Learning Machines

A basic, lightweight laptop, with 100 Gigabytes hard drive space, no internet connection, a USB drive that only exports documents, and 100mb ram, and 512MHz processor. Also very low graphics video card and no sound card. And built into the hardware is a Microsoft Office Equivalent, and licenses to an entire district's libraries, and all the district's textbooks. Also built into the hardware, are five encyclopedias, like Encarta, Britannica, etc. and five dictionaries, accessible from the Office Software in right click. And also a PDF reader and Printer, that reads the school's books, with the Encyclopedias and Dictionaries linked to the right click for highlighted words. Also, built into the hardware are programs like Starry Night Pro, Project Gutenberg, and MyMathLabs, and none of the materials are locked for the students. And also a library of basic animated and subtitled lectures, on things like how to simplify square roots, or identify direct and indirect objects. And the most advanced graphing calculators. They have access to all the licenses, as that's their privilege for going to school. So, a student could learn Calculus and practice it, on their own time, or do geometric calculations, or read Shakespeare, or read other class's textbooks. And they would only need one device for doing so.

The reason for this, is it wouldn't be susceptible to malware, and even if the students jailbroke it, there'd be no real reason to. It couldn't do a whole lot, in the way of running programs. It'd basically be a learning instrument, that couldn't be misused during class. And the computers couldn't download anything, which is a huge feature of it. It'd come preloaded with that year's materials, and the districts would buy a Learning Machine every year, and distribute them to the kids. Maybe the students would hand in their old one, and recycle it for a new one. And if they couldn't recycle it, the district would pay a fee. And if they graduated, they received it as a gift from the district.

This would limit distractions during class, and allow more room for class time, and less time for play. And it'd be so boring, there'd be no reason for anyone to steal it.

We Like to Believe that Talent Is Nurtured, but Really, Professionals Are Those Born with the Talent Already, and Matured Over Twenty Years.

Paul Knew Eyewitnesses, Ergo So Did Luke.

A Little Bit of Set Theory

So, if I have a pair of glasses, I have one frame, two lenses, two earplacers, four screws, and two nose rests, and two arms.

All together, that would be like this:

1(x)=1+2+2+4+2+2

If I'm talking about the the number of individual sets of components it's:

1(x)=1+1/2(2)+1/2(2)+1/4(4)+1/2(2)+1/2(2)

If I want to take the screws as two sets it's:

1(x)=1+1/2(2)+1/2(2)+1/2(4)+1/2(2)+1/2(2)

So forth. That's how set theory ought to work.

If multiplying it by two pairs of glasses, you just do this

2(x)=(1+2+2+4+2+2)2

If you want to combine sets it's just:

1(x)=1+1/2(2)+[(2+4)/(2+4)]+1/2(2)+1/2(2)

Christianity and Paul

{}"Do not sew onto an old garment a new cloth" and "Do not put new wine into old bottles," Lest "They tear and burst." I think Paul is right on track for what Christ was getting at.

Peter lived as a Gentile, that's why Paul reprimanded him for not eating with them when the judaizers tempted him. As Hebrews says, "With a change of priesthood comes a change of law."

No, because Romans is saying how yoking yourself to the Law, cannot save you. In fact, it causes you to act on the flesh, instead of the Spirit. We're to have no Judaism yoked to us, as is said by Ignatius. But, it's what Paul's epistles really mean, that covenant is over. We're not to follow it anymore, as it can't save us, and rather leads to us committing sin, because of its reliance on the flesh.

Ignatius Letter to the Magnesians Chapter 8. "Be not deceived with strange doctrines, nor with old fables, which are unprofitable. For if we still live according to the Jewish law, we acknowledge that we have not received grace."

The entire message of the Gospel, is you need to be grafted into the vine to be saved. If you're not, you'll be sheered off, and wither. You can't be righteous apart from Christ. He's the rootstock; we're the branches. By living by the letter, we'll be condemned, but by living by the Spirit we'll be free to do good, because the Spirit will cause us to do it. It will be like rest. Christ is the Sabbath, and we're to rest on Him for our righteousness, not our own works.

She Has the World

Maub, David, Ferguson,
And the ten kings,
You will have the world.
You fought hard,
You are the champion
Of the world.
Take it... take it all.
Your world is yours...
And these books are mine.
You took your world,
So have it for your hour.
You will have your world.
I will have the city of Zion.
For she is beautiful.
More beautiful than what you can have.
And I will have cities of Gold,
And fruit trees of life,
And grain in every blade of grass...
I will have living water in rivers
And a plateau of Gold
144,000 cubits in breadth, height, and width.
I will marry Hephzibah,
And the trees will clap,
And the animals and insects
Will make all manner of milk and honey.

You have fought, and I Scythian war.
They forced upon me, and raped me
With their designs... so you take it.
I never wanted it, except for a foolish
And proud babble as a child,
Which took me from a good world
And put me here. So you take it.

Moral Objectivity

That morals and ethics are concrete, and can be observed.

You might ask them, “Well why do you need God?” Well… that’s a good question.

Humans are exceptionally bad at forming moral systems. They fail in ever so many ways, and there’s the written ordinance, and what actually is, that makes things even more difficult.

So, I’d think at the establishment of man’s first laws—which are in the Bible, in the Torah, in books like Leviticus and Deuteronomy—we have a record of man trying to form a basis for morality. And we see in the Torah, a rigid morality that would kill every man, woman and child on the Earth. But, then we also have the Ten Commandments. Which were scribed by God’s fingers. So, Moses broke the first tablet, and the second were made out of Sapphire, or Lapis Lazule, out of God’s heavenly temple… and God gave these Laws, the only Laws we’ve received directly from God to that point. Maybe the other laws and commandments were created by Abraham in Mesopotamia, through committee, but the Clean and Unclean were given by God’s command to Adam and Eve, but then was abolished in Christ’s death and resurrection. So, then, God in the Flesh came to Earth, and lived a perfect example for us to follow. And He taught a perfect law.

So, why do we need this example? It’s so people are capable of understanding right from wrong. Without God’s living example, or without God’s finger scribing the Law in the Ten Commandments, we couldn’t know right from wrong.

Why? Because man is a very bad authority. We confuse the most basic things like Gender, and we turn rudimentary moral laws that should be like counting, into abstract algebra and Transcendental equations.

So, this fact remains… we need God to order and provide the world with a bedrock of truth. Without which, we cannot have truth, unless God established it. Which He did twice, with Moses and the Ten Commandments, and came in bodily form through His son Jesus Christ.

Maybe it’s because, like in Trigonometry, there’s no algebraic way to get Sine and Cosine without already having the measurements and angles. You just have to have the right measurements, to do the formulas. And Christ is that measurement. He's the standard. That without, we can’t do the rest of the math. And God had to set that measurement in place, for us to do all the other more complicated things. As God had to be the measurement, so we could do the more complicated logic. Without which, we’d have nothing to measure it with, and therefore, would be without knowledge on how to do the more complicated logic.

Errata: You can use calculus to find Cosine and Sine, through Euler's Formula, by working through a Unit Circle, and making e^i*Radian = Cosine (Radian) + i Sine (Radian). In fact, that was Euler's work. Which coincidentally, makes e^iπ=-1 if you set the equation to equal it will be equal to (-1 + 0i). Now, equations work like this, where you set the equation to equal, it molds the shape into and equality, and can be worked through that, which is why when doing geometric constructions, you must have an equality, for it to produce correct results. As the equality molds the shape into a useful tool.

Yet, also, the Cosine and Sine still need to have a valid measurement, in order to work, so the point is still valid, there must be a physical presence of God on Earth, to give a measurement for how we are to conduct ourselves. And also a written moral law, divinely given by God.

Errata Secundo: The formula for Euler's assumes Sine and Cosine already, therefore, it must still be measured. The formula, it simply places the values of Sine and Cosine on the perimeter of the unit circle, on a Cartesian plane.

Little Reigns

“Some bold adventurers disdain

The limits of their little reign,

And unknown regions dare descry:” – Thomas Gray, Ode on a Distant Prospect of Eton College

Please, mathematics makes sense. You're just not smart enough to understand it. Please... know your limits. The derivatives are finding the limit to the area underneath a curve, and averaging out the total slope. So, when you download a file, it could create an X/Y graph, through the curve based on bytes and time, and the total file will relate directly to the area. That's how calculus works, and a derivative is a shortcut to build a similar curve, to get an approximation--or it just takes the actual raw data of the curve itself, and gets its area, or the curve. It's an exact science, and makes perfect sense. And it takes geometric series and infinite sums using secants to do this. And this is important, because in things like energy waves on a stove, or even a car driving on a dyno machine, it gets us measurements we can actually use to understand our world.

Please... don't say this kind of thing.

Yeah, you can't lawyer math. I mean, you could, it'd actually make better understanding of how evidence relates to things in a courtroom, but definitely, this is just stupid. We need a little faith, and a little bit of a leap to the conclusion. That's how division works. Without it, we can't have math. Division is the most important operation, because it kind of guesses the right answer, based on the obvious pattern.

On Christ and Moral Clarity

You kind of do need God to have a foundation for morality. And here's why.

Friedrich Nietzsche said that good and evil didn't exist. Hume said morality was made precedent on Law, and not universals.

So, in the world today, "Moral" just means what society agrees upon. That's kind of its little catch all, you're an immoral person, if you divert from the social norm. You're a moral person, if you don't.

So, this is a problem, because in societies such as Rome or the Aztecs, it wasn't uncommon for people to do the most horrific crimes, and that was a matter of custom. People did it, as often as we watch TV or play video games. And such things involved every capital offense imaginable. Even the worst ones you can imagine. Things that if someone did today, they'd be locked in jail, and the key would be thrown away. And everyone did it. So, that's kind of the problem with Hume's Argument.

The problem with Neitzsche's, is that you can objectively see patterns in the world, that affirm the good. So, like a geometric proof, the good becomes self evident, where we can observe and measure it. Things like peace, and love, and joy and kindness, and gentleness, and goodness, and self control, and patience and reliability.

So, you generally find in this, evidence for the Good, so if there's Good, that exists outside of human judgment, there must be a God. Because it's not precedent on human judgment, but something self evident, which is established in a higher orderer and establisher.

And I move to Christianity, because Christ's law is self evident. He spoke the most truth, and the gospels can be corroborated as witnesses, and He raised from the dead, and fulfilled 300 messianic prophecies or more. So, obviously, this is the true religion, based on Christ being witnessed, His deeds and moral teachings which give us clarity on what's right and wrong, and His fulfillment of Prophecies.

On Metaphysics, Logic and Descartes Argument

[ How can you have] a syllogism? What can a syllogism prove, if there are no axiomatic or tautological statements? From the foundation, you need to build and settle your logic on what's true. Having a syllogism isn't going to work, where you invalidate all true statements.

But Descartes said, that since all he could know was that he thinks therefore he is, and since he was often wrong, he couldn't be God, but there had to be a God outside of Him which ordered reality, therefore, there had to be a God to establish proof, and therefore, since God is good, He allowed us to trust our senses about that proof.

Like I said, we need tautologies and axioms to make sense out of logic. You didn't follow my or Descartes' argument.

Again, why have a syllogism in the first place, if you can never establish a truth claim?

We're arguing on the being of being, which is a metaphysical presumption, and you brought up Descartes, which his argument was that since he got things wrong, he couldn't be God, but there had to be a God to establish and order existence. Since, he found that he could make false claims, something bigger than him had to establish the truth of those claims.

And God is good, because we see there is good. Without God, there can be no good. As then it's humanity's judgment, and we've established humanity cannot be God, from even Descartes, that we get things wrong. Therefore, a being more powerful than us, i.e. God, needs to order what is Good and also what is true. But, good is self evident as is truth, as all things relate back to tautologies, of either being true or false. And I observe good, and I observe truth. And since I see good, I know God is good, and we can therefore trust our senses. Therefore, God exists, and we can know reality is real.

[If we're] basing it on the axiom that reality itself is real, then the organizational framework of reality, that it makes sense [is the proof of design]. There's a lot of structures that appear in physics and nature that are directly related to geometry--they have to be--and by number, which inherent in that organizational framework is proof of a design. And how we get to the God of the Bible, is that if there's good that can be seen outside of human judgment--and I'm pretty certain there can be--then we need to find which God best represents it. And I think the God of the Old and New Testament, reflect what we do know about the good. That ultimately there must be judgment by means of a sword, but also grace for those who truly want to receive it, and better themselves.

[I]t's just what the laws of nature prove, that there's a design. At some point, you have to look at it, and it makes sense.

I think your problem is, you want to stay at step 1 too much, and never move beyond it. But, generally, there's sense in the universe, based on the laws of physics, and their geometric construction. And X = X is the foundation of logic, so you're basically trying to undo logic, while telling me to prove something logically. So, that's kind of nonsensical, and if your doubt is like that, then that's doubly why I believe in God, so X does equal X, and so there's sense and coherence to the universe. And not my own mental faculties, or the whims of experts.

As far as the God of the Bible, like I said He is good, and sometimes there needs to be a sword to purge the Earth. It's a very dense theological argument, which I can see from the get go you're not willing to have.

But, generally, there has to be punishment for sin, and if you took the Old Testament, everyone would be put to death. If it's stoning for breaking the Sabbath or dishonoring your father, or being a part of a nation that is not Israel, that's the whole point, is that we need Grace so we aren't slain. And we need to trust on God's goodness, and His definitions and not our own, as I've clearly established--and so have you--there can be no knowledge without Him.

And you're moving to the point, where you're saying X=X can be put into doubt, and that's generally why I'm a little leery of people like you, and believe in God, because you do invalidate X = X. Which a Syllogism relies on X = X as much as anything, as if X doesn't = X you can't move to the next step of the causal chain. You're stuck in infinite loops of trying to prove ontological existence, and metaphysics. Not moving to the assumption of reality, which you need for any basis of science to begin with.

1. I think all knowledge begins with look and listen. And we draw conclusions from it, that what I see, in mathematics, and the geometry of it--and I'm not the first to say this--is a design in the inherent structure of the universe.

2. Well, x can = y. But, you need x to = x first, as that's the fundamental groundwork of logic. If it's not, then there's no way to ever move from x to y.

3. It is a dense theological argument. You're not going to understand it. But, generally, sin causes suffering, and there needs to be judgment against it. Which without God's judgment, it falls into man's hand, and man judges incorrectly. As, we're arguing the very basic basics about logic and how to prove I have hands. That's the context. Which, you can't even get there. That's utterly specious, is what I'm telling you, but also why humans cannot establish what's right or wrong, or what's good from evil, or even that there is good and evil. Which I personally observe, and see the God of the Bible best represents what I witness to be good, and has the best solution to what's evil.

4. You can call it special pleading, but it's actually your stubborn disinterest in grasping my argument.

Also, there are no universal principles, only principles drawn through context. You don't put an honorable man in prison, but you do put a murderer in there. But, you don't put a soldier who murdered in there, unless it was murdering an unlawful agent.

You understand?

So there's nothing to special plead. God destroys sinners. He gives grace to those who desire Him and want to change. And you need Him, to understand what's lawful and not. As He's smarter than we are. And His law is indeed self evident... but so are the most difficult constructs of Geometry. It can be too difficult for people to understand, so we need to trust on God.

[D]esign is [also] self evident. In the rudiments of mathematics and the way geometry fits together, it proves a design.

If x doesn't equal x, there can be no logic at all. That's what you're failing to understand.

I think in the theological world--which again, you're not going to understand because that's always been the thing you couldn't--I think there is a nuance. There is both good and evil. Humans can--the most intelligent--discern some of it. Not all of it. Just like humans can't determine all of science. But, we can understand it. And so we need God to arbitrate, and ultimately judge. Even more than that, empower His people to live according to what's right and good.

That's what God means in Hebrew is "Judge."

Why there's evil? I don't know. But there is, and the imperfections of this world are proof that it's not a safe place to put our hopes. And generally, there could only be evil, if God didn't judge. Men are awful judges of right and wrong--not all, but some people can't understand why calculus works, while some can, and others cannot understand basic empathy.

There needs to be a judge higher than man, and also a power by which Man uses to be righteous. As men cannot act righteously on their own accord. I've never seen it, actually, and the societies that least have God, seem to be the most immoral. And they lack peace. They may have pleasure, but they have no peace.

But, generally, the laws of quanta are self evident. We just don't understand it yet. And I'd say morality is also self evident--a genius like Confucius or Mozi can describe it--but say you do codify a perfect morality, what or who holds man accountable to it? That's the real trick... I do believe men can indeed form a perfectly rational moral system, but they ultimately--because of sin--will fail to do it. And also, the chances of them completing such a thing is slim to none, also.

Because men, and it's in the first three chapters, get tempted. That's why there will never be a perfect world, until God judges and uses the Torah to hold man accountable, through the Sword--Jesus is going to war at the end--and without this, without God's power, and without God's authority, man is incapable of ever arbitrating himself. Specifically, when someone does sin, who is going to forgive them? As all men sin, and naturally all men create suffering... who's to forgive these men? Who's to restore their conscience? Are you going to kill them when they make a mistake? Then you're affirming the Old Testament, which I know you don't want to do. Or are you going to just torture them in a cell? Which you essentially make hell through that edict, and I think only God should have the authority to torment someone so.

So, ultimately, it's God's judgment, not man's, that's the new dispensation of Grace in Christ Jesus, man is not the authority, man is not creating utopia, because that's a bloody endeavor on its own, that can only make suffering. Man will fail. And that's why we need God.