User talk:Andrewa/archive4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive of a continuing discussion. The headings have been inserted into the archive as link anchor points, and were not part of the discussion at the time. In most but not all cases they replace a horizontal line. It should also be noted that parts of this discussion were pasted from Talk:Time Cube/User talk archive, which makes for some strange indenting at times, and which together with my correspondent's habit of not dating their contributions makes for a tangled tale. Andrewa 22:37, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Hello Andrewa, you may recall our discussion on the subject of Time Cube that occurred a few months ago. Upon reviewing this discussion, I noticed that many important points went unresolved when you chose to discontinue it on the basis of "Mutual respect" "declining rapidly". But you said "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" -- so now the "cooling-off period" is over and it is time to resume the debate. To evaluate significant aspects of Time Cube and also to evaluate your religious beliefs, let us please continue the discussion threads below:

Glad to resume. I'm sure I can improve on some of what I said last time. Agree that there's been an adequate cooling-off period.
Two things.
Firstly, I find it difficult to tell what below is from the archives and what is your new text. I had a go at refactoring it to make this clear, referring to the archives as I went, but it's something you could do far more easily than I can, so I went back to the original. So perhaps you could bold your new contributions? Then we can take it from there. We wouldn't then need to bold further additions, just these starting points. I'd also like to remove the big gaps, but they help you to find your place leave them there.
OK I have bolded the new text below, which includes what I posted at the 0th indent level and also (...) which denotes content that I removed due to it not requiring further discussion. Yes remove the gaps if you want.
Secondly, perhaps we can (both) avoid presupposing that the other guy is wrong? When you describe me as being confused, doesn't it occur to you that from my point of view, you are the confused one? So let's try to avoid such prejudicial terms.
These are just suggestions, neither is non-negotiable. Andrewa 06:20, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your responses, they help a lot. I've bolded and zero-indented my responses on this occasion only. This will give us clear starting points for new discussions. I've also made the paragraphs short, and signed them all. None of this needs to happen in subsequent responses. Andrewa 21:41, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

Just notifying that I have added gaps in places where my new comments are on the same indent level as old material directly below.
OK. I've put in some horizontal lines instead, to show the bottom of an active string. I hope that's OK. It would IMO be better to sign the new stuff where there is any doubt. Andrewa 03:02, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

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.

(No response required here as I understand it.) Andrewa 21:41, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

What the theory is[edit]

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 "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.

Hmmmm. I don't propose to respond to allegations of pedantry, other than to say that I've had another look and I reject them. It may be that this discussion is in any case off to a better start below, so we can just drop this thread. Or is there perhaps something that you'd like to take further here? Andrewa 21:41, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

What I want you to respond to is my explanation of the Cube form, given in dot points above. To an extent, this is a separate issue from the 4/16 Rotation Principle so I suggest we discuss it here. (I didn't remove the clarification of "case" because otherwise you might have forgotten about it and I would have had to state it again).
I think I responded before. My objection to your use of case was not pedantry, it is a serious flaw in your expression of whatever it is you are trying to express. Your attempted humour is unhelpful too IMO, as is your quoting several definitions of case. You need to choose one sense, unless you are deliberately using ambiguity, which is a very useful poetical device but I suspect also unhelpful here. If it is deliberate, please explain it. Andrewa 03:02, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
I'm just using "case" to identify the different points. This usage is perfunctory rather than descriptive so I don't think the exact meaning is particularly important. Out of the two definitions I gave, "Actual fact; reality" best matched my usage.
OK. So by case you mean proposition or assertion? Do you mind if I restate your whole argument into standard English? I have no wish to use such peculiar terminology and will probably get it wrong if I try. Or would you like to do it? Are there any other terms you are using in non-standard ways?
Yes you can restate the argument if you wish. If you are unsure about any other terms then ask, but I think they are all probably correct.
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.

It's not really a matter of error. The definition of a cube varies depending on the field of study. The word is already used in other technical senses, some of them more closely related to geometry than others, as are many other geometric terms such as ball in metric spaces. You are free to define it in this way if you wish, especially assuming this is consistent with previous writers in the field. Andrewa 21:41, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, do you agree with my geometric definition? If not, why?
It's not a matter of whether I agree with it. You are free to define technical terms in any way you like. As to whether this is a useful term, that's also up to you to demonstrate. It does seem fairly complicated to me, but perhaps that's necessary to support the structure you want to build on it. Andrewa 03:02, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

Belief in God[edit]

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

Science cannot explain everything. In particular, it cannot explain science. Andrewa 21:41, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

I disagree with this. I think that it IS possible to use our knowledge gained through empirical thought to determine how empirical thought evolved (and also to explain the existence of humans). Can you explain why you think this is impossible?
I didn't say this is impossible, and it's not. But it is incomplete. It doesn't explain why science works, or why we should expect it to work. Andrewa 03:02, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
I assume if science is "working" then we are gaining an accurate and complete understanding of the universe.
Exactly. Now, what makes you think science will do this? I agree it does. But what evidence do we have?
Well we can't know whether there are higher levels of existence, like a god, unless the higher levels somehow reveal themselves to us. So in terms of defining the universe as "all that exists", from our perspective the universe is everything we can see or otherwise detect. The evidence of science "working" in this regard would be that it logically explains and completely links together everything we know, and does not rely on hypothetical unobserved phenomena to do so. Certainly there could be higher levels of existence that aren't revealing themselves to us, but since we cannot detect them they are philosophically irrelevant to human existence and therefore do not need to be covered by science.
But I don't really understand exactly what you're saying here, so can you give a more detailed explanation and state the logic that lead to this conclusion?
I think if you try to answer my questions above, you'll see where I'm heading.


Yes, I know what a Word virus is. Why do you ask? Andrewa 21:41, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

OK well you didn't state your definition, so what I consider a WordVirus to be is the set of memetic structures comprising language and other aspects of culture that are imprinted in a human's brain, and which they may then transmit to other humans (which is how it initially became imprinted in their brain). You and I are word-viruses existing within human hosts, and we are reduced to our essence when we communicate over the Internet using only Words (no contact is occurring between us that could occur between two humans who had been in the wild all their lives and had never been infected with a WordVirus). Academia is a standardisation of the process of transmitting the WordVirus. I asked this because Time Cube is a word-based principle that represents the Ineffable Truth of the Universe; Gene Ray intends it to modify the collective WordVirus (incidentally, the collective JudeoChristian elements of the WordVirus are what God actually is, he is not a mystical man in the sky) such that it will not exterminate humanity and therefore cease to exist since it relies on humans to survive. In its Cubically-modified form, the WordVirus will be able to coexist with its human hosts, and both the human species and the WordVirus will be able to evolve naturally (not asymptotically as is occurring in modern times) for millions of years into the future. So the WordVirus could be a highly relevant point of discussion.
Hey, you introduced the term WordVirus, not I. You can hardly expect me to define your terms for you. If they need definition (and I agree it's a good idea the way you are using the term here) then it's up to the person who introduces the term, or the usage, to define it.
This seems to be conjecture. You spoke about basing everything on science. Is there any scientific evidence for this? Andrewa 03:02, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
What are you calling "conjecture", the WordVirus concept or the theory of Time Cube modifying the WordVirus to a better state? I'd say there is evidence for the former; I think there have been cases of humans growing up in natural environments and behaving as wild animals (not speaking Hebrew and worshipping Jesus or anything like that), and how can there be any doubt that different cultural environments imprint different behavioural patterns in people's brains? I think children growing up in English-speaking environments would tend to speak English and tend not to speak, say, French.
There is also evidence for the WordVirus representing Evil. Has there not been much change to the natural environment over the past few centuries, with the WordVirus disrupting ecosystems and causing the extinction of many species? This is like delivering an impulse to a finely balanced set of scales, such that they move much more than usual; the question is whether the scales will then oscillate until they have returned to a stable state, or fall right off the pivot due to the impulse being too great. In terms of a virus, what if the SARS virus were to have infected all humans (and other susceptible animals) on Earth and exterminated humanity? That would mean that the Time Cube had deemed it Evil, for it can only perpetuate and evolve in conjunction with human hosts.
Hmmmm. Is this really what you call science? It still seems like conjecture to me, at best. Andrewa 14:15, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
No I think I have given some evidence for the concept of the WordVirus. It has very strong similarities to biological viruses in that it infects a host and then uses the host to infect other hosts, and also creates copies of itself that exist independently in non-living forms such as the Bible. But certainly the WordVirus is much more complex than the explanations I've already given (the work of Richard Dawkins may explain some of the complexities) and research is required to further evaluate the concepts and trends I have described above.

Argument that all religions are false[edit]

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.

No. Firstly, you have over-generalised. It's not possible to logically go from a statement about most religions to one about all religions. Andrewa 21:41, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

I didn't intend it to be a positive logical proof that all religion is false. However, if we consider the following:
  • There is evidence that most religious beliefs are false (as I explained above).
By invalid reasoning, as I explained above.
I said MOST religious beliefs, so where is the invalid reasoning in "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"?
Yes, you said most. But you can't validly argue that since most religions contradict one another only one can possibly be true. This would only be a valid inference if all religions contradicted all others. Please note I don't necessarily dispute your conclusion here. You asked me to comment on the logic. I'm a bit puzzled that you ask this as above you seemed to have admitted that you hadn't presented a positive logical proof.
Yes I said I didn't present "a positive logical proof that ALL religion is false" -- rather I showed that most religion must be false. Yes the argument is better restated as "since most religions contradict each other, only a few could be true".
  • There is no evidence that any religious beliefs are true (as far as I know).
What do you include in religious beliefs, and what would count as evidence?
Religious beliefs generally concern higher planes of existence from which the universe is controlled and/or was created. See further down for "evidence".
Now which is MORE rational: believing that all religions are false, given that there is evidence that most of them are false and no evidence that any of them are true; or believing in something without any evidence supporting it? The point being that since Time Cube contradicts all religions that I know of, it is dependent on none of these religions being true; and that I consider that to be a valid postulate, given that the evidence suggests that it may be true and that there is no evidence contradicting it.
The second is more rational, as the first is based on a false premise.
How can it be rational to believe in something with no evidence supporting it?
You asked which was more rational. Neither alternative you gave is particularly rational. You didn't ask that!
I'd say that it is ENTIRELY IRRATIONAL to do so, leading to the following restatement of my argument:
  • There is evidence that most religious beliefs are false (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).
This seems to suffer exactly the same logical flaws as before.
OK here is a better version: Since most religions contradict each other, only a few could possibly be true. This means that the others are definitely false. This constitutes evidence that any given religion may be false.
  • There is no evidence that any religious beliefs are true (as far as I know).
Again I must ask, what would you accept as evidence?
See further down
Now we may reject the notion of any religious beliefs being true on the basis of lack of evidence. The notion of religious beliefs being false does have evidence supporting it (not conclusively proving that all religion is wrong, just showing that at least some of it must be wrong). So by the process of elimination, if only one of the above can be true, it must be the atheist alternative.
No. You have chosen to reject the notion of any religious beliefs being true on the basis of only admitting evidence that suits you.
Well of course if there is some evidence for religious beliefs then the notion of them being true cannot be dismissed due to lack thereof, however at present I'm not aware of any evidence so I stand by my rejection of religious beliefs. However you must agree that it is rational to reject beliefs with no evidence supporting them right?


Similarly, do you believe relativity? Most likely you do, but what if there some evidence disproving it that you don't know of? I see no problem with making assumptions based on the evidence you have, as long as you are willing to alter these assumptions when you learn of evidence that contradicts them.
Hmmm, what do you mean by believe in relativity? Einstein himself did not consider General Relativity the last word. On the other hand, Newtonian mechanics works very well for sending rockets to the moon. To think that Relativity disproved Newton is to misunderstand science.
Relativity disproved the Newtonian notions of infinite light-speed etc., meaning that it is not applicable in all situations and is therefore only useful as an approximation. It is not useful in the context of a "theory of everything".
OK. There were of course two major papers on Relativity, Special Relativity and General Relativity. Would you say that Special Relativity is similarly disproved by General Relativity? I need an answer to this before proceeding, there's no point in my examining views you don't hold.
I am not an expert on these subjects so I can't really answer this specific question, however in general I'd say the superiority of theories may be judged by these criteria:
  • A superior theory in the context of a specific set of observations, fits these observations better than other theories.
  • A superior Theory of Everything covers more observations than other theories, and its explanation of observations already covered by other theories is equally or more valid than the explanations given by the other theories.
  • And if two theories are equal according to the above criteria, then Occam's Razor may be used to decide between them.
So for relativity vs. Newton mechanics, at low speeds the relativistic effects are negligible so in the context of these specific observations Occam's razor favours Newton. But if we're considering a Theory of Everything then without using occam's razor, we can say that Relativity is superior as it gives equally valid explanations and explains a greater range of observations, in that it covers velocities approaching lightspeed whereas Newton does not. If you explain the differences between general and special relativity, I may be able to evaluate them according to these criteria.

What counts as evidence?[edit]

No. Ignoring the overgeneralisation, it is rational to conclude that at most one religion can be true, and that the evidence should be examined for clues as to which, if any, this may be. Andrewa 21:41, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

OK, so where is this evidence? Can you state it, or tell me where I can find it?
Well, obviously you won't take my word for it. How about Desmond Tutu or Dietrich Bonhoeffer? Will you count their testimony as evidence? Andrewa 03:02, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
What do you mean, "take my word for it"? I'm not going to accept concepts communicated in Words that are not somehow verifiable. I didn't see any evidence in the articles you linked to above. So again, can you state or direct me to some actual evidence supporting your religious beliefs?
I don't know whether I can do that, because you are being evasive as to what counts as evidence. I hope I can, but it's up to you what evidence you will accept. I ask again, would the testimony of either of these men be something that you would want to take into account? (I'll also foreshadow that I'm then going to ask, why or why not?) Andrewa 14:15, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
Well I don't know about individual testimonies. If you were a scientist several centuries ago and were looking for evidence of the notion of the Earth being round, would you be more inclined towards astronomical observations or the testimony of someone who claimed to have sailed around the world?
As for religious testimonies, there are many explanations of why people might say things that ostensibly support religious beliefs, other than the religious beliefs being true. They may have just imagined supernatural experiences, possibly due to psychological unbalance (which could be induced, possibly deliberately), they may have gained a false impression of real events or they may just be knowingly speaking fiction for some reason. I can prove that it is possible for words to be fictitious: when you finish reading this sentence, your head will explode. Is your head still intact? If so, what I wrote must have been fiction. So surely concepts communicated in Words need to be somehow verifiable, as I said. If you direct me to the testimonies you are referring to, I may be able to evaluate them more specifically.


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

Lots of straw men here. I don't believe in a SuperGod or know any Christian who does (unless SuperGod is just another name for God, which seems pointless). But in any case (as I said once before) it seems to just refute the first cause argument. I'm quite happy to regard that as refuted, and so are most (not all) of the Christians I know well. Andrewa 21:41, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

OK, so if the first cause argument is false then what is your objection to the notion that the Universe simply exists and is perpetual? Do you have any evidence that disproves it? Also, why are you complaining that deities represent straw men? Don't you believe in God?
Dear me. Let's try to untangle all of that.
Firstly, arguments are valid or invalid, not true or false. Any first-year course in logic will tell you that.
Yes I suppose these are better terms. It is the notion of a "first cause" being necessary that should be considered false, because there is no evidence disproving the notion of a perpetual universe nor conclusively proving the big bang and therefore we should not assume that the universe could not exist without being created at a certain point in linear time.
I agree with all of that. I will make the point that I don't think scientific evidence ever proves or disproves anything, it rather supports or fails to support a particular theory. But in most discussions this distinction doesn't matter, and scientists themselves are careless of it at times.
Depending on what you mean by the Universe being perpetual, I might agree with you. Do you mean perpetual in the Fred Hoyle sense of a steady-state universe, or in the Stephen Hawking sense of one that is bounded by singularities beyond which we can't say what exists or doesn't exist?
I am not aware of this Hawking theory. What evidence supports it? I mean "perpetual" in the sense of the Universe containing cycles that average to Zero, meaning that there is no overall change in the state of the universe. If there are any non-cyclical trends then this could indicate a higher level of existence, like the god that you worship.
Sorry, since you raised the subject of black holes I assumed you already knew something of the evidence for their existence. Hawking has been a key player in promoting this theory.
Yes I know about the existence of black holes, but what's this theory about the universe being "bounded" by them, and what exactly does it have to do with perpetuality?
But this seems to be the Hoyle theory, and requires no mathematics. Hoyle talked of the cosmological principle as the idea that the universe looks pretty much the same no matter where you are or which way you look. When he extended this to time as well he called it the perfect cosmological principle, and cited it as his reason for disbelieving the big bang. So far as I know he never succeeded in stating it mathematically! It's more difficult than you might think.
But from the explanation of Hoyle's theory in the article, isn't he saying that the universe is always expanding? Doesn't the notion of the universe getting bigger and bigger forever represent a non-cyclical linear trend?
I said nothing about deities representing straw men. A straw man is an argument, not a person, or even a personified deity. Andrewa 03:02, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
A straw man is when one refutes only some weaker arguments and then suggests that the other arguments are also invalid, right? So are your weaker arguments the ones that pertain to your religious beliefs? Anyway, it sounds like a strawman is just another tactic people use to avoid responding adequately to arguments, so if you think I haven't adequately refuted some of your arguments then please restate those arguments.
Let me try to untangle that. The straw man is the weaker argument, yes, but it's proposed by the person who intends to dismiss it, so here it would be your argument, not mine. But as to restating the arguments, we've already done this, above. Andrewa 14:15, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

-- 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.

This seems baseless speculation to me, and I don't see any connection to the issues of whether the God I follow is real, or whether the Time Cube is a useful analysis. Andrewa 21:41, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

It is connected to the cosmological argument because if the Universe wasn't created -- which could be the case if it's perpetual -- then the cosmological argument is untrue. If it's NOT perpetual then it must have been set into motion somehow, and as far as I know science has no explanations for anything like this, although religion has quite a few (which tend to lack evidence).
Now if the universe is perpetual, in that it has always existed and will always exist, then one way to represent this would be an infinite linear timescale -- but what evidence is there for the notion of infinity? There is none, as far as I know, so I think a finite explanation would be more rational -- and the 4/16 rotation represents the earth revolving in a finite circle in space, and also cycling through a finite circle in Time. I will clarify this more once you understand the 4/16 rotation principle.
Also, why do you consider the above theory to be baseless? Has science not shown that black holes evaporate?
IMO this is more speculation. Science has AFAIK not shown that black holes evaporate or even that they exist, although many physicists believe that they do (and so do I). But the evaporation is speculation. It is well-founded, but it could be wrong. Andrewa 03:02, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
True, and even if it were proven that black holes evaporate, galaxies still wouldn't necessarily be perpetual as their physical characteristics might not allow such cyclical transformations. Anyway even if perpetual galaxies are impossible there could still be other means of the universe being perpetual, such as a cycle of "big bangs" and "big crunches".
Exactly. So, on what scale is it perpetual? Or is it turtles all the way down? Andrewa 14:15, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
I don't know the scale of the Universe's perpetuality; Time Cube merely requires that it is perpetual. This "turtles all the way down" theory seems to state that there are infinite higher levels of existence, a notion that I reject on the grounds of there being no evidence for the concept of "infinity" (not to mention there being, as far as I know, no evidence for ANY higher levels of existence such as gods or turtles). Do you have any evidence for this concept?

Predictive theories[edit]

And finally, are you able to refute the 4/16 Rotation Principle below?

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.
Easily, as I did before. You claim not to believe anything that is not scientific. But, absolute, irrefutable proof is not possible within the scientific method. Andrewa 11:00, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
True, so below I have requoted my text from above with that statement changed. Note that what you wrote above doesn't constitute a refutation of the actual 4/16 rotation principle, only a refutation of my subjective statement about absolute irrefutable proof. Do you agree with my statement about gravitational bodies?
As I also said long ago, there is nothing to refute. Part of the scientific method is verification of predictive theories. This seems to make no verifiable predictions, so it's not a scientific theory at all. What would count as a refutation? Andrewa 03:02, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
I only wanted you to respond to my question "Do you agree with my statement about gravitational bodies?" however in response to what you have posted, I'd say that predictivity is not necessary. What if Einstein hadn't formulated his relativity theories when he did, and instead they were formulated much later based on the astronomical observations and atomic clock experiments that were in reality used to verify the theory? Would this mean that, for instance, there is no time dilation at velocities approaching lightspeed? Of course not, so I'd say that predictivity is but a convenient means of verifying a theory. Why should we expect a theory of everything to do anything other than explain all known phenomena and be favoured by the principle of Occam's Razor?
Well, I believe that without predictive consequences, you can't call Time Cube science. If relativity had not been developed until after the various verifications (hard to imagine in the case of the atomic clocks, but easy in the case of light bending around the sun) then we'd have needed another verification before accepting the theory. Andrewa 14:15, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
It's all very well for you to believe that predictivity is absolutely necessary, but can you give rational justification for this belief or is it just dogma? BTW I stated a few possible Cubic predictions in the February debate, so you can get these from the archive if you want.

Meaning of cube[edit]

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 proves that there are 4 simultaneous days in a single rotation of Earth.

If you are still confused about my use of "sum" in the above, my last explanation of this was as follows: "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?" Also, this graphical explanation of the 4/16 Rotation Principle may help in understanding the concept.

It's not an algorithm at all, as you haven't said what it is computing or what other task it is performing. You're right, I don't understand the concept. It appears to be pure gibberish to me. I've looked at the page you linked to above, and it is no better. Andrewa 11:00, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
The algorithm calculates the total number of SpaceTime configurations, where a SpaceTime configuration is defined as a unique combination of one Space Corner and one Time Corner, and a Corner, in the context of the Earth's rotation, is defined as either 1. Sunup; 2. Midday; 3. Sundown; 4. Midnight; (4 different corners), with Space Corners and Time Corners being specific types of corners. So given these definitions, and without necessarily understanding their real-world applications, you should now be able to evaluate the algorithm and the associated prosaic statement "4 Time Corners for each of the 4 Space Corners sum to 16 SpaceTime configurations".
I already have. I still think it would be better to avoid the word sum here. To me 4x4 reflects the pattern you describe far better and more simply than 4+4+4+4 does. The problem is that to say 4x4 makes it obvious that this is a square number, not a cube at all. Andrewa 03:02, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
The third power has nothing to do with this. Furthermore the 4/16 rotation principle doesn't encompass the whole Cube form; it merely describes a rotating Square, which, when projected along an axis with length less than its side length, becomes a rotating dilated Cube (see my explanation of the Cube form for more on this).
Agree that the third power has nothing to do with this. That's one of the many reasons that the Time Cube fails to be a useful scientific model. Perhaps if it was re-expressed in terms that don't already have these other meanings, you'd have something useful (although I'm sceptical). Andrewa 14:15, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
I don't think there was ever any confusion about the term "Cube". Gene Ray has pictures of Cubes on his site, he explains the geometric principle in terms of a Cube-like room (ceiling, floor and 4 walls) and nowhere does he mention the 3rd power; and I think the same applies to me. If you find the terms ambiguous then you should ask me for clarification.

Graphical representation (website)[edit]

Now the graphical explanation I linked to makes sense to me, and I find it hard to believe that you cannot understand any of it at all. Is this the case, or is it just that you did not recognise any overall logical principle being conveyed? The explanation consists of 6 panels. Surely you are at least able to understand the first panel? And can you not make any sense whatsoever of the 4th panel, which explains the harmonic properties of the 4 Corners/4 Quadrants? I think that you should be able to make a more specific evaluation of this explanation.

I can understand bits of it, it's not patent nonsense any more than Jabberwocky is. But taken as a whole, it seems incoherent to me. Andrewa 21:41, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

OK so let's examine it closer. Can you understand all of the first panel?
No. For a start, the four corners are shown as equally spaced, and this seems to be essential in terms of the definition of the cube that you use. But, for most of the time in most places on earth, dawn is not equally spaced between midnight and noon, nor is sunset.
This is due to the earth's Axis tilt, which cancels out when averaged over the whole year, giving a vertical alignment with equal spacing of the 4 corners. The cycle of Seasons is another cubic 4-corner cycle, but since we are focusing only on the Earth's rotation we must ignore it.
I see. So, let's just find one of these corners. How do we do so?
The primary space corner is at midday, where the Sun's rays strike the Earth's surface perpendicularly.
Secondly, the choice of four seems arbitrary. We could equally divide day and night both into three, and have six people standing around the globe... say Socrates, Clinton, Einstein, Jesus, Kathy and Fred. Why four? Andrewa 03:02, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
This is explained in the fourth panel. And the notion of the harmonicity of the 4 90-degree corners (totalling 360 degrees, 1 full rotation) is not exclusive to Time Cube -- in mathematics, 2 dimensional axes are used to divide a flat plane into 4 Quadrants. So I think you can answer your own question by explaining why this is not arbitrary and why dividing a plane into 3 or 5 or any other number of radial segments would not be an equally valid system.
No, it still seems arbitrary to me. I can't see any connection between cartesian coordinates in a plane and the decision to have four corners in the Time Cube model. The fourth panel contains some true statements, certainly, but the concepts have no obvious connection. And as we have already seen, the fifth and final panel completely misrepresents science.
So explain why the 2d plane is divided into 4 quadrants and why other divisions wouldn't be valid, and then I will explain how it applies to the harmonic 4-corner-quadrant division.

Serious research[edit]

You have a good brain. Did you ever consider doing some serious research? Every little bit helps. Andrewa 14:15, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
Actually I consider Time Cube to be serious, as it makes sense to me and I am not aware of any legitimate refutations of it. So my rational conclusion is that it should not be automatically dismissed, rather it should be further evaluated.

Also, why haven't you responded to the other threads? I have now added (PLEASE RESPOND) to the places where the discussion is to continue.

Done. I hope you find the responses helpful. They can now provide some headings for further discussion, indenting and bolding only as normal from now on. Andrewa 21:41, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

OK, now can you respond to my explanation of the algorithm above, and also to my question "Do you agree with my statement about gravitational bodies?". I've now added (PLEASE RESPOND) to these.
Done. Andrewa 03:02, 25 May 2004 (UTC)