 SpaceTime configurations".

And even if I was using the phrase ad hominem incorrectly (which I wasn't, as I've explained), isn't it a bit of a stretch to suggest that deficiencies in knowledge of phrases related to "logic and critical thinking" could be related to a failure to grasp geometrical concepts? Please rest assured that I know a Cube is a box-like shape with 8 tricorners (3 90-degree angles each) and equal length, width and height.

Hmmm. Is that your definition of cube? It seems to confirm the pattern if so. Andrewa 11:25, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Are you saying that this is an erroneous definition? If so, please correct it:

A cube is a box-like shape.
A cube has 8 tricorners. (By Tricorners I mean Vertices; Tricorners is a term coined by Gene Ray, referring to their relation to the number 3 -- a vertex on a Cube joins 3 edges and 3 sides.)
Each tricorner/vertex has 3 90-degree angles. A square has 4 90 degree angles, one in each vertex; a vertex of a Cube joins together 3 vertices from 3 of the Cube's square faces, therefore each of a Cube's vertices has 3 90-degree angles.
A cube has equal length, width and height.

Food for thought? Several or even all of these explanations could be true, and the list is not exhaustive by any means. Andrewa 16:22, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

A second summary

I'm not sure it's worth going a lot further. Mutual respect seems to be declining rapidly. Without this, there's not much point continuing IMO. Andrewa 11:25, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No excuses please, Andrewa!

You can see it as an excuse if you like. As I said before, what you choose to believe is your responsibility and choice and nobody else's. And the same goes for me.

This is true, however, if Humanity chooses to believe Cubeless lies, the result will most certainly be an Armageddon -- caused by the depletion of natural resources, nuclear and other toxic pollution, and deadly nuclear bombs. Beliefs govern actions, and Time Cube (NOT God or Jesus) governs the existence of Life on Earth, meaning that it will arbitrate the fate of Humanity. Therefore, if an armageddon does occur in the near future, Time Cube will have judged us Evil.

Thanks for the time and effort you have put into this exchange. I think it has been worthwhile.

You have now several times accused me of dishonesty of various sorts, above and below. I'm fairly sure this is not true, but you are entitled to hold this opinion and I'm glad you felt free to express it. For my part, I am reasonably satisfied that you are either deluded or playing a game or both, and that I have no way of telling which. But I freely admit that this is because I quite frankly can't make any sense of much of what you say. Obviously, there are other possible explanations for this.

Under these conditions, I think there is little point continuing right now. If you would ever like to resume, under an assumption of mutual trust, then I could be interested. We should probably have a cooling-off period first.

I was under the impression that this was to be a RATIONAL debate, which would preclude such IRRATIONAL assumptions as that of "mutual trust". Remember what you said regarding assumptions and rationality? How can I rationally reach the conclusion that nothing you say is deceptive? The answer is that I can't, as there is no Truth in Word -- to prevent brainwashing, therefore, it is imperative that concepts expressed through Word are measured according to actual truths that one perceives.

I haven't responded to any legitimate arguments of yours by simply claiming them to be deceptive. In the case of you calling my arguments nonsense (or "a jumble"), how can I know whether you're requesting clarification, or are trying to brainwash people such that they will not take my arguments seriously? I would think that a request for clarification would generally take the form of "Can you clarify this?" rather than "This is nonsense".

Since you do not intend to continue, I have archived this debate at Talk:Time Cube.

Meantime, I wish you well in the search for truth and meaning in which we are all involved, whether we choose to be or not. Andrewa 12:26, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Question 1

OK Andrewa, here is a better organised version of the answer. It is up to you to identify the points you don't agree with, so that I can explain them further.

CASE 1: A sphere is as a fully rotated Cube.
CASE 2: If the Earth wasn't rotating, it would be (approximately) a perfect Sphere. We may say however, that as a 3-dimensional object, it exists within the boundaries of a Cube. See Case 1; I will now refer to it as a Cube. Note that the orientation of the non-rotating cube is undefined.
CASE 3: When the Earth rotates, dilation occurs along its rotational axis, such that the radius is less at the poles than at the equator. We may say that the Top and the Bottom of the Cube have now been defined as the North and South Poles, and that the Cube has been dilated.
CASE 4: Rotation is actually a fundamental property of all gravitational bodies, as they all originate from rotational vortices; but the fact is that if they stopped rotating, they would form undilated Cubes. Thus we must refer to them as Cubes rather than rectangular prisms, in order to acknowledge Cubes as the perfect form.

Firstly, could you just clarify what you mean by "case"? It seems a rather strange use of the term. Andrewa 09:38, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Oh whoops, a typo. I meant to say SUITCASE! Hahahahahaha. No actually, here are the relevant definitions from dictionary.com: "A set of circumstances or a state of affairs; a situation"; "Actual fact; reality". Hopefully this will satisfy your word-pedantry, such that you can now respond to what I've written above.

Time Cube and God

As stated above, I believe in a fairly conventional Christian God (and some of these beliefs are explored on my personal website). It was also stated above that the Time Cube "disproves" this. Shall we see how? Andrewa 16:22, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Belief in God is irrational because there's no evidence supporting the theory.

I see. I agree that belief in God is not scientific. But do you imagine that you have no dogmatic beliefs? That is, none that can't be proven scientifically?

Most certainly I have no beliefs that are not supported by empirical evidence.

If there is, then please state it.

Big subject. Where to start.

God is as real to me as anything else in the universe. But, as a mathematician, I'm used to having several equally valid models approximating the same experimental evidence. You can't see God if you choose not to. That's one of the meanings of faith.

You must take into account that Occam's Razor may resolve this multiplicity. When are you going to state the evidence supporting your belief in the JudeoChristian God?

Robert A. Heinlein stated in Time Enough for Love that it's the role of science to explain the Universe, and the role of religion to put man into the picture. I think that puts it pretty well.

I have a better idea than Robert Heinlein. People should stop believing fairytales and use science to explain EVERYTHING, including the existence of Homosapiens. Do you know what a Word Virus is?

But it is rational to assume that religion is just a fictitious cultural construct -- since most religions contradict each other, only one could be true, meaning that the others are DEFINITELY false. So the rational conclusion is that they're all fictitious.

No. Rational conclusions are based on evidence. You have presented none, rather you have stated that "it is rational to assume", which is a nonsense. It is rational to reason. Assumptions are, by definition, not rationally attained.

Actually I would say that an assumption is justified iff it is a conclusion reached through rational reasoning. We as humans are not omniscient, therefore we are forced to make assumptions when attempting to gain an objective perspective about the universe. So tell me what's irrational about the following reasoning:

Since most religions contradict each other, only 1 could possibly be true. This means that the others are definitely false. This constitutes evidence that any given religion may be false, whereas (as far as I know) there is no evidence that any religion may be true. Therefore it is rational to assume that all religion is false.

God is actually a fictitious 1-corner entity. Individual humans are 1-corner beings that perceive linear time, whereas Cubic Time is 4-corners. You were created and will cease to exist at a certain point in time, so you may project that individual 1-corner perspective onto the Universe -- assuming that it must also have been created.

Again, I can't make head nor tail of this. If that's what you mean by the Time Cube disproving God, then I'd rather think that it's a case of God disproving the Time Cube, which is of course the contrapositive.

Individual humans (1-corner) exist as a subset of Time Cube (4-Corners). Again, you were created and will cease to exist at a certain point in time. This is how you as an individual exist. Sometimes, therefore, individuals assume that the same is true for the universe -- it has been created and will cease to exist. But it's erroneous to assume that everything has to be created, as I've shown.

But if everything has to be created, how was the creator created? If god created everything, who created God?

IMO this is a legitimate and competent dismissal of the cosmological argument for the existence of God. But my ten-year-old scripture class can manage such arguments, so it's not really a problem to me. I don't rely on this argument.

It's good to hear that your beliefs don't rely on a paradox, but I'm still waiting for the evidence that they do rely on. It's also good to hear that 10-year-old children are questioning the lies you're trying to brainwash them into believing. It's quite likely that unbiased children would be able to "Compare plan 'A' god with a plan 'B' Time Cube creation and discover plan 'A' is a lie." -- Dr Gene Ray, the Greatest Thinker and Wisest Human to ever live on Earth.

It's a paradox, and we can only conclude that the Universe simply exists, and is perpetual

No. This is not a valid inference.

Actually it is. We must take "Universe" to mean "all that exists", including God; so even if everything we can see was created by God, it could be that God simply exists as a perpetual being; and if God was created by SuperGod, then SuperGod would simply exist as a perpetual being; and so on, until you necessarily reach the highest level of existence.

-- as a 4-corner cycle of galaxy formed from dust cloud, galaxy exists, galaxy sucked into black hole, black hole evaporates to dust cloud. No big bang.

Again, this is IMO incoherent. Andrewa 10:04, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Here is the 4-corner cycle again:

1. A galaxy is formed from a dust cloud.

2. The galaxy exists.

3. The galaxy collapses into a black hole.

4. The black hole evaporates, forming a dust cloud.

So you can see that this process could repeat over and over, forming a perpetual cycle. This means that the existence of galaxies doesn't prove the Big Bang.