Here is my political philosophy

[Intelli2]

Hello..


Read this:


Here is my political philosophy:


And what am i doing here on this forums ?

You know me more now, that i am a white arab, and i have posted my
political philosophy.. so what's next ? you have to know me more,
i am here because i know more about morality, morality is not simplistic
thinking, and it is not a love song of the Beatles.. it is much more,
and this much more is clearly the main reason i am here, because
this much more is experience and more intellectual capability,
but you have to be more hope, because i am seeing a much brighter
future, because moral is guidance of moral that is inherent also in
almost all of us, and i have also explained it to you, and it is also a
priori pure moral derived from reason and it is also empirical moral
derived from experience, so all in all this is the main part that is
also of great importance, and you have seen me presenting to you my
political philosophy that says also that we are lucky that moral is
better equipped to give a much better world, because also of the facts
that powers and counter-powers are creating conditions that are much
better than the past, this is why i have presented to you my political
philosophy that uses rationality and logic more efficiently to be more
capable as a political philosophy, so now that you understand me more
i will invite you to read again my politicial philosophy to notice
yourself what really look like my thoughts and point of view:

Here is my political philosophy..

I have defined efficient morality as being performance and reliability
that includes security, so beauty is part of reliability because
reliability is the quality of performing consistently well, and to
perform consistently well, you have to be beauty and you have to be
social etc. please read my following political philosophy to understand
better my
thoughts:

Communism and hard socialism use Class Struggle, even with violence, as a
tool, but this is not like a consistent system, because it is
like a state of hate against more intelligent people, or more rich
people.. and this being lack of honesty and lack of confidence. This is
why you have seen me attacking this problem of Class Struggle,
this is a matter of great importance, this is why i have tried
to prove that all is not black and white, and this is why tolerance must
apply here, but i have tried to prove also that this tolerance i am
talking about is inferred from empirical moral as a constrain that
enhance optimization, that means that enhance performance and reliability
that includes security.

Elevated consciousness..

To reach this level it would be necessary to optimize more and i have
defined optimization as being performance and reliability,
what allowed me to reach an elevated consciousness is that I have been
in contact with philosophy and i have done mathematics and i have done
operational research and i have done computer science and i have done
also politics and so on. This is what makes you become an elevated
consciousness, and when you reach this elevated consciousness, you begin
to feel rich, it is like wealth, I can like affirm that i am
rich in this elevated consciousness, but is it an elevated consciousness?
I affirm it because I am able in reality to compare myself to presidents
and so on. And in doing so, i am like convinced that I have reached an
elevated consciousness.

Here is my abstracted political model at first, i have first attacked the
problem of Class Struggle of nazism and communism and after that
i have showed you what it has to be world wide.. please read
all the following to understand my abstracted view that is more correct:

Hitler was a national socialist, and since he was also a socialist,
the nature of his socialism was violent, so he has applied the tool
of Class Struggle with violence against jews , because jews were superior
with there intelligence etc. , and since he was a nationalist, his Class
Struggle with violence against jews was also a racial Struggle with
violence against jews.

But read what follows to understand my thoughts:

About the essence of communism and the essence of nazism

Communism starts from an observation that humans are not equal from
the point of view of money and intelligence performance and memory
performance and speech and language articulation performance etc. then it
says that to give more equal chances, we must use the tool of
Class Struggle even if it uses violence.

Nazism is national socialism that applies the tool of Class Struggle
to fight jews, because jews are superior with there intelligence and money.

Now the view of national socialism of nazism and communism is
a narrow view, because even of we are high intelligence , we can
be not high performance of memory or/and we can be not high performance
of speech and language articulation and we can have more risk to
construct and to operate and to make successful our private companies etc.
so this means that even if we are high intelligence , we can
still suffer more, so this tells us that all is not black and white,
so from the this point of view , we can not apply Class Struggle of
communism and nazism easily, because all is not black and white as
i have explained, other than that allowing the rich to be rich ,
is because we want richness to maximize performance and reliability
and security and we want richness because the one that wants to become
rich can have more risk and suffers more as i have explained, but to be
more fair , we have to be more helpful to the weakest members among us,
and we have to be a correct social system.

About discrimination and hate..

If you are still immature you will say that i am a white arab, so
you will say that you can not be confident with arabs, so you will
start to discriminate.. that's an inferior thinking, you have
to be able to see the big picture, that means you have to be
aware of the economic model of today, you will say that Donald Trump
is protectionism, but Donald Trump is aware of the constrains ,
so he knows about the advantages of Fordism, and he knows also
that we are trying to play the game of Fordism by
giving the necessary wages to others to be able to buy your products
and services, this is not socialism, this is part of thinking bigger
in economy, the old way of thinking of racism and hate is the easy
and simplistic way of thinking, we know about it , but we have to be
smarter and be convinced of the game of today, protectionism must
be smart, today we can not be protectionism by hating and discriminating
stupidly, because arabs have to be learned how to think the advantages of
Fordism and how to think Adam Smith's specialization Theory, this
is part of the game of today, also having a great number of people
inside the society , like is having USA, is an economic advantage that
avoids extremism of the past , by avoiding extremist protectionism,
so all in all you understand me more.. and related to what
i am saying , i have also said:

So you hear for example that: Justice must constrain happiness
and responsability must constrain justice, that's not the language of
love.. because that's not a correct view, because we are constrained
by empirical moral that says that a kind of tolerance over responsability
plays the role of an heuristic that optimizes our economic system and our
social system, like when we are applying a kind of tolerance over arab
immigrants that are useful to the economic system and to the social
system, so usefulness is the key point also that optimizes the system and
that constrain the system to be a kind of tolerance over responsbility by
not saying that arab immigrants are not as beautiful as white europeans
and be discrimination with them, that's not the language of love, because
the language of love is also optimization that mandate a kind of tolerance
over responsability, this is the same when i say that optimization is the
language of love also , because we must know how to be compassion and
respect and love towards arabs and africans to attract consumers and to
higher consumer confidence index, also democracy is subjected to a
constrain of financial and banks institutions that have there rating
methodology that take into account the Political Risk factor and the
economic conditions, this is a counter-power that creates more quality
and more world stability because we have to optimize our economic systems
and by being responsable by being also responsable governance, other than
that compassion and respect can be virility and they are like mandatory
for the system, because compassion and respect gets us more organized
because neglecting compassion and respect cause violence and extremism
that make our society unstable and less optimized , so tuning compassion
and respect right with social services and medical services and with
educational services and with help to the people to avoid violence and
extremism is also more stability and more power , so this compassion and
respect is virility. So as you see optimization is the language of love.

What is the essence of organization ?

Those are the questions that we ask in courses of philosophy.

Now i have to be smartness and rationality and logic to answer this
question. Smartness is an important requirement that fulfill this
goal.

And you have to learn how to think Sir and Madam..

So how can we attack this problem ?

When you start thinking it is like also abstracting to the essentials to
be able to simplify our thinking..

So this process of abstraction needs also my smartness to decompose
efficiently...

Smartness is also a fast process that finds fast the shortest path to
the solution or that finds the solution to the problem..

So my smartness will answer like this:

Look at our essence, we are a composition of consciousness and physical
body..

But we can try to say that we are guided by the process of survival of
fittest..

But this is not good abstraction..

We have to be smartness..

So why do we need to organize ?

You will say that we have to be organized because of the process survival
of the fittest..

But this is a narrow view..

Because it is a definition that is pejorative and not efficient..

Because of the following question:

Why we need to survive better ?

It is because of our weaknesses.

But i say that it is still not a correct answer , because
it is too much abstraction that lacks efficiency.

Because our weaknesses need to be organized by optimization.

This is the magical word, it is optimization.

Why do we optimize ? to be more powerful and more reliability and
correctness.

You will ask a question such as:

Is optimization: reliability and correctness ?


My answer:

When you are not reliable and/or correctness you are less
efficient, so efficiency is also reliability and correctness.

This is why i have abstracted the essence of organization to the process
of optimization.

But that's lacking Abstraction.

Because we have to look at the composition of optimization.

Optimization is performance and reliability.

So that the essence of organization is the composition of optimization
that is performance and reliability.

So the essence of optimization is not only performance , but it is
reliability.

And that's also efficient morality, and efficient morality is Liberty
and Liberty is efficient morality.

So now my answer is not finished:

Because the optimization is constrained..

Because corruption of morality is related to optimization..

So how can we measure corruption of morality ?

What is corruption of morality ?

This is an interesting subject..

It's like abstracting, you have to decompose and compose..

You can say for example what are the causes of corruption of morality?

You can say what is the consequences of corruption ?

You can define efficiently morality to be able to know about corruption.

So if you define morality you will define it as a composition of:

Guidance of moral, and a priori pure moral and empirical moral.

And now you see that the difficulty is how to set the reference to be able
to measure corruption of morality with it.

What is the reference of morality ?

The reference must be optimization that knows how to be optimization.

I mean that optimization can not set itself as being performance alone.

And optimization can not set itself to be extreme justice that lacks
optimization, like ignoring the optimization by the "heuristic" of
"tolerance" that optimizes the economic system and the social system.

And optimization must be an effort to maintain stableness and reliability
of the system, that means reliability of the system, this is related to
security, and security is also related to compassion and love and respect,
because neglecting compassion , love and respect do cause
extremism and violence that hurt the system.

How optimization must be this effort ? because discipline and progress are
inherent to Liberty, so you have to enforce them efficiently and wisely by
the hard way, that means by laws and by the soft way
that i talked about..

So all in all the schema seems to be more clear and seems to indicate
to us more what is corruption of morality, and it indicate to us
what is the essence of organization..

I was thinking more, and here is my new thinking:

Determinism easy for us to set the truth and sets the way of logic, and
this truth and way of logic must be computed by our brain to create
a consistent system that is efficient morality that is optimization
that is performance and reliability. So there is some truth that hurts
and some truth that is efficient morality that is optimization that we
call tolerable or good, so the essence of truth is based on our essence
that is our consciousness of space-time and the determinism of our
empirical and physical world, and about the essence of logical consistency
of the system, you can understand it by example like this:

About the consistency of the system

We call it consistency of the system..

When the system is:


If A is smaller than B

And B is smaller than C

And if B is medium


The system above doesn't allow to say that: A is smaller than B

Because if you say that , it is as you are saying that A is smaller than B
only, so that's a contradiction that hurts consistency of the system.

And The system above doesn't allow to say that: B is smaller than C

Because if you say that , it is as you are saying that B is smaller than C
only, so that's a contradiction that hurts consistency of the system.

So the system has to be consistent, so the system force you to say all at
the same time:

A is smaller than B

B is smaller than C

B is medium


So that to be strict and clear to not create any contradiction.

And about the essence of measure..

Philosophy is like mathematics..

Now what is the essence of measure ?

I think that the reference is the consciousness of space-time as
i have explained, adjoined with the senses of measure that we have,
such as the sense of orientation and the sense of measuring space and
saying that this is bigger than this etc. those ingrediants
permit us to measure, i will ask for example, what is a point (in
geometry) ? to understand a point we must map it to our consciousness
of space-time as i have explained, so this is rooted on the physical
empirical world, even if we are using our senses of measure, so this
is why i have explained that mathematical logic and the mathematical Set
theory for example are also rooted on the physical and empirical world ,
but the space-time can be relative or general, relativeness permit also to
measure the truth , but this seems to create some contradictions in the
system, this has been showed in my writing and explanation of my previous
post of what is the essence of love and what is love, but i have showed
that this can be resolved by using the reference of the general morality
of the society as the reference that permits to measure and that must be
enforced by laws and police.

The essence of the Truth

What is a Truth ? what is the essence of the Truth ?

That's an important question..

Philosophy is like mathematics, because Philosophy must be based on
efficient morality and efficient morality is optimization and
optimization is performance and reliability.

So if you look at mathematical logic..

What is mathematical logic ?

Mathematical logic is also being conscious and feeling the space-time..

Here is why:

Now I will give my explanation of what is consciousness...

I hope that in my previous messages you have understood my explanation of
how the consciousness of time is generated by our brain, I have said that
the brain has a sense of direction that makes it possible to say that one
object is left or on the right and back or front etc., and the brain is
also able to see space in 3 dimensions with the sense of the gaze for
example, that is to say to give coordinates as cartesian or polar in three
dimensions to objects in the space of reality, and also the brain by means
of the sense of touch and the eye is capable of the sense of the
measurement of the magnitudes in the space of reality, these are
ingredients of the brain which gives birth to the consciousness of time,
for consciousness
of time means that for two objects that follow each other, we
are able to feel the existence in space
of the back of the first object (by the sens of the orientation of the
brain) Which is for example "nothing", and that one also feels the
existence in the space of the back of the second object which is the first
object, and that we are therefore able to associate the back of the second
object to the word "before", and this is how the consciousness of time is
engendered ... now i come to a question even more important, but what is
consciousness really?
i start with an example so that you can understand what
it really is: when you touch your hands with water
very hot, you are able to feel the pain and
to say that it is you who feel the pain, so the meaning
of touch is closely linked to the consciousness of the "I", but
Let us return, if you like, to the experiences of a child,
you will notice that a necessary condition for the child
to be able to learn and understand is to be able to
ask the question of "what is", but you see this question has as a
necessary condition the consciousness of the self, for when the child
arises, question of "what is" is that it would mean:
"I would like to know what it is", and the "I would like to know"
demonstrates the presence of a consciousness of the pre-ego which
guide the questioning of the child, but then what is this
awareness of the pre-ego that guides the questioning that
makes a consciousness too? Here is my answer: I believe that
as in the case of the sense of touch which is in close relationship
with the consciousness of the ego, the act of reflection is also a sens as
the sens of touch that is able to make us feel that
we exist and feel the space in three dimensions, as for touching the very
warm water that allows us to feel that the feeling of hot water hurts
us ... what would I like to say?
that the sens of touch and the sens of smell for example are adjoined
to space-time to give a better consciousness of space-time,
that is, the ideas we have of space-time are not
, for example, just rules of logic, but also are recorded with sensations
of touch and other sensations to give a better consciousness, so the act
of reflection is not just able to logically reason with simple rules of
logic for building more complex logic rules etc. But it is also capable of
associating space-time sensations with objects that are displaced in a 3-
dimensional world, and therefore my theory makes us see the act of thought
as also being also another sens that resembles the sens of touch , this is
my explanation of how the consciousness and consciousness of the ego is
engendered by the brain.

When you say in mathematical logic:

A or B

How do you think you understand this logical rule?
You must go back to your childhood when you were
to learn it, you were told for example there are two balls,
and you had to take just one and give it back, and the teacher
made us understand for example the following: when you want to take two
balls you are informed with gestures that it is NO,
And when you just take one and turn the ball back, you get
to know that it is YES, therefore I affirm that it is thanks to the
existence of space-time which is also a consequence of our interior
sensation of the space-time which gives the consciousness of space-time,
I mean you are able for example with your brain
to feel and understand what BEFORE or BEHIND
Or LEFT or RIGHT, and you are able to feel the
space and to say that it exists and what it is, so you
are able to feel the space-time, and this sensation
in our brain that we have of space-time helps us
to understand the logical rule of: A or B, or the logical rule
of: A and B.

So let us return to the following theorem in mathematical logic:

If A then B, and if B then C, then A then C.

So how do you understand the:
If A then B? As in my explanation above, you can not
understand this rule without being conscious and without feeling
space-time, because even if you are a blind person, you can
feel your individuality and your singularity
which is the consciousness of the ego, and this self-consciousness
is a consequence of the sensation in our brain of space-time that allows
us to feel that the object which is
"WE" is different from other objects etc. Then what makes
even the blind man feels the space-time and is capable
to say that this object is before that object in time,
So it is able to understand the logical rule of:
If A then B, and since he is capable of doing so, he is capable, thanks to
the sensation of the space-time
that we have in our brain, that permit us to understand
The following theorem:

If A then B, and if B then C, then A then C.

This is my evidence based on the empirical facts
and this proves that mathematical logic is also a consequence
of the sensation that we have in our brain of space-time,
without this sensation we can not, in my opinion, understand
mathematical logic, and since the machine is incapable of
feeling like a human being space-time, then
we can not say that artificial intelligence
Is capable of achieving the emergence of
consciousness.

Now what is the truth ?

In mathematical logic the truth is rooted on our consciousness
and feeling of space-time as i have explained, so the reference
is space-time, so we are capable of deducting the truth by
mapping mathematical logic to our consciousness and our feeling
of the space-time, this is i think the reference that permit
to measure the Truth and define the Truth. And in the mathematical Set
theory that's the same as logic. Also the reference is important,
the reference can be general or it can be relative, as i have explained by:


Getting more rational...

Today i will ask a question of: what is love ?

And the answer must be more rational.

So we have to use smartness..

Like the theorems of Kurt Gödel, there is something that seems happening..

If you say that there is still some suffering in your life..

You can come to a deductive conclusion that it is not love.

But if you choose a reference as being one person that is suffering more
than you, you will conclude that your "some" suffering is considered to be
part of good, and this good is part of love.

So as you have noticed there seems like there is a contradiction in the
system..

But this is just our senses, my rationality says that if the reference is
individual morality, so the person above will say that some suffering
is not love.

But if the reference is general morality of the society, you will say
that this some suffering is considered to be part of good, so it is part
of love.

So this relativeness to the general reference that is general of morality
of the society is a good measure i think.

It is like when we are asking the questions of:

What is the essence of corruption ? and how can we measure corruption ?

I have said that optimization measures corruption of morality.

How it can measure it?

Optimization is performance and reliability, and Efficiency is part of
optimization, efficiency is: you have the ressources that is our universe
(we are part of the universe) and our other universes, and you have to
produce an output from this input that is our universe or universes that
is performant, it is performance, so it is related to
the essence of quality, so today because of our own essence that
knows also about quality, we are measuring corruption of morality
by the level or degree of quality, that means by performance and
reliability, and we are measuring craziness and foolishness by the level
or degree of quality, that means by performance and reliability, so if the
level or degree of quality is lower and not tolerable, we say that it is
corruption of morality or it is craziness or foolishness.

How can we measure the level and degree of quality ?

It is like saying that such thing is relative to such thing, also it is
a process that is dynamic, so if our civilization is at time t1 is
more performant and more reliable, we say that this degree of more
reliable and more performant is the level or degree of quality that
measures corruption of morality. So optimization that is performance and
reliability measures corruption of morality in a such way.

I give you an example..

If at time t1 our civilization has only one machine or robot, and this
civilization and one robot or one machine are capable of being more
performance and more reliability with this one robot or one machine, but
they are doing less performance and less reliability, we call this
corruption of morality.

About the essence of the language of love..

The language of love is love..

But what is the language of love ?

You will say that such song of the Beatles is love..

But this is narrow view that doesn't answer the question of what
is the essence of the language of love..

The relativeness to the general reference that is general morality of the
society is a good measure to measure love, as i said before

So the essence of the language of love must be rooted on general morality
that must be efficient morality, and efficient morality must
be optimization that is performance and reliability.

So as you see I am speaking right now the language of love..

So you hear for example that: Justice must constrain happiness
and responsability must constrain justice, that's not the language of
love.. because that's not a correct view, because we are constrained
by empirical moral that says that a kind of tolerance over responsability
plays the role of an heuristic that optimizes our economic system and our
social system, like when we are applying a kind of tolerance over arab
immigrants that are useful to the economic system and to the social
system, so usefulness is the key point also that optimizes the system and
that constrain the system to be a kind of tolerance over responsbility by
not saying that arab immigrants are not as beautiful as white europeans
and be discrimination with them, that's not the language of love, because
the language of love is also optimization that mandate a kind of tolerance
over responsability, this is the same when i say that optimization is the
language of love also , because we must know how to be compassion and
respect and love towards arabs and africans to attract consumers and to
higher consumer confidence index, also democracy is subjected to a
constrain of financial and banks institutions that have there rating
methodology that take into account the Political Risk factor and the
economic conditions, this is a counter-power that creates more quality
and more world stability because we have to optimize our economic systems
and by being responsable by being also responsable governance, other than
that compassion and respect can be virility and they are like mandatory
for the system, because compassion and respect gets us more organized
because neglecting compassion and respect cause violence and extremism
that make our society unstable and less optimized , so tuning compassion
and respect right with social services and medical services and with
educational services and with help to the people to avoid violence and
extremism is also more stability and more power , so this compassion and
respect is virility. So as you see optimization is the language of love.

And what is the essence of corruption ? and how can we measure corruption ?

I have said that optimization measures corruption of morality.

How it can measure it?

Optimization is performance and reliability, and Efficiency is part of
optimization, efficiency is: you have the ressources that is our universe
(we are part of the universe) and our other universes, and you have to
produce an output from this input that is our universe or universes that
is performant, it is performance, so it is related to
the essence of quality, so today because of our own essence that
knows also about quality, we are measuring corruption of morality
by the level or degree of quality, that means by performance and
reliability, and we are measuring craziness and foolishness by the level
or degree of quality, that means by performance and reliability, so if the
level or degree of quality is lower and not tolerable, we say that it is
corruption of morality or it is craziness or foolishness.

How can we measure the level and degree of quality ?

It is like saying that such thing is relative to such thing, also it is
a process that is dynamic, so if our civilization is at time t1 is
more performant and more reliable, we say that this degree of more
reliable and more performant is the level or degree of quality that
measures corruption of morality. So optimization that is performance and
reliability measures corruption of morality in a such way.

I give you an example..

If at time t1 our civilization has only one machine or robot, and this
civilization and one robot or one machine are capable of being more
performance and more reliability with this one robot or one machine, but
they are doing less performance and less reliability, we call this
corruption of morality.

Communication, simplicity, feedback, respect

Those are essentials steps also, you have to know how to communicate your
your ideas and how to simplifying them correctly, and efficient
communication is also efficient abstration, so you have to know how to
decompose and how to abstract the essentials to be able to communicate
efficiently, and this better reliability and correctness, feedback is also
important, i mean like the testing phase, you have to improve your
ideas layer by layer and incrementally using the patience of science ,
because as i have said your perception takes time to be correct
perception , so you have to know how to be patience of science waiting
for your perception to be set correctly, this is in accordance with
efficient morality and in accordance with Liberty.

So as you have seen we have to be able to think correctly using
the tools of logic and rationality, like the following:

Deductive reasoning is when, given certain premises, conclusions are
unavoidably implied. Rules of inference are used to infer conclusions such
as, modus ponens, where given “A” and “If A then B”, then “B” must be
concluded.

And you have to take into account the following:

Consistency, which means that no theorem of the system contradicts another.
Validity, which means that the system's rules of proof never allow a false
inference from true premises.
Completeness, which means that if a formula is true, it can be proven, i.e.
is a theorem of the system.
Soundness, meaning that if any formula is a theorem of the system, it is
true. This is the converse of completeness. (Note that in a distinct
philosophical use of the term, an argument is sound when it is both valid
and its premises are true).

And there is also:

inductive reasoning, which covers forms of inference that move from
collections of particular judgements to universal judgements

And there is also:

Abductive reasoning (also called abduction, abductive inference,] or
retroduction) is a form of logical inference which starts with an
observation then seeks to find the simplest and most likely explanation.
In abductive reasoning, unlike in deductive reasoning, the premises do not
guarantee the conclusion. One can understand abductive reasoning as
inference to the best explanation, although not all uses of the terms
abduction and inference to the best explanation are exactly equivalent.


About the essence of hate...

When you root your ideology on the primitive tribal mentality of "We
against Them," it's an inferior thinking that must be enhanced,
hate must be calculated like a scientist, we can not say jews are
bad, because that's not science, we have to study it scientifically
and rationally, this way we will avoid the disadvantage of the weaknesses
in all of us, the reference must be rationality and logic and science,
and this reference must be better known to be capable of choosing
correctly and setting your perception correctly, and perception must be
subjected to science and rationality and it must also be subjected to the
advantage of patience of science, because patience of science knows that
perception can not be set fast, you have to be patience to wait for your
perception to be set correctly. And you have to be able to fine tune
tolerance, and not to fear tolerance because of the disadvantage of too
much tolerance, this is the weakness of nationalism, so be smart and be
clever and always enhance yourself with
better quality, because that's the essence of survival, and the essence of
survival must not be rooted in the survival of the fittest, because
that's and inferior thinking, it must be subjected to rationality that
says that we are also weaknesses that must be organized with wisdom,
so this wisdom does play a priomordial role in guiding us
towards a better world.


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.

What is the most important goal of my political philosophy?

In my opinion the most important aim of my political philosophy is that
as I have just explained that the idea in the Platonic sense has a very
important characteristic, it is that one can perfect it and bring it to be
more and more perfect or even perfect, then in my opinion the aim of my
political philosophy it is to perfect ideas and to make them follow by the
people, not only that, but these architectural and efficient and correct
ideas of my political philosophy should be regarded as automata that
should be executed to arrive at there efficient goals, now a question
arises from it: how to encourage the people to execute these architectural
ideas as executing automata to perfect more our world ? One of the ways to
do this is what I have done in my political philosophy is to show that
rationality and science and microprocessors and valuable advices etc. etc.
are also as time machines that permit to travel in the future , that is
the architectural ideas of my political philosophy and this architectural
ideas of my political philosophy leads the people to perceive the world
differently by giving for example more importance and high priority to
science and efficient technics and technology, the other method is also to
reinforce more these architectural ideas of my politicial philosophy to be
able to enhance and perfect, as we are enforcing laws..


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 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.