The Most Profitable Ideas and Inventions Ever

This blog post promises to offer a bit of fun.  Here, I intend to catalogue (in any ongoing manner) the best, brightest and most profitable ideas and innovations ever achieved.  It represents progress and the best of humanity.  It is what we both are, and are destined for — extraordinary excellence with finesse and gravitas.

  1.  The writing system     2.  Fire      3.  The wheel    4.  The Steam Engine     5.  Money as Coinage (565 b.)     6.  The Codex (book)     7.  Geometry  (300 b.)     8. Trigonometry (200 b.)   9.  Screws (Thanks Archimedes)    10.  Optical lenses     11.  Paper     12.   Electricity     13.  Compass    14.  The plow    15.  Outputting System – Assembly line     16.  Written Constitution/ Legal Code     17.  Anaesthesia     18. Microscope     19. Telescope     20.  Germ Theory     21.  Free Markets (Commerical Capitalism)     22. The [Dutch East Indies] Joint Stock Company (Common-stock shares)     23.  Wheelbarrow  24.  Sanitation systems     25.  Aqueduct   26.  Postal service   27.  Paved roads   28.  The printing Press     29. Penicillen/ Antibiotics     30. Vaccines     31.  Set Theory     32.  Future Studies     33. Game Theory/ Probability Theory/ Stochastics    34. Light Bulb     35. Computer/ Peripheral Technology    36.  Aircraft     37.  Automobile     38.  Rocketry     39.  Telegraph/ Telephone     40. Radio/ Television     41.  X-ray machine/ technology   42.  Compact Disc/ DVD’s      43.  Discovery of DNA (Crick/ Watson)     44.  Semiconductor Electronics     45. Integrated Circuits     46. Internet     47.  The Earth-Care Package   48.  Satellite Technology     49. Corporations     50.  Skyscraper     51.  Compound Interest     52.   Letters of Credit/ Credit cards     53.  The Mortgage      54.  Cinema/ “Movies”     55.  Missosology/ Cosmetics/ Beauty Aids     56.  The Apothecary/ Pharmacy (Pharmaceuticals)      57.  The Pizza (Pie) — ergo “Pie Hole”      58.  Chocolate (1507, Brazil).     59.  Magazines/ Journals     60. Newspaper     61. Futures, Futures Options (Derivatives)     62.  Insurance (Life, Medical, Auto, Business, etc)     63.  Railroads/ Railway systems     64.  On-demand Delivery/ Inventory System     65. The Checkbook/ Debit Card    66.  Trade Treaties    67. Peace Treaties      68.  Hotel/ Motel/ Inn     69.  Calculus       70.  Lasers      71.  Alarm Systems (Fire, Burglary, Etc)     72.  Phonograph/ Stereo   73.  Still/ Alcohol/ liquor     75.  Food Processors/ Processing Plants     76.  Paper Money (Currency)    77.  The University     78.  The Library     79.  Soft Drinks (Carbonated, Sweet Beverages)    80.   Vending Machines     81.   Cigars/ Cigarettes     82.  Perfume/ Cologne      83.  Auctions (e.g. Art Auctions, Foreign Exchange Market)     84.  Atomic Theory (Lucretius, Dalton, etc)    85.  Electric Motor    86.  Gas (combustion) Engine     87.  Hydroponics (based upon future estimate of profit)     88.   Plant Hybridization/ Ag. Science      89. “Temporary Employment” (Agencies)     90.  Periodic Table of Elements (Dmitri Mendeleev)   91.  The Microchip     92.  GPS      93.  Success Studies  (Future estimate of profitability)    94.   Systems Studies (Fut. est.)   95.  The Operating System (OS), e.g. Windows, Linux     96.   Microwave ovens     97.   Hydroelectric plants      98.  Mutual Funds     99. Stock Exchanges    100.  Jewelery

I will continue posting to this window when I can.


Two of the Most Significant Problems We’ve Ever Had — Lex Talionis and Taxation

Sometimes research takes a turn one could never anticipate.  Such was the case when my studies indicated that most of western civilization’s history can be explained fairly readily in terms of two very significant errors on our part — one which have plagued us to this day.  These are:  1. The principle of Lex Talionis (mutual, reciprocal judgement in like kind) within our legal environment — esp. in our law codes and legal textbooks (law schools and courts). This principle has two difficulties at bottom — first, it represents a mediated (by the courts) form of revenge.  While this is better than simply allowing the Hatfields  and McCoys to shoot it out (as we say, “Old School”), revenge, even when mediated by the courts, still suffers from the basic problem that justice and revenge form mutually exclusive categories.  Second, the use of this principle for the purpose of determining the verdict (for the punishment of criminal persons) actually rests the power to issue the verdict in the (premeditated) hands of the guilty, instead of allowing better legal principles, and a well-trained justice (or group of justices) determine the matter of imposing sentences.   Think it over.

And now onto the topic of taxes, meaning:

2. Governments — or anyone else — charging taxes.  I know — everyone wants to know how you might run a government without charging tax!  It is actually (though surprisingly) quite doable, and I’ll address this problem shortly.  It involves governments shifting their emphasis in education on business and free markets, and changing their thinking so that the state looks to the free markets to replace their “tax-collected income.”

This implies that a government should reduce its tax-colleted income by 10% (of the total) for ten years, gradually reducing its tax intake for ten years until it replaces it altogether with money it earns in the markets.  Each can create its own markets (without the notorious “conflict of interest” problems) by beginning with its educational systems and setting long-term goals to accomplish the task.  For instance, imagine a new high-school curriculum that aims to turn every student into a small business owner through a gov’t-subsidized SBA (small business administration).  The curriculum has courses in the history of successful business, stock market and investing, business law, etc and is geared to create students who successfully submit a new business proposal to the SBA by the time they reach their junior year; under faculty supervision and business consulting advice offered for sale by the gov’t — and business insurance that almost guarantees success sold by the government’s Treasury Dept — the student (every student) becomes a successful business owner — and the global economy begins to soar.

Instead of merely gifting the money granted to new business owners through the SBA, the gov’t should issue the money as a repayment-deferred loan, repayable after 10 years of the operation of the small business and payable as 5% of the business’ net income for 20 years.

I believe that what Christians (and many others) have thought to be a kind of “worldwide curse” can also be explained — and defeated — with reference to these two problems taken as a kind of hypothetical model used to explain the difficulties (wars, violence, conflict of all kinds, revolutions, money problems, etc.) world civilization has shown to be extremely stubborn problems of humanity since the beginning of written records, and even earlier.  By the way, early languages do in fact contain words or glyphs for the word “Tax.”  As if we didn’t know.  It’s a wonder they do not also have one for “Stick’em up,” and “show me your wallet.”

If my diagnosis turns out correct this would mean that by systematically and carefully removing and replacing these from our legal environments and governments (respectively) that the human race could actually begin to solve what have seemed to be our most intractable difficulties and stubborn imperfections.

I will continue to expand this blog post with commentary and explanations further as opportunity avails.


Is History “History”? — A Surprise From Research World: The Study of the Past May Represent a Form of the Problem of Empty Reference

The record of the human past, what we sometimes call “history,” has, I believe, beset the human race with many, complex, and far-reaching problems from time immemorial.  To treat this problem at some length, I shall first introduce the idea of the study of human design, and then I’ll try to show what we can learn from it that remains most important to the question (s) at hand.  First, observing our human design seems to show that the entire anatomy  aims the body and its most important parts forward only — if, we relate time to space as a continuum (a connected blend) in a scientific manner, this would suggest that we are by design a future-oriented lot.  In fact, though this may prove a bit less than delicate, I’ll dare to mention that the only part of the human anatomy aimed at the past (backward) remains, er, the recycling department.

This equates the past with the wholly unprofitable and unlovely — quite the opposite of the Ideal Value System.  Stephen King would toss it to the Langoliers.  It is also interesting to note that the conception of meaning derived from one’s (genealogical) history forms the view of historiography (or else of “meaningful time”) taught by the religious (western) outlook. The ideal value system would invert this, affirming that meaning starts in the distant future (ideal future), and reaches back into the present from there; here, we derive our meaning by looking forward to progress and advancement by our connection to the future and its ideals more accurately expressed and displayed.  The future holds the key to meaning and life — not the past.  Religion has got it all wrong, has had it all wrong the entire time, and has beset us with many and grievous problems by this tie to our distant (mythological) past, and has kept us focused in the direction opposite our human design, has kept us from focusing on our ideals.

This also has extra-ordinary implicates for language use as well, meaning religion has tanked all the natural languages we have had on this planet by besetting them with an obsession about the past, instead of a proper focus on the future.  We have very few verb aspects and tenses associated with the future in many of our languages (including English), and far too many beset the past.  The best way to refer to the past in English consists in using only either the historical present introduced by time markers — e.g. “So Yesterday, I go into the store, and there I see my next-door neighbor ….”  This shows the continuity of the past as it exists in the present.  The only other past tense verb class we should employ remains the perfect tense, e.g. “Since last Tuesday, I have eaten only six meals.”  This also shows the past CONTINUING its effects into the present moment.  In other words, only when we can consider the past as part of the present should we refer to it at all. This is consistent with the temporal shape of human design. We are not to occupy ourselves with the unprofitable, but with the profitable and the advanced, not the primitive and less than excellent.  Why spend time on the rough drafts when the polished final copy is the only sample you will be turning in to your professors for a grade.  Why do you do this?  Consider the implications of this practice for how you should most spend your valuable resource — time.

Here, we view the present not so much as the culmination of the past (the religious view of the present), but as the overture to the fantastic symphony that is the (ideal) future.  Here is the lie of religion in bold — it teaches that the past is the Paradise, and that the present and future delapidate from there until the Apocalypse.  This extraordinarily pessimistic view of the future both ruins its ideal status, and its fights against the great value (profitability) of the free markets and their progress overtime.  All you have to do to rebut religion is to note its economic system in heaven — there isn’t one.  It has no buying or selling — no trading, no free markets, no money supply, and no value production in the material world (the real one).  Heaven is Marxist.

Sell, sell, sell!!

Bottom line?  Human design studies and ideal studies will necessary change our outlook on time, causing it far better to conform to a future-oriented (past diminishing) contour that will doubtless profit the free markets well over time.   We are free from the past with (quite) a few modifications to our language — actually the constructing of the ideal language, my current greatest project here at the university — forms a much more complex series of matters.  But I am closing in on it.  I will attempt to keep all concerned parties abreast of my efforts in that regard here at this blog — to be sure, with great and mighty updates.   Be well for now.

Introducing The Ideal Value System

I’ve been studying a great deal lately, as usual; consequently, I have many new insights to offer.  Here are some of them in brief:  I now believe that not all value systems are created equal, and that, DNA, taken as our template, prefers one of them in particular, and represents the “telos” of human design, the purpose at which it aims — notice its hendiadic (two fold) and 8-fold form {these are the highest values, which should define the future, and which we ought to pursue amd promote):

  1. Wisdom & Understanding       A. Patience & Self-Control      B.  Discretion & Discernment       C.   Strategy & Tactics (= Efficient Management & Finesse)  D.  Education & Training      E.  Insight & Innovation     F. Study and Application of Ideal Values and Principles     G.  Study of Systems and Time (Includes a future-oriented — not past-oriented — optimistic outlook).
  2. Life & Joy     A. Ultra-life (Vegan) Diet & Exercise      B.  Freedom & Opportunity     C.  Friendship & Work/ Labor  (Wealth)  D. Entertainment & Leisure (Fun/ Play time)   E.  Romance & Marriage (Family Life)      F.  Arts & Culture (Includes Community-life, including 8 Annual, Festival-Days – )   G.  (Skilled/ Rehearsed) Language & Humor
  3. Profitability & Value
  4. Excellence & Progress
  5. Honor & Dignity
  6. Beauty & Majesty (What you see in the sky at night)
  7. Gentleness & Kindness
  8. Truth & Integrity

As opportunity shall avail, I intend to expound upon these Ideal Values (please note that they remain a SYSTEM of values) at some length to illumine just what I mean by invoking this sort of language.


An Update on the Ideal Language And All That

Imagine that the gods and goddesses, our divine Parents, prove to be imminently practical in the way they have created us, and intended our structure (structural design) to teach what we need to know.  This would yield to the study of human anatomy a kind of special status.  For instance, suppose we were to note that our teeth are symmetical in several ways, that each of us (male and female) bear 32 teeth, and this means that the minimum required for ordinary discourse (communication) is 64.  The soft parts (enamel of which our teeth are made is the hardest substance in the body) of our mouths (moving parts) that contribute to speech formation include the lips and the (cloven) tongue — we can take the throat for granted — gives us four more parts (each) to consider.

This yields that magic # of 72 (parts) for speech mobility.  Likewise, we find that those concerned with profitability know the rule of 72, the magic # into which one divides the rate of return — say 9% –to find out how long it would take to double your money at that rate — here, 8 years, since 9 x 8 =72.  It is interesting that the number of letters in the DNA alphabet + 8 (somethings else one needs to add to mere letters to have a language) gives us 72.   Language is more than just letters of its alphabet.

The letters should bear (be composed of) straight lines only (these resolve most easily to the reading eye and create greater clarity), and each should receive careful scrutiny as to it symbolic meaning.  The alphabet should use only majuscules (capital letters, not lower case) that can reduce a little in size for the sake of economy — more letters per page.

I have a very long list now of the different features of the ideal language, and I shall try to give a reasonably full expression of those here.  It is neither exactly a natural language, nor precisely a formal one,though it has

It begins with a full vocabulary describing the transcendentals, or categories and propositions most basic to our ability to make sense out of the world, like:

Time (and expressions about it — before, after, since, when, simultaneous, today, tomorrow, etc.); Space (e.g. here, there, up, down, height); Ideal Values (e.g. Wisdom, science, understanding, logic, profitability, value, exchange, kindness, truth, etc); Modalities (e.g. necessity, conditional status, possibilities, certainty, probability, compossibles, truth relations, etc).; (Quantity) Number theory talk — plurality, many, few, combinations, sets, members, etc.


Voice.  We use only the active or middle voices in this language, never the passive voice.   It is both unnecessary and weak-ass. This means that our sentences tell “who did it,” not who the action-verb mentioned was performed upon (who received the action).  We do not say “the ball was kicked,” but rather, “John kicked the ball.”  Middle:  “John through himself into the shower.”  Here, the one who performs the action also receives it.  We accept either one, but we allow neither the passive voice or verbs of being, with the exception of the verbs “seem” (appear) or exist.  The others contribute not a damn thing of value to the sentence and seem presupposed already in the action verbs. If Dave buys groceries, we already know that both Dave and groceries both exist.  We have no time for the silliness represented by verbs of being, or fake deities named “I AM” (SIR SPAM).

Moods.  The idea of a “mood” in grammar-world aims at showing how the speaker sees himself/herself in relation to his/her audience.  Is (s) he ordering them to do something? (This would be the “imperative mood” or else the subjunctive (e.g. “Let all the wise avoid the eating of snakes” “For these are neither crunchy nor delicious”).  It is quite possible that the only two moods we need to govern speech acts are the subjunctive and the indicative (truth-descriptive). “Let the wise inform me of …”  — could replace the question or interrogative mood.  The indicative could replace the optative (Oh that I could fly like the birds!) — “I [would/do] consider it ideal that/if …”.  In any case, no more than 4 moods seem necessary.

Structure.  The ideal form of writing (which governs the speaking of rehearsed speech) consists in pairs of quatrains.  9 pairs of quatrains would yield a 72-fold structure of writing/ speaking. These form the basic unit of writing and speaking like a mini-chapter in a book. The quatrains are like 4 parallel sentences, set in symmetrical pairs.

Hendiads (pairs) and Connectives (links).  All verbs, adjectives and nouns (really all words) of any real significance – as judged by the writer – transpire in pairs or “hendiads.”  This language pairs almost everything — ideas, words, events, phenomena — in units as of “two kinds.”  It grasps the world as binary and complementary — consisting of male and female, north and south, hammers and nails, names and places, etc.  Its grammar and syntax (way it arranges words to form ideas/sentences) both reflect this real world of physics and DNA — as do its vocabulary choices.

The links that bind its words into pairs are the same as ours in English (and, or, nor, but) — e.g. chocolate chips AND cookie-dough — except that all of the most-oft used ones have a single symbol to replace the word.  So “this AND that” could read “this & that,” where the “&” (ampersand) is actually shown as a small diamond.

Shorthand.  Every language has most-often used words.  Not only does each of these busy words have a single symbol for it  (like the “AND”-diamond), but every one of its most-oft used “parts” has one too.  So its prepositions — like “over,” “around,” “through” each has a designated symbol — and one is assigned to each prefix, root, suffix, etc that can be used to build words, if it qualifies as a “high-frequency” part of speech, or idea, in this language.

Math System.  The way we write and speak about the “many-ness” of it all — oodles and scads of research papers to be written —  reflects the ideal way of counting, which would here involve only even numbers, twos, fours, eights, sixteens, 32, 64 and 72 would be very commonplace kinds of numbers to talk of.  You can say “three,” but you cannot write it using odd #’s.  So to write “3,” you would instead write the binary “6/2,” — regarded as irreducible — when only even #’s are allowed.  We do not write either 1 or 3, so western religion has no representation.  We have no word for “trinity.”  That is to us silly %&^!.   The math system is somewhat like “binary base-8” math, where 64 is the “ceiling” and the number “72” is written “110,” (in base 10 speak); that is, it consists in 1 unit of 64, plus 1 unit of 8, and 0 units of two.  128 is written in base-10 world as 200.  The # 200, 2/2 is the same as 129.  We could shorten it to 200 with a tiny “2” (subscript) at the end, or tiny 2/2.

Taxonomy and Classifications of Nouns and Verbals.  We can classify words and ideas by their most important features (important to the sentence or to the reasons for writing about them) — by giving their categories a symbol or two — and then listing these symbols after or before the words they match.  Then words can link together as important pairs — like tag pairs in HTML.  These paired or grouped words (so bunched together) serve as “context markers” in writing to show how the thoughts of the writer “fit together” in neat patterns that EXPLAIN what in the world THIS is doing THERE.  These pairs can show themes, order of importance, main points, and the like.

This language should prove more accurate and precise, more profitable and scientifically-capable, more adaptive and versatile, more future-oriented and ideal, than any tongue ever invented, when we use these “tag-pair” markers that indicate a precising context, and structural development.

Formal Features and Functionality.   Ancient Greeks sports a feature that divides a sentence in half and contrasts the one to the other.  It means, “Men-”  (On the one hand) followed by information; and then it means “De-,” but on the other hand ….;  “right hand giveth, but left hand taketh away” brethren.  This kind of functionality can be expanded greatly, depending how we could wish to compare the first part written/ spoken with the second.  Here are some of the ways I propose to do this.  Each way of relating part 1 to part 2 receives a symbol that lodges in a particular place — at the beginning of Sentence 1 and then at the beginning of the second sentence after the two link symbols are established.   These could read,  “There is THIS, BUT THEN there is THAT” (men-de);  There is this AND there is ALSO that (of like kind);  This DOES that; This SHOWS that; This resembles THAT; This (dis-) proves THAT — each verb can have its own symbol — Then the second part or sentence can enlist a symbol to show how part 1 relates to part 2 — This, but even MORE that;  This greatly increases that (exponentially?); This completes that;  This unifies that; This subordinates/ coordinates (to/ with) THAT; This equals (to) that; This transcends THAT; This mirrors THAT (symmetry);

Each of these bold words above represents a kind of “function.”  These can display math functions, logical functions, set-relation functions, and can even fit to specific formulae to show or measure scientific calibrations.  We will want to choose and limit our functionality markers carefully — lest we find ourselves ruling the world scientifically and accurately with good will aforethought.  These formal features could alone make the ideal language worth the price of admission.

In the past, I have considered different languages as the best template to start with.  I have left behind nearly all of them, and my current focus aims at “Swiss French” — people in western Switzerland speak this tongue — as the best tongue to begin with for drawing an excellent vocabulary.  Its full vocabulary development will probably derive from several languages, plausibly including vocab. choices from even computer programming languages and scientific dialects from some of the more empirical subdisciplines.  But the ideal language must have an important aesthetic component (“sound beautiful”) and this makes Swiss French a very likely candidate.

More later.

I Shall Continue This Post at some length to bring all up to date when I might.

The Study in the Topic of Our Beloved gods, goddesses and Life

The math of life (1, 2, 4, 8) or [the “accretive”] math of doubling and DNA suggest that this represents the highest numeral value in the most basic math sequence as 8.  8 exhibits the symbol showing the highest number, or superiority concept — or “the greatest in magnitude.”  In my earlier blog posts, you can read that I had reasoned from life – the two base pairs (and 4 proteins) of DNA — together with other arguments — to the cosmogeny of 4 deities.

The math of life bears positive integers only, nothing negative and no “zero” quantity indicators.  Remember that the transcendent [and necessary] nature of human people — means that the math that we use has a tendency over time to create what it names and identifies as real in the real world. Our math, as a function of our language, forcefully and really tends to create what it allows and promotes.  So negative number math creates extraordinary debt loads over time when applied to the world of economics.  We have seen this in recent history. In the modern period, huge debt loads accrued to almost every nation.  Each was using the non-accretive math of negative numbers and zero q-indicators.  We should (must) go the other way.  The math we employ should promote only the abundance of asset-value in the world of economics.  Instead of subtraction, we can use the concept of replacement of value.   We could do the same for division — that is, we could find a substitute operation for “dividing” that replaces the idea of the “value loss” in math, favoring one of growing abundance instead.

In any case, back to 8 as the superior single-digit #.   Here, I begin to expound why I now believe in 8, and why this number could not be higher for any reason — the superior-magnitudinal [biggest #] nature of 8.  This corresponds to the eight “human design” values — our reason for being here:

Wisdom [and understanding], love [and kindness], life [and flourishing growth], beauty [and majesty], value [and proiftability], joy [and happiness], success [and progress] (very importantly) honor [and dignity].

Report: Breakthroughs in the Study of the Ideal Language

Since my recent insights regarding DNA as the intermediate source of life common to us all, I have begun a renewed emphasis upon a more meticulous study of the human anatomy (that is, human design) as a teaching template to show us what we need to know.  For lessons in language, we look to the way our divine parents have created our mouths.  They are both binary and tetratic (4-fold) in every way).

At the first, I considered these features individually, but then later (at the present) I came to think of the parts of our bodies as what we should count TOGETHER in the basic unit of life — one man, plus one woman — which doubles the number of our parts, and in doing so, reveals new insights.  What at the first seems to be a series of 5’s and 10’s (the fingers on two hands and toes on two feet) all of a sudden melt into units of 2(s) and four(s) instead.

If we consider the thumbs on the hand to be something by design other than a finger (its own kind of thing), and then consider them as a set with two people in mind (an appointed pair), then we have four thumbs and 16 fingers. The same could be done with the toes. We could easily adduce further evidence for this view from an cursory examination of the mouth, which moves me to my next topic: the mouth design and ideal speech.

We each have 32 teeth. As a “married pair” (husband and wife “twins”), this gives us 64.  64 is precisely the number of letters that make up the alphabet of DNA.  Language constructs culture and alphabets construct language.  This looks like to me that we should have 64 letters in the ideal alphabet. The teeth, constituted as they are by enamel, are very hard (enamel is the hardest substance in the human body). But the lips and tongue form soft tissues.  Speaking needs all of these components (hard and soft), and this suggests that we are to speak the truth (which can seem very hard) in kindness and compassion (softly), but never by sacrificing the least important truth.  We are to be hard about maintaining the truth (in other words) but soft in the delivery of it.

Onto the letters of the ideal alphabet — here, it seems that symmetry shows up everywhere. The teeth we have are unique up to the number of eight, and they repeat eight times as sets, giving us a total of 64 teeth, represents as 8 symmetrical units. Each tooth is symmetrical after a fashion, showing a binary character. One is even called a “BI-cuspid.”  The question is, how do we have the same letter, with a different sense, 8 times?  One way it could be done in writing is by giving each of the 8 letters its own distinct color (using 8 distinct colors).

In the math of DNA (with the math-form base “2, 4, 6, 8”), the number 8 is the highest number.  64, of course, squares this number. The four proteins in DNA have a unique status as formative for all life, so none of this takes what we think of as the number of true deities any higher than this number (4).  But when it comes to language, the teeth tell the story, not exactly the 4 proteins (directly).

Another form of reasoning that helps here comes from philosophy. Plato held (with many Greeks) the geometric reasoning represents that form of reasoning most basically constitutive of the human mind — what some would have called “properly basic” to the human design, and other would much later call “transcendental” under the label “Quantity” — as in, “quantities, qualities, modalities and relations.”

In geometry, the square represents a kind of “perfection,” because it is symmetrical and can be formed by two right angles only, with two sides (equilateral) — it is a pair of pairs in other words, like DNA.  A kind of “Double perfection” then, would be represented by the equilateral Octagon. This shape is what I believe best represents the divine Persons we serve by our wisdom quest.  The equilateral Octagon to me represents both the wisdom quest, and the Divine Creators, our blessed parents and beloved gods and goddesses.   Those who favor it could find a way to produce a T-shirt with the “e-o” on it, showing to those who understand it, that we are on the same side. Future architecture will also bear this shape. I plan on living in a two-story octagon-shaped house — two octagons stacked one atop the other — to appear as a kind of double torus “House.”

In any case, 8 is in fact the highest number in the math-form of DNA (life-math).  The Octagon symbolizes the math of life, and the greatest number in a finite world.  It forms the basis also for the ideal language.  And this also suggests that our divine parents may in fact exist as double toruses, since they are ideal and four in number, and yet 8 is its doubling, and since the DT represents the IDEAL situation for energy flow. Admittedly, this much remains speculative on my part, and I do not in any way consider it established, but only worthy of consideration.

One last point about language.  So far as I know, of the influential and modern tongues, only the Russian tongue offers anything close to correct number of letters. It has 33.  Arabic has 28, English has 26, ancient Greek (24), and ancient Hebrew had 22.  It also had no vowels. This brings up the OR question (Ockham’s Razor is “OR”) — do we need vowels for the ideal language, or should we count them profitable (to include them even if not nec.) by the principle of added value (criterion of material adequacy as profitability)?

The written Hebrew language functioned without vowels. Later on, for some, this became a problem — for instance, if we wanted to translate it into Greek (watch out for the Goyim and their trickiness) — which did have vowels, which vowels from Greek do we assign to which consonant letters in Hebrew?  Dunno.  OR seems to favor the Hebrew way.  But does profitability, or symmetry favor it?  I shall continue investigating these questions.

Prior to my new (mister toothiness) insights about alphabets I had narrowed down my search to 16 letters –then the whole “tooth analogy” dawned on me.

I have much more to say about the ideal language, and will continue to report my findings on this topic (and those related to it), as time and providence afford opportunity.

Update on the Wisdom Quest: The Double Helix and DNA as model

And now for something completely new, from the light of nature, that is so obvious (since Crick and Watson, 1961) that I cannot BE — LIEEEEVE that I missed it for so long.  Consider the following — Or beloved Creator (s) is/ are life, and DNA is life.  That is, DNA forms the building blocks for all of life.  God is life; DNA is life. Conclusion? In the world of cause-effect similarity, this means that the divine is very much represented to us (on purpose) as the “building language that shows us the divine.”

DNA is my new model.  I reached the same conclusion as that implied by the DNA model by a different life of critical reasoning I was already following when the “DNA model” epiphany awakened me from my dogmatic slumbers. The creation-event (“BB”) transpired when it did, and not earlier.  This suggested to me that something had to function as a bridge between our PERMANANENT and necessary divine parents (2 as suggested by complementarity), and the CHANGING world of history (post-creation).  This “Bridge” I was beginning to suspect was the offspring (twins) of the union of the necessary and first “2.”  These divine beings actually grew and matured (unlike their divine parents), after the former two united.  The changing and growing two grew up into maturity and became identical to their parents when they united, and this second uniting, which bound all four together in a group of two pairs (like DNA) caused the birth of the cosmos, or creation event.

The second divine “generation” yielded the BB creation event. As some have said, “Two witnesses establishes a matter.” This would in fact explain complementarity of the Inanimate world, and the double helix (complementarity of the ANimate world) as a kind of doublet of pairs, just the way that DNA appears to us.

I believe that duality as ultimate in fact implies this conclusion also: 2 implies the pair, which in turn implies 2 pairs, precisely (4).  DNA does in fact bear exactly four proteins (G, C, T, A), and they bond in pairs only, highly specific ones, never traversing the line between the one (pyramidines) and the other (purines).  Life is in fact a pair of pairs — nothing less, or (quantity-wise) more.

Ladies and Gentlemen, we have four gods, or more precisely (by analogy of X and Y chromosomes) 2 finite gods, and 2 finite goddesses on our hands.  They live in a bonded unity or pairs, and form a single divine mind (displayed to us as the light of nature), which is greater by far than any one of them individually, and may be greater than all of them individually — which is why they do not exist AS merely individual Persons.

Although our divine parents may be finite, we should never forget that were we to encounter one of them, we would never be the same, and would probably be spell-bound with awe and wonder. They are IDEAL divine Persons, of unimagined beauty, wisdom and power.  There is no good reason that I know of that would prevent them from taking human form and speaking with us, except our own immaturity and foolishness.

And although they could in fact use language (they would only employ the most excellent and very best, called the IDEAL LANGUAGE — their only and native language — or else the one closest to it that is the best we could use, which looks something like DNA and its base-8 math structure.  Perhaps this would combine with other principles of the light of nature to yield its more mature form.

Our immaturity in part consists in that, after all this time (thousands of years), we have yet to expend sufficient time upon the task of discovering and producing the ideal language which the wise would indeed use to communicate with each other.  We will in all probability not make “first contact” until we obtain the ideal language of our divine parents.  Neither will our prayers be heard in any way as so clear a YES! might be each time we pray (and so often), until such a future moment as we learn to pray in the divine tongue.

I ‘ve Newly Adopted a View Known as Hendiadic Polytheism

My view of the divine is best described as:

  1. Transcendent – The gods existed before, and do now exist “underneath” (at lower levels of scale) the creation. It is proper to say that they were born with the universe (Einstein), meaning in in their present (hendiadic) and 8-fold form, which is permanent and represents an extraordinary kind of progress in the development of both our supremely wise and benevolent Parents.
  2. Finite – Both of our (first two) divine parents, Father (the God) and Mother (the Goddess) are finite, but supreme, divine Persons. Others came later from them as by a kind of necessity (birth).
  3. Hen (One) – Diadic (two-) fold = Hendiadic.  The eight individual, divine, Persons, united into pairs at the Origin of the cosmos, causing the “Big Bang” — divine unity created our cosmos.
  4. The eight divine Parents we have think and live as one, in mindset (Wisdom and understanding), love, volition and purpose.  But they maintain their clear and distinct individuality as real persons. They grow and change together — their relationship is like unto a perfect (ideal) marriage, and community (family).  They complete each other (are complements One of Another).
  5. Eight-fold Theism.  All our divine parents are divine, necessary (Life cannot “not exist”) and transcendent — real Persons. They grow in understanding with the cosmos, and with us, but remain sufficient, inerrant and infallible in their governance of the cosmos.
  6. The divinities are quite free and optimal in every way, and our freedom depends upon Theirs (is derived from Theirs), so that it is quite real, and this limits our divine Parents’ knowledge of the future (which is considerable, but not total by any means).  Our divine parents love us in the extreme, and desire everything most excellent for all of us, especially wisdom and understanding, that causes us to thrive.

“Complementarity?” Yeah. Here, Spooky Quantum Pairs Throw Physicists A (DT like) Curve Ball

Spooky Quantum Particle Pairs Fly Like Weird Curveballs

June 4, 2018
Georgia Institute of Technology
Some particles that can be in two places at the same time and are not just particles but also waves, in this case, fermions, appear to move in even weirder ways than previously thought. Theoretical physicists applied extreme computing power for a week to predict the movements of fermions by including quantum optics, or light-like, ideas in their mathematical, theoretical modeling.
This is an artist’s depiction of what a group of atoms looks like when they merge to a wave-like state. This occurs under ultra-cooling that drops atoms’ temperature to near absolute zero, the coldest possible temperature in the universe. This is not an image of something done in this Georgia Tech study but is intended to help readers picture the particle-wave duality the study considers along with other factors.
Credit: National Institute of Standards and Technology

Curvy baseball pitches have surprising things in common with quantum particles described in a new physics study, though the latter fly much more weirdly.

In fact, ultracold paired particles called fermions must behave even weirder than physicists previously thought, according to theoretical physicists from the Georgia Institute of Technology, who mathematically studied their flight patterns. Already, flying quantum particles were renowned for their weirdness.

To understand why, start with similarities to a baseball then add significant differences.

A pitcher imparts spin, momentum, and energy to a baseball when throwing a curveball, a change-up, or a slider. Fermions’ funny flights are likewise carved by spins, momenta, and energies, but also by powerful quantum eccentricities like entanglement, which Albert Einstein once called “spooky action at a distance” between quantum particles.

In the new study, the researchers even predicted that the particles can act like different quantum balls called bosons to mimic the manner that photons, or [wave/] particles of light, fly.  A simplified explanation of these ultracold paired particles and their odd flights is below.

Read Complete Article?

Comment Summary: Fermions are strange pilots. They fly their “paired particles” in strange ways that imitate a baseball pitcher’s curve-balls and sliders — adding spin and other kinds of “angular momentum,” which, although it may be “conserved,” can still do strange things to one’s flight patterns.  Here, they’ve been caught on cam — in technicolor.