More of my thoughts..

[Horizon68]

Hello..

Read this:


More of my thoughts..

Here is one of my interesting post about: Can we travel
back in time ? and about a philosophical problem, read it
carefully:

Can we travel back in time?

Here is my thoughts that i have just wrote:

It is a very interesting question that demands rationality
and logical thinking to answer it ...

To answer it, i start from a mathematical subject which is the
mathematical arithmetic series.

An arithmetic series has as its main characteristic that
the difference between its terms is constant ... and that its sum
gives (a_n * (a_n + 1)) / 2), a_n being the last term ... now you have
to be smart and notice with me that just before the final step of the
final calculation that resulted as a general equation of the arithmetic
series, the calculation of the arithmetic series required of us a much
bigger time to solve the series .. But as soon as the result (a_n * (a_n
+ 1)) / 2 has been reached, the time for the resolution of the
arithmetic series has greatly diminished, therefore the time preceding
the resolution has compressed a lot and allowed us to travel in the the
future quickly, the resolution of the arithmetic series which gave: (a_n
* (a_n + 1)) / 2), it's like a wormhole in the universe permit us to
time travel in the future more quickly, but understand with me that the
time travel in the future that allows you to make the equation of (a_n *
(a_n + 1)) / 2) is relative to the time taken previously by the
arithmetic series just before the discovery of the equation (a_n * (a_n
+ 1)) / 2), and thus that the universe is computable and that ultimately
it allowed a time travel and thanks to mathematics that is something
extra-ordinary in itself.

Now I will be more logical and ask myself the following question:

Is there any contradiction in my evidence since a car
is not a machine to allow time travel in the future to
the simple reason that the regions where we will travel and arrive
faster with a car will not have aged in time that corresponds to the
future time in which one arrives by the feet?

I answer this in a more logical way:

Notice that when I said that the mathematical equation
of the arithmetic series (a_n * (a_n + 1)) / 2) is a time travel machine
that permits to travel in the future, because it is an equation that also
predicts the result more quickly to which one arrives by paper without
this equation, so the time has no hold on the theoretical result that is
predicted faster so that there is no contradiction when it comes to
theoretical prediction. Also when you use this invention That is this
mathematical equation of the arithmetic series: (a_n * (a_n + 1)) / 2), it
is that you are living the future of the one who has not yet invented or
used this equation and who will arrive there in its future, therefore it
is for this reason that this equation is also a time travel machine that
permits to travel in the future and it has a predictive characteristic.

So there is no contradiction and therefore we can
consider a car as a time traveling machine to travel in the future, like
the microprocessor, and like several other mathematical inventions
as the mathematical equation of the arithmetic series.

Here is one of my conclusion:

If you are traveling from Montreal to Paris
by airplane, and that another person swims and walk
by foot to Paris, and assume that the person who moves by swiming
and walking wants to see Paris and answer some questions,
And if you travel to Paris by plane and you
answer these questions more quickly since you are going to see Paris
more quickly than the person swimming and and walking , so that
has a predictive character as the mathematical equation of the
arithmetic series (a_n * (a_n + 1)) / 2), since you will be able
to send an email quickly to the person who wants to
to swim and walk to Paris and give him
the answers he's looking for, so you'll be able to see
the answers of his future, and this predictive characteristic
can be considered as a time travel machine that permits to travel in the
future, so the aircraft and the car are like time travel machines that
permit to travel in the future ... as well as the processors and other
mathematical inventions and others...


Rationality and logic also have a predictive characteristic,
so you must also reason better in a more scientific manner and take into
account the scientific and empirical evidence to
be ahead of others, like a time machine that permits to travel in the
future..

If a first person receives a valuable advice and this advice
of value allows him to better control his future and to succeed in his
life in the future by executing this valuable advice and also it allows
him to predict his future, and besides, imagine that a second person
will receive in its future this valuable advice, then the first person
will be able to guess with CERTITUDE the future of the second person
which will be the consequence of the execution of this valuable advice ,
and not only the first person will have lived the future of the second
person before the second person, since the two will have lived the same
event by the execution of this valuable advice, then in my opinion we
must reason as in fuzzy logic rather than in boolean logic and
notice that since the first person will guess with CERTITUDE
The future of the second person and will also live the future event of
the second person, then those two theoretical and
empirical evidences confirms that the first person has lived the future
event of the second person, so this valuable advice could be called by
mathematical approximation a time machine that permits to travel in the
future, I say "approximation", because we by analogy are as in fuzzy
logic rather than in boolean logic, in addition to that, that the fact
that the first person guesses with CERTITUDE the future of the second
person, this informs in a logical manner that this certainty change our
way of perceiving, for this certainty, even if
it is not travel in the future, it is by approximation
as a journey into the future, for a journey into the future
will lead to the same certainty, and as a result
the same certainties permit us to affirm by approximation
that the valuable advice is a time machine that permits us to travel
in the future.

Then you understand that I am also a Platonist,
Because you noticed that I can define this time travel in the future as
a platonic event, so when i said that a valuable advice is a time
machine that permits to travel in the future, you understand that it
makes us live platonically the future of others, and since I am a also
Platonist, I affirm that a valuable advice is a time travel machine
that permits us to travel in the future of others since time has no hold
on the ideas, and that the same idea through time inside two
persons, is the same idea, therefore my proof is made that the valuable
advice is a time machine that permits us to travel in the future.

When you imagine a circle, I asserts that not only can you imagine the
circle in material or matter but also in immaterial, as was my proof
that I have just given you , this immaterial essence of the idea is
reified by our reason, and that is the reason that gives it existence.
So this in my opinion is sufficient proof that the idea exists because
we feel it by our reason and it pays homage to our beloved philosopher
Plato.

It is this reification of the immaterial essence of the idea
by reason which gives the necessary and even sufficient approximation to
call even a valuable advice a time machine that permits to travel in the
future.

Then since the idea exists and since a sensation also exists,
then one can not also distinguish an idea from the generated sensation
by the execution as an automaton of a valuable advice at a time t1 and a
time t1 + t2, and since an idea does not age then we can affirm that
valuable advice is a time machine that permits us to travel in the
future, and the valuable advice has a predictive characteristic, because
the approximation is sufficient since we are not in boolean logic but in
fuzzy logic.

Now about a philosophical problem..

I have explained with 2 + 2 = 4 that the "consciousness"
is the "consequence" of "understanding", then once
that you build a hierarchy of ideas and
Logical relations and by also measure, then you will be able to
understand mathematical equality Of 2 + 2 = 4, and once you understand
that, at this very precise moment that you understand mathematical
equality 2 + 2 = 4, then you will be ultimately conscious
Of the mathematical equality of 2 + 2 = 4, that is why I have said that
the process of consciousness is much simpler than the process of
intelligence in action, so I hope that my argumentation is clear. Now
there remains something to be explained is that even if the process of
intelligence in action has not been easy for humanity, the fact that a
human being understands the mathematical equality of 2 + 2 = 4, then
this understanding will greatly reduce complexity and let us see the
"truth" as it really is, a child who tries initially to understand the
the mathematical equality of 2 + 2 = 4 will see this process as being
"difficult", but is that really "truth"? I do not believe because the
understanding of the essence of what is "truth" tells us that truth can
only be reached when there is complete comprehension of a process or a
thing, then the perception of the child who sees in the beginning of the
process of understanding the mathematical equality of 2 + 2 = 4 as being
"difficult" is not the truth, it is rather the perception of the one who
understood "completely" the mathematical equality of 2 + 2 = 4 and which
tells us that equality is easy which is the truth.

I have spoken of the understanding of the very essence of what is
the truth, for example, when you look at the door of a car, can you say
that it's a car ? I do not think, it's who looks and understands
everything that is Car that can say it's a car! do you understand ?
Then, in my opinion, it can be inferred that it is understanding of a
process or thing that greatly reduce or erase "complexity" and which
reveals to us the truth, It is like this for the mathematical equality
of 2 + 2 = 4 If a child in the beginning tries to understand this
equality, he will say that the mathematical equality is "difficult", but
is that the truth? I think no, because it's like the example of the car
which I have just given you, it is once the understanding
of equality is complete that it will greatly reduce or erase the
"complexity" and will confirm that the equality is truly "easy", and
This is the truth and that is the veridic perception and this is the
very essence of truth.

So if you have understood what I'm trying to explain,
Is that we could say that mathematics is easy and simple, our universe
is easy and simple and any thing or process is easy and simple,
But it is because we are limited intellectually or physically that we do
not understand it, i see this as in an axis of reality, i mean that the
complexity of mathematics and knowledge of mathematics is 0.1
on a scale of 100, and we are still weaker at 0.001 on a scale of 100 ,
even though knowledge of the universe and mathematics is easy, we feel
this as difficult.

But my point of view is not complete, I will present my other reasoning:

We can say, for example, that to define what a car is, we have
to "understand" what a car is, then we can therefore affirm that the
completeness of knowledge of the car brings us to understand in a
perfect way what is a car .. now the important question in logic is: is
it possible to state the same thing about the variable of the
"complexity" of comprehension, that is to say: perfect knowledge leads
us to understand the very nature of the complexity of knowledge, as in
the case of the car i have just given you above, because it is the one
who really knows the car who can define the car, can we say the same
thing about the complexity of understanding? does it is the one who
really knows knowledge that can say what is the complexity of the
understanding of this knowledge? Do you understand my problem that
use logic effectively to solve this problem? As in the problem of the
car, above, what can we say about the heaviness or the size of the car
which characterizes the car, we can say that it is the one who has
knowledge about the car and who understands the car that can accurately
state what the heaviness or the size of the car, but can we say the same
thing about the characteristic which is called the "Complexity" of
understanding? I mean that by analogy, if complexity is the
characteristic of the size of the car and if comprehension is the
understanding of the car, can we say the same thing and say that the
completeness of understanding can be defined only when there is more
complete understanding and that greatly reduce or erase complexity
because when you understand more fully this leads us to say that
understanding is easy? I think that to solve this problem it is
necessary to look that in the case of the car, the size and
the heaviness are not of the variables of the "comprehension" function,
whereas in the case of complexity, comprehension is, on the other hand,
a variable of the complexity of comprehension, so these are two
different problems, so that the nature of the complexity of
Comprehension is relative to comprehension, since comprehension is a
variable of the complexity of comprehension, so the problem is better
solved in this way and complexity should be seen as a function of
comprehension, and more there is comprehension and more there is
understand and more there is less complexity of understanding.

And now here is i think my definitive proof and solution to this problem:

As you noted in my second reasoning, I have concluded that understanding
is a variable of complexity of understanding, for the more there is
comprehension the more there is less complexity of understanding. The
problem is not resolved as we can assert that understanding is the
theoretical representation of the car example that i have given above,
but since the more we understand theoretically the car, the more there
is less complexity of understanding, so we can say that the theoretical
representation of the understanding of the car system is easy, but this
is not true because, first of all, there is a contradiction, since two
theoretical systems, one which is more complex and another that is less
complex system, can both become as easy when there is definitive
understanding, and since the mechanism of awareness of the theoretical
understanding of the understanding of the car system rely on the speed
of our brain, that means that when you remember an understanding in your
brain, the brain is quick in its computation to do it, and This rapidity
of computation of the brain makes us see comprehension as easy, for
example, when you look at an equality of 2 + 2 = 4, your brain has
already understood this equality before when you were still a child, but
when you look at this equality now, the brain brings back the
understanding of this equality and it does so quickly , and this is
what does our brain, you do not have to understand the equality yet
again, no, the brain makes a quick computation and brings you back the
understanding of this equality quickly, that's what makes it easy to
understand the theoretical representation of the understanding of the
car system, since the theoretical representation of the understanding
of the system of a car is brought back quickly by the brain in the form
of an understanding of the parts of the theoretical system of the car,
as in the case of 2 + 2 = 4, and this shows us the theoretical
representation of understanding of the system of the car as being easy,
it is the brain that is fast and which facilitates because of its speed
of computation as in the case of 2 + 2 = 4.. so the ease of
understanding is a consequence of the speed of computation of the brain,
so it is not the theoretical representation of the understanding of the
car system that is easy. Thus I believe that the problem is definitely
resolved by my logical and effective reasoning.



Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.