| TIME CUBE 101.com home - theory - mathematics - religion |
| Analysis of the Time Cube Philosophy / TOA of Dr. Gene Ray |
by Squish  |
|
|
 TIME CUBE MATH & LOGIC 101"-1
x -1= +1 is WRONG, it is academic stupidity and is evil. The
educated stupid should acknowledge the natural antipodes of +1 x +1 =
+1 and -1 x -1 = -1 exist as plus and minus values of opposite
creation - depicted by opposite sexes and opposite hemispheres."
--Dr. Gene Ray, TimeCube.com "There are not three dimensions, but rather math says the universe exists in higher dimensional space of twenty-six." --Theory of Hyperspace "6 X 9 = 42" --Douglas Adams As with many of Dr Gene Ray's statements, I think this single claim packed full of things we can extract and debate and think about. You might wager he just made something up on a whim to sound crenius, or you might believe him--as I tend to learn towards--that he spent thirty years of his life reaching these conclusions. Either is equally possible. For a simple equation such as E=mc^2 to resonate through scientific history shows simplicity in math can have incredible power. There's a planet of people who ride green ostriches around, and then one day someone paints his yellow, causing international news. Whenever someone stands behind a single axiom or handful, with utter vehemency, defending them as their life's work and that they have the power to uplift math or logic or science, I might think he's a stupid dumbass, get out my guitar, and laugh at him at my next open mic or on YouTube (things I do quite often), but if I'm smart, at the same time I'd wager the guy on the yellow ostrich is kazooing the same song about me. I've read a reader of philosophy is cheated when told the answers he's reached without a sense of the journey. For whatever reasons, Dr. Ray doesn't seem to reveal any of his methods, just the conclusions. Whether cheated or not, if we're to pursue any understanding of Time Cube theory, I believe our only method is to analyze his claims the way we would of Ramanujan, Confucious, or Tarty the Turtle of the show Greg the Bunny who has brilliantly stated Chocolate ice cream goes in the freezer. My high school physics teacher once had the audacity to disagree with a major conclusion of Stephen Hawking's in one of the most popoular layman science books of all time, A Brief History of Time. This act either comes off a little crazy or genius, as a priest questioning the pope, but not the other. On this particular day, I guage that he won his coin toss. Dr. Gene Ray by chance has lost a much bigger one. Another day during the same class someone told me, "Hawking proved that there exist particles in the universe that behave randomly." This claim is presented with intrinsic backup because of the assumption that Stephen Hawking is pretty darn smart. Because Hawking was smart, my friend claimed, now everybody knows whether there's chaos in the universe or not. If Hawking proved it, that was good enough for him. At the time, I replied with crenius cynicism, how could he tell they weren't patterned beyond his ability to detect them? Then later in life when faced with the problem in philosophical proofs (Hawking's were theoretical physics), I decided Hawking was right. When is an idea crazy, genius, right, or wrong? (Mr. Owl, how many licks does it take to get the center of Cubicism? Crunch. The world may never know). No idea, but for the moment I'm going to give Gene Ray the benefit of the doubt that he has spent the same time reaching his mathematical conclusion -1 * -1 = -1 as Hawking has concluding "Chaos exists." Could I look a fool for inducing complex methods from Time Cube theory if Mr. Ray says tommorrow, "Ha! I was so drunk when I wrote that I don't even remember registering the domain!" Maybe a bit, a bit, but really no, because someone else might have reached the same conclusions after ten lifetimes of thought. J.R.R. Tolkein said that Lord of the Rings was "only a story" and laughed at the English majors who wrote graduate thesis about his saga, but that doesn't demean those interpretations one cubed donut hole. Jesus could have made a bet with a drunk donkey that he could start a two millenia religion based on Barney the Dinosaur's theme song "I love you, you love me, we're all one big family." What a price to pay to win, though. So, let's extract. We're given the following two axioms to consider [1]
Since we're dealing with core fundamental laws, why don't we start at the beginning. To understand method, instead of analyzing the methods of others, we should go through the process of those methods ourselves. It would be a vastly greater educational experience to, instead of being taught algebra, physics, calculus, philosophy, for students to develop the ideas themselves. Of course, a field takes decades and lifetimes of many people to solidify, but then, up to graduate school is about two decades of learning right there, and every class has two dozen people. Why not say, here are the elements, now organize them into a table. Here are the utter basics of syllogistic logic, now go figure out "Barbara Celarent Darii Ferio" your damn selves. For the moment, let's apply this to ourselves with a simlpe task. Go ahead and change the following two things: # brain > math > settings > reset_to_defaults # crenius_epiphanies > crazy_genius_ratio=1:1 Or just "Ctrl-MathClear" in brainchip Vista. No one invented arithmatic, algebra, geometry, or calculus3, after flunking which I 'd completely forgot my algebra to begin with. So, go back to seven years old. The teacher asks: "What do we get when -1 sleeps with another -1?" "Uh, pi?" "Try again, Timmy." "Gay marriage laws?" "Good answer, Suzie! But no." "Domestic abuse?" "No, Johnny, it's one; a negative times a negative is a positve." "Huh? But isn't a positive times a positive a positive?" "Yup." "And a negative times a negative is a positive." "Yup." "But if a negative times a negative is a positive, shouldn't a positive times a positive be a negative?" "You'd think so, wouldn't you?" Am I mocking Western math? No, no, no, I'm trying to argue the vague possibility of its ambivolent blandness, the possibility that other systems could exist. To clear the board. Only then then ask what the hell is correct, if anything, if not everything and/or nothing. If we're to analyze both of these axioms, then we must on one point give Dr. Ray's side the bonus of being much more intuitive than the other. If you think otherwise, ask a child which system makes more sense. I'm betting they'll say the right side makes more sense. Is intuitive always right? No, we think a heavier object should fall faster than a lighter when dropped, but gravity disproves us. But, we could just as well have been born on a planet on which gravity works differently. [2] Lastly, before we finally begin actually asking the question, the last thing we should keep in mind is the limit of the depth of our analysis. Man took a million years to count, from monkeys drumming on rocks with sticks--one, two, one, two--cue 2001 theme--to rock drummers drumming on drums with pointier sticks (incidentally quite depressed their talents are only vaguely within the realm of anything to do with music, but well proud to glue together the stupid dumbass musicians who can't even count to 5/8) and math majors with even sharper wood sticks penciling up proofs that we actually evolved from yellow fungi anyway. (Do we have a million years to debate? My fat cat has a vet appointment in a couple hours, so no, I'm not quite up to that at the moment). And then, remember Dr. Ray has spent thirty years coming to his conclusions, and I don't feel like punching that in to my electronic planner either. We can have a twenty second talk about rootabegas, or study them for a four rotations of the known galaxy. So let's aim for some middle ground. Negative One Oranges I'll start with a scene from the film The Neverending Story that encapsulates the frustration of trying to theorize about what the hell something and nothing and not something are to begin with. A rockbiter--a giant naked rock man who munches on rocks (that elsewhere monkeys might be banging sticks on)--comments all the rocks in his homeland in the North have disapeared, to two others on a journey who begin to comment. "Where I come from in the North we used to have exquisite gourmet rocks, only now...now they're all gone. " "Huh, I know how it happened. " "I swear it wasn't me. " "Hah! Heck no." "I think I know what it was, tell us more." "Near my home there used to be a beautiful lake, but then it was gone." "Did the lake dry up?" "No, it just wasn't there anymore. Nothing was there anymore. Not even a dried up lake." "A hole?" "No, a hole would be something. Nah, it was nothing. And it got bigger, and bigger." Our grammar plays dizzying games when thinking of zeroes and negatives. The existent word "hole" is a confirmation that there is nothing, an affirmation of the number zero. Even further, we could say it's actually referring to a negative. A hole is usually a hole in something, a lack of substance. A lack, a negative, which themselves are words -- somethings -- existent affirmations of the existence of something nonexistent or less than existent. So if we're already fuzzy whether a "hole" is a positive, neutral, or negative concept, then we're in for a very fuzzy ride in deciding how to perform the act of doing something--multiplication--to things that less than exist! Let's be more mundane. I have an orange. I have something, rather than nothing. By chance, I could have had a peach (which I--incidentaly--creniously think is one of the most useful ultimate frisbee throws--but I'm as alone in that as Dr. Ray is in playing Fantastic Four with the planet, and Wikipedia is equally brutal on both issues); I could have a donkey, the August 2006 issue of Maxim, an overdrawn bank statement, a graduate thesis on Negative Utilitarian Ethics, a bottle of Sprite Zero, or a bootlegged DVD of Vincenzo Natali's film "Nothing" (who by a strange co-incidence also directed the film CUBE, a film by another coincidence which was released the same year Dr. Ray came out with his Time Cube theory). So what is a negative? How can I have negative one orange? [3] I stick out my hand, and say, well, "I have negative one oranges right here." "Well, that looks a lot more like nothing to me." "Which nothing, The Nothing?" "No." "The film Nothing?" "No, the number nothing." "Oh, I didn't know that existed." If I have negative one orange in my hand, what does what I have (or don't have, or less than have), look like? Shouldn't it be blue or something? (Orange's inverse color in an RYB color scheme). What's it's shape? If it's not round, if it's negatively round, then what does it look, or not look, or less than look, like? When we speak of applying negative numbers to the physical world around us, we usually say that a negative number means we owe someone an orange. That's what we've been told "negative one oranges" means, and we've accepted that definition all our lives. But start over, examine the concept. Where is this negative one orange that I owe someone? What happens to it if I die? What if Florida is nuked by a guy who thought Vitamin C overdose was stupid dumbass? What if there's no one around? What if I'm all alone. What if I'm Andrew Miller filming the last scene of CUBE and hit a strange time warp that floats me into a a similar white foggy oblivion for all eterntiy? An orange appears in my hand. I say, wow, instead of nothing (or the movie Nothing, which is where I would have thought I was going if I'm Andrew Miller, because he's in that movie too), there's me, and there's this orange. Andrew: Okay, so there's me, and there's this orange. God: That's basically it. Andrew: Hey, where'd my orange go? God: Now you have a negative orange. Andrew: Are you sure? God: Yup. Andrew: I don't see it anywhere. God: That's because you owe me an orange. Andrew: Wtf? Where the flying hell am I going to get an orange floating in the middle of a white foggy oblivion? God That's your problem. Andrew: Well can you jumper me to Florida or something? God: I didn't see Jumper. Besides, it was nuked by evil dumbass right before you got here. Andrew: I'm hungry. So, now that I've spent three pages of foreplay to establish I really don't have a damn clue what it means to have negative one anything (and perhaps established Gene Ray a little more credibility for being able to have a strange opinion), let's finally ask: How do you multiply negatives? Let's start with what "+1 x -1" means. Again, I put out my hand. Procrasinating what the hell it means to have a negative orange, let's just say I have one. Now the most key question possible at the heart of all this: How many of them do I have?? I have a negative orange, so don't I literally have negative one of them? Or do I claim I have positive one negative one oranges? The very idea seems contradictory. Positve one negative one things. We usually apply the number one to somethings. The plus denotes "exists; is something, is more than nothing" But how can I apply "exists" to a subtraction from nothing? That doesn't exist at all. That less than exists. I would have to decide whether the general idea of subtraction from zero is itself an existent, positive idea. The unresolved answer rests on that question. How about "-1 X +1"? If I have negative one something, then it seems like I have negative one of them. And isn't this the exact same thing as saying -1 to begin with? -1 is two characters. A negative, and the number one. A negative something. It's quite literally, negative positive one: (- + 1) (which could possibly be continued ad infininum to - + + +...1). So my personal first guess is -1, which Western Math agrees with. Let's say that's right. Then if -1 +1 somethings is -1 something, then the converse almost leaps forward and punches us in the face: that +1 -1 somethings should be +1. For that matter, we might ask what the negative of an equation is. If we ask what the negative of 1 X -1 = -1 is, it seems to me that this would be -1 X 1 = 1, and if this were so, it would prove Time Cube math theory correct, because clearly in this case the negative of +1 X +1 = +1 would be -1 X -1 = -1. But then, the general coloquial axiom that two negatives equal a positive also seem pretty obvious and straightforward. So who knows. (If we're going to do something so ridiculous, why don't we keep going with childrens' questions and ask why we're not negating the operators? Perhaps it makes the most sense to say - (1 X 1 = 1) is -1 -x -1 -= -1!) [4] Here's a case in math that might help makes Dr. Ray's point. Let's write an equation for determining how many oranges I have if I have X pairs of them. Wouldn't this be oranges = 2 X pairs (of oranges) So if I have 17 pairs of oranges, I have 35 oranges. But what if I have -35 oranges? Wouldn't that be 17 pairs of negative oranges? But the equation says otherwise. Given -35 = 2 X P, then P = negative 17. -35 oranges here equates to -17 pairs. It seems sometimes our intuition doesn't balance out mathematically. If negative two oranges means I have negative one pair, i.e. if a negative on one side means we should discuss that thing in the negative, then perhaps it would be more correct if we have -1 oranges, to say we have negative one of them (-1 * -1 = -1), instead of positive one negative one oranges. It could possibly be seen as splitting hairs; a mindless issue of notation. Tomaato or Tamahto. Apples or oranges. Let's say I love oranges and hate apples. Let's say my oranges turn into apples when I break up with a girlfriend who's sense of taste got tragically warped by pregnancy hungers of the unwanted baby. For multiple reaons, I'll probably call this apple a negative orange, and vice versa. If I have three ex-girlfriends who each eat four apples a day (including a little apple baby food), then I have to pay 12 apples of alimony and child support. I would probably write this as -3 X -4 = -12! Remember, I have no answers, no thesis here; my point here is to place Dr. Ray's Time cube theories in the arena of logically debatable math and logic theorems. Dr. Ray's Time Cube math isn't just plain mathematically wrong. Our system is a convention and we work with that convention. If we use his, then we simply change a few plus and minus modifiers here or there, and the way we talk about fruit--including gay florists--and partial birth abortions. Who knows, maybe it's a small price to pay for the salvation of the human race. Conclusion Personally, after evaluating Dr. Gene Ray's Time Cube math, call me crazy, but I think it's much more genius than crazy. I'm not trying to praise my own theses; I'll admit I've had similar theories in regards to philosophical logic, but I doubt I ever would have come to this conclusion in mathematics. If everyone says Hawking is brilliant, then only someone in the middle--my high school physics teacher--can explain why. If only Hawking says Hawking is brilliant, then he's a stupid dumbass. Dr. Ray claims he's the wisest human. Again, I say, wisest = dumbest ^ -1. So, crazy or genius or both or neither (or sort of one or the other), saying "-1 X -1 = -1" in resistence to millions of years of Harvard math major anscestors banging on rocks along with Neil Peart's great-great-great grandfather, is definitely, radically, crenius. LINX Time Cube Numbers and Symmetry (a book I recommend) Wikipedia Entry for Logic Gradeschool Math: Multiplying Positives and Negatives Introduction to Logic Textbooks | ||||
[1]
- In logic, the teaching of only a handful of the logical operators
(logicians' favorites) always baffled
me. The truth tables for our favorite two, 'and' and 'or', would
come up "0 0 0 1" and "0 1 1 0" which I thought was totally random.
Wouldn't it make more sense to use xor instead of or and have the
first two "0 0 0 1" and "1 0 0 0"? That's how I would do it.
It took me creative thought just to realize that there were actually 16 logical operators, not brought up in an entire 600 page logic textbook I went through. In
approaching a TOA from a "total perspective vortex" like Dr. Ray does,
refuting convention, we should endeavor right at the beginning,
take all the possibilities into account, to see who the hell else we
might be arguing with. In dealing with X 1 * Y 1 = Z 1 where
x,y,z is a plus or minus modifier, we have sixteen possible theorems
regarding all four combinations of X & Y (+ +, + -, - +, - -).
Where 001 means -1 * -1 = +1, we have the following
possibilities, where XYZ in base two is the number of the numbered
possibility minus one. Western math claims arithmetic works at
number 10.
[2] - I believe--if I understand Dr. Ray at all at this point--that he might point out here that intuition and gut itself is a negative of confusion or bafflement, just as he's stated that education is a negative of ignorance. That instead of the entity of one or the other--making sense, or not--each is created from the other, a balance of opposittes, but that seems a more complex discussion. [3] - We might ask whether discussing negative numbers equates discussing negative objects. If I have "negative one" oranges, is that the same as having a "negative orange?" Here I don't really try to distinguish between the two. [4] - Clearly we could debate in theory what the hell any of this means ad infininum, which is how big the topic of negativity is. If we really wanted to start a whole new field of Negative Fuzzy Logic and just plain go schizo, we could ask the relationship between the numbers, operators, and modifiers (+/-), and all their negatives. For 1 * 1= 1, that would be five binary possibilities, and so we'd have 32 expressions alone. A full theorem would be which of the first four possibilties are true, and which are false (the last bit), so here there would be 2^16 or 65,536 theorems to evaluate and decide the single one that's not stupid dumbass. It is believed the images on this site are allowed under the Fair Use Act of 2007 |