Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.programming.threads > #4517

Here is my new thoughts of today about philosophy and political philosophy..

Show all headers | View raw

Hello..

Read this:


I am a white arab..

Here is my new thoughts of today about philosophy and political 
philosophy..

What i am doing is finding the essence of things like in philosophy
and i am using the tool of logic that permits also to "measure"
and to "calculate" precisely like in mathematics and it permits to 
reason better, so what is my new thoughts of today ? as you have noticed 
i have defined previously what is morality, it is like finding its 
"essence" that i have done in my previous post, now an important
question is inferred from this act of thinking, is that what is
the essence of our "civilization" ? finding its essence with more
"precise" thinking is an act of "philosophy", so what is its essence ?
i think its essence is coming from the fact that a process or a thing 
can have an advantage and a disadvantage, and the general "reference" is
morality that is, by more expressiveness, "performance" and 
"reliability", or simply "reliability" that can model morality correctly 
as i have proved it(read my proof bellow), so the essence of our 
civilization is the act of coordinating and organizing those advantages
and disadvantages on each of us or on each thing or in each process to 
be capable of giving an efficient morality that has as an essence 
"reliability", and as a validation of my model, you will notice that we 
are decentralizing "governance", and each of the decentralized parts of 
the governance are grouping the "advantages" and trying to minimize the 
disadvantages of each of us that do the governance , democracy is also 
the same , because democracy is a system that wants to escape a "local" 
maximum towards a global maximum like in artificial intelligence, and 
democracy is doing it by applying itself to selecting the best among the 
actors of politics etc. to govern us, this is the essence of 
civilization, is the act of maximizing the benefits or the advantages by 
optimization, as i have just explained to you.

Now about the essence of reliability

I am still doing philosophy, and you will notice what is smartness..

About the essence of reliability to be able for you to understand
the essence of morality..

What is the  essence of reliability ? how reliability must be measured ?

If you say that being reliable is solving problems or not, it doesn't
show what is really reliability, you have to understand philosophically
its essence, i think that reliability is measured also by what is it
to be "happiness", the goal of human is being this "happiness", but
happiness has necessary "requirements", and the "nature" of requirements
is also being like absolute perfection that solves all our problems to 
be able to be happiness, and this is why morality is pushed towards
absolute perfection that is absolute reliability that permit us to be
real happiness.

More precision about the essence of morality

I said before that:

"You have seen me defining to you morality as being: perfection at best,
or quality at best , or that it is RELIABILITY !"

When i say morality is RELIABILITY, i mean it is the concept of 
RELIABILITY, because we can prove it by philosophy, because
the "goal" of human life is to be able be happiness, and to be able
to be happiness is solving like all our problems, and solving problems
is the essence of reliability, so morality is the goal of life
that is solving problems to be able to be "happiness", this is smartness.

I am a white arab and a more serious computer programmer that has 
invented many scalable algorithms and there implementations and
i will sell some of them to Microsoft or to Google or to Embarcadero.

Now about the right abstraction of morality

What is it a more correct abstraction of morality ?

This is a good question in philosophy !

It is like mathematics , you have to be more "logical" and be more 
"measure" and be more "precise", and being more logical and more measure 
and more precise is like doing mathematics !

Why have you seen me defining and explaining to you what is morality ?

It is a very serious subject, and you have to be smart to understand it !

Because philosophy, like the philosophy of the philosopher that is Sir 
Immanuel Kant, must be a philosophy that is more "precise" calculations 
with logic and measure that has as a goal to make us understand what is 
all about morality ! this is what also i am doing ! and i will continu 
to do it in front of your eyes..

So my question of today is:

What is it a more correct abstraction of morality ?

A more  correct abstraction of morality is first a definition
of morality that is sufficient and necessary to be able to see
more the big picture of what is morality, you can define morality as
being a composition of a priori pure moral inferred from reason
and of empirical moral inferred from experience, but i think that
this definition is too much abstraction that doesn't show us the big
picture of what is morality, so we have to be more smart , this
is why you have seen me thinking more smartly to find what is morality,
and you have noticed that my first definition of morality was that 
morality is: Performance and reliability or is by just one word 
reliability, and i have also defined  morality by saying that it is: 
perfection and strongness , and i have finally explained and give 
another definition of morality that is: morality is contineous 
perfection that is possible towards the absolute perfection, this 
abstraction is more correct also , i explain:

So when i said that morality is: performance and reliability, is it
a correct definition ?

It is like philosophy that i am doing..

So notice that i have proved it this way:

==

 From where can we infer that "performance" is inherent to morality ?

Philosophically we can say that the essence of organization is:  we are 
organizing because of our weaknesses to transcend our weaknesses, so 
from this we can feel the essence of our humanity and we can feel our 
essence , because the essence of humanity that is perfection and 
strongness is dictated by survival too ! and is dictated by the fact 
that we must transcend our living conditions towards a better world ! so 
this is part of morality, so then we can say that performance is 
inherent to morality.

So my way of thinking and proving shows better what must be the 
conception of our organization as a society, it must also be based on 
"performance".

===


So as you have noticed that this proves the part of my definition
of morality that it is also "performance", now the second part
of the definition of morality is that morality is also "reliability",
and i have "proved" it like this:

==

What is the essence of reliability ?

What is reliability ?

We can simply say that we measure reliability by the fact that the 
"reference" of measure is the fact that we want to solve and it is
also the fact that what we have do solve or not, if it solves that's the 
measure that permit us to say that it is reliable, so being the right
"perfection" that solves our problems is also "reliability",
and being this right perfection is also "morality", and being this right
perfection is dependent also on the standard of quality, so to be
a correct morality we have to be high standards of quality to be
able to solve and to succeed, and as i said Morality is contineous 
perfection that is possible towards the absolute perfection, and when i 
say "that is possible", that means that "compassion" when it is 
"possible" is also inherent to morality,so this definition avoids 
"extremism" that is too violent. So it
is like mathematics.

==

So now you are seeing more the big picture of what is morality,
because the essence of reliability is solving problems and
the essence of perfection is also the same , it is solving problems,
and "performance" is inherent to the concept of reliability ,
because to be able to solve problems,  reliability must
be also performance or strongness, this is why i said that
the definition of morality can be also only: RELIABILITY ,
or it can be also Performance and reliability or it can
be perfection and strongness,

You can define morality as being a composition of a priori pure moral 
inferred from reason and of empirical moral inferred from experience.

You will say that this definition is a "general" definition.

Now what about my definitions of morality ?

We have to be more smart..

I think that morality can not be morality if it is not good
for us ! i think this is inherent to morality, and you will
notice that this "good for us" can be "not" yet absolute "perfection",
but we have to speak about a constraint over morality,
that morality can not be called morality if the living conditions are
too bad !  so this will abstract more correctly the definition
of morality, so now we can say that my definition of morality
as being performance and reliability is correct, also empiricism tells 
us that the essence of our life shows us that to be able to "survive"
we have to be also this performance and this reliability, and
when i say reliability is inherent to my definition of morality, that
means it is the "right" reliability because it is also inherent to it, 
so my definition is also correct, and this applies also to my other 
definitions of morality that i think are correct. So i think my logical 
proof is valid

Morality is also "diversity"

I said it to be able to be more correct abstraction,
i give you an example: if you say like neo-nazism that "all" of us have 
to work "hard" to not be a parasite of the system, i think that's lack
of maturity that doesn't recognize that there is also "constrains"
that we have to deal with, and saying like neo-nazism that all
have to work hard to not be a parasite is also an "idealism"
that is not correct morality, this is why you have to be more "maturity"
that is pragmatism, that means that is realistic to be able to be an 
appropriate morality,  today because of our world is
not a perfect world, competitiveness and prioritization dictate
that high IQ individuals can group together (like Google)
and make "much" "much" more money than the less smart individuals,
and also because of Risks and competitiveness we are allowing
the Banks to make more and more money, this is also morality that
takes into account the constrains, but how in this context can we take 
more money from the rich and give it to the poorer ? i think
that capitalism such as the one of USA knows also about pragmatism, 
because capitalism of USA is a policeman that doesn't want capitalism to 
be changed in more favor of the poorer because it fears imperfections
of humans and it fears the "mess" of socialism and it fears
the "mess" of communism and it fears the mess of other ideologies
like neo-nazism or nationalism, this is why capitalistic systems are 
"conservatism" of there capitalism.

More about the essence of morality..

We have to be more smart, what is it doing philosophy about
the essence of morality ? it is something really interesting,
and you have seen me doing more philosophy about the essence of 
morality, but i was thinking more about philosophy, and i think my
philosophy about the essence of morality makes us understanding the
essence of philosophy in itself ! because by applying yourself at doing 
philosophy about morality you will understand more what is philosophy !
understanding what is the essence of political philosophy or philosophy
is something "great" or of a great importance ! now you have to 
understand my thinking of philosophy about the essence of morality:
if we say that the essence of morality or what is morality is
that morality is (like was defining it the philosopher Immanuel Kant):
A priori pure moral inferred from reason and it is also empirical moral
inferred from experience, i said that this definition is too much 
abstraction, and more than that the goal of my philosophy is also
to find like if morality is more safer ! and since i am a more
serious computer programmer, like programming safety-critical systems,
i was giving also a "high" priority and importance to being "security",
this is why you have seen me defining more the essence of morality as 
being that morality can not be called morality if it is too "bad"
living conditions ! so morality i think must be more "decency"
and more "stability" to be able to call it morality ! i think
that's inherent to morality ! so now you are feeling more the essence
of morality that it is also that we call a "civilization" ! so
you have seen me defining to you morality as being: perfection at best,
or quality at best , or that it is RELIABILITY ! because the essence
of reliability is measured by the fact that we solve problems and we 
call it reliable or not ! and if we solve all our problems we say that 
we are absolute reliability ! or that we are absolute perfection !
since i think that perfection has the same essence as reliability, and 
there essence is solving problems ! but also i said that
morality that is reliability or perfection at best knows about
stability and that it can not be "easily" instability, because
morality that is instability can not be called morality or civilization 
! thus this essence of morality ensure us also of more "responsability" 
! so now you are feeling more what is morality and morality is
what also gives laws and politics etc. ! so i have also introduced in
my previous writings what i called "guidance" of "moral", and i said
that guidance of moral is inherent to our essence , guidance of moral
is the fact that we are knowing what is happiness and what is tolerance
and what is compassion , and happiness and tolerance and compassion
permit us to "measure" our morality or our civilization , and notice 
with me that happiness is measured also by "reliability" or by what we 
call "morality", because we can say that we are more happy "relatively" 
to others that are less happy, and from this, morality is inferred, so 
this guidance of moral is important because it is like guiding us
to a more appropriate "way", so as you have noticed
my philosophy permits us to feel the essence of morality !
and it permits to be less pessimism about morality !

Yet more philosophy and political philosophy..

What is the essence of an idea ?

I need a more correct abstraction..

So how can we start to solve by thinking ?

Let us look for example at its characteristic..

If we look at its platonism, its reification of the future or past or
present experience is a platonism that can be considered a 
characteristic of an idea that can be considered a special 
characteristic that makes the idea not considered getting old ! this is 
why the idea is really special, and does an idea is material or 
immaterial ? i think the immaterial part of an idea exists, because
it reifies a future or past or present experience !  so like
empiricism or rationalism, you have to be both rationalism
and empiricism to be able to be correct morality or correct
thinking ! i think the idea is composed of an immaterial and a
material !  and the proof is that ideas can reify
the experience of the future and that doesn't yet exist(please read 
bellow my thoughts as a proof) ! or  ideas can be immaterial of a 
concept that doesn't yet exist ! so i am not in accordance with the 
philosopher Plato that have said that an idea is just an idea that is 
immaterial, and also i say that an idea is like more light weight 
because i think ideas can be perfected faster(so better) and better than 
physical world because ideas has less "constrains" than the physical 
world. Read the rest of my thoughts to understand better my philosophy:

In philosophy we have to define correctly what is a "reification"..

And if you have noticed i am also "logical" by considering the fact
that a thing "exists" in the "real" world as being a "reification",
and here is my proof that:

Can we travel back in time?

Here is my thoughts:

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.



Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.

Back to comp.programming.threads | Previous | Next | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Here is my new thoughts of today about philosophy and political philosophy.. Sky89 <Sky89@sky68.com> - 2018-08-03 00:20 -0400

csiph-web