## Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

Ratings:

210 pages3 hours

The first essay upholds the views of Pythagoras regarding commensurable units. Non-Euclidean geometry is critiqued. A cubic view of existence is offered intimating that the Holy of Holies and the Kaaba hold their sway over men's minds based on this truth. The second essay offers a theory or algorithm based upon pushing forces and rejects invisible attractive forces as a reasonable explanation for invisible action at a distance. It offers the suggestion that harmonic transformation of matter is possible by utilizing electromagnetic energy in ways only intimated at to date. The third essay suggests that the mind can use multiple kinds of language based on sight, sound, voice, smell and taste. It suggests this would produce super-intelligent men. The fourth essay speculates that terraforming the earth is possible and could leave us with a new Garden of Eden. The fifth essay deals with the ways in which perception could be and is manipulated to lead men to false conclusions. It carries the argument over to ethical questions and honesty between men. The sixth essay deals with famous paradoxes and the explanations that can explain them. A major theme is the difference between stated facts and stated intent. The seventh essay returns to the debate between nominalism and realism, siding with the realists. This essay repeats and amplifies mathematical and metaphysical notions in the prior essays. The eighth essay upholds the reasonableness of deism against atheism using mathematics and metaphysics to do so. A supplementary article attacks the problem of irrational numbers and transfinite numbers from another perspective. Many of the same arguments are used in these essays but explained somewhat differently. The points are important and need to be worked over and over in the mind to get the reader on the right track. The ultimate intent of this compilation is to free men's minds from error and open up the golden road of truth, straight and narrow, leading to a pleasant world that men have so long pined away for.

Publisher: Edward E. RochonReleased: May 17, 2013ISBN: 9781301881703Format: book

GOLDEN AGE ESSAYS

*(2nd Edition) *

By

Edward E. Rochon

SMASHWORDS EDITION

* * * * *

PUBLISHED BY:

Edward E. Rochon on Smashwords

Golden Age Essays

*(2nd Edition) *

Copyright © 2013by Edward E. Rochon

Thank you for downloading this eBook (set your own price.) This book may not be reproduced, copied and distributed for non-commercial purposes, unless prior permission is given by the author.

Your support and respect for the property of this author is appreciated.

This book is a work of non-fiction and refers to no specific living persons, or current places, or current locales unless specifically mentioned. There is one short work of fiction embedded in one essay. The historic personages mentioned are described from historical information that may or may not be accurate, but whose description seems likely or at least possible to the author.

Reading Material

*****

NOTE TO READER: This is a compilation of essays where the original hyperlinks for each essay were left in but modified for the compilation. It is hoped that this will help and not hinder the reader. Do not expect to return to the main table of contents unless you specifically choose that hyperlink. There is no central listing of hyperlinks as this would tend to be cumbersome and more confusing. Because these essays require some reflection, it was felt that hyperlinks would be helpful for these otherwise short works. There is also a considerable amount of redundancy in the works (glossaries for example) that was deliberately left in. These essays are closely linked around certain themes and it is useful for the reader to be reminded of this. The essays do not appear in the order that they were published but ordered according to the apparent interest of readers based upon browsing, with some modification for subject continuity. Some further editing has been done since first separate publication of the essays.

**Title Page **

**CUBICS: A NUMBERS ESSAY **

**UNIFIED FIELD THEORY: AN ESSAY **

**SUPER INTELLIGENCE: AN ESSAY **

**MARS SQUARED EQUALS EARTH: AN ESSAY **

**OCTOPUS BALLS **

**LIAR ENIGMA AND OTHERS: AN ESSAY **

**CONTRA NOMINALISM: AN ESSAY **

**CONTRA PANTHEISM (ATHEISM): AN ESSAY **

**The Arithmetic Angle (A Non-Algebraic Approach) **

**About the Author **

**CUBICS: A NUMBERS ESSAY **

**Title Page **

**Preface **

**Introduction **

**Chapter 1: Axioms Concerning the Infinite **

**Chapter 2: The Nature of a Continuum **

**Chapter 3: Arcs Are a Misperception **

**Chapter 4: Rectilinear Lines and Diagonals **

**Chapter 5: Vanishing Points of Line Segments **

**Chapter 6: Orthogonal Foundation of Perception **

**Chapter 7: Where to from Here **

**Figure 1: Unit Square Illustration **

**Commensurable Theorem **

**Preface (3rd edition) **

*From ancient times there has been a prejudicial inclination to view the universe in terms of a set of spherical objects or, to coin a phrase, a globular view of physical reality. And given the natural (or supernatural) tendency to generalize from the particular to the general, this globular view colored - influenced many men’s view of the metaphysical reality behind history as well as their conception of the nature of the universe apparent to their senses. For example, the ideal of perfection demanded that the faraway celestial spheres of planets, sun and moon must be perfect spheres. Since these same spheres were commonly thought to be gods or some manifestation of the gods, the tendency to idealize them as somehow perfect in whatever sense taken came easily to their minds. The spheres were perfect spheres, the orbits were perfect, the spherical substance somehow different in the sense of being incorruptible and not subject to whims of any kind. This was so much so that even the gods themselves became subject to some higher existence called fate that the gods dare not try to alter for fear of throwing existence back into some primordial chaos. *

*On a parallel note the very concept of eternity itself was/is seen in terms of the globular and more easily encompassed circle. The circle is seen as the perfect symbol of eternity as the circumference of the circle has no beginning or end except as arbitrarily chosen. One simply goes around and around forever on the same finite course, whether symbolized by the circle itself, or the twisted figure eight manifestation of the circle that is our current symbol of infinity and so eternity. Holy men appear with halos about the head, indicating close bonding and affinity to God. One hears of eternal cycles of history, life and so forth, all harking back to the same globular world view. The microscopic is likewise seen in terms of tiny atomic spheres and miniature solar systems and galaxies. *

*As the reader must already divine, I take exception to this as the title of this essay, pocket treatise indicates. I propose to offer a cubic view of the physical universe. I hope to accomplish this as clearly, simply, briefly and in as orderly a fashion as I am able. And I have some hopes that this will improve the lot of life in this present era considerably beyond what the case was when these matters were first written about and passed down to us in a public fashion, during the age of ‘the squalor that was Greece, the ignominy that was Rome’. *

[Note on second edition]

*This is a second edition to my recently published work. My attempts at a theorem for commensurable values eluded me. I have replaced them with what I have always known to be true, and this can be found in Chapter 4. Doubtless the advocates of irrational numbers will not find this convincing. This is regrettable for irrational numbers cannot be rationally maintained. I wish that I could find the actual integer to resolve the unit square problem but have not done so. A few other minor corrections have been made in the text. *

[Note on third edition]

*It happens that I botched my theorem for commensurable units on the second edition as well. It appears the previous versions have been downloaded as the work was processed quickly by the publisher. I have a very difficult time seeing my own errors and so must endure these embarrassments. The current theorem in Chapter 4 is based on two axioms that are evidently true. This has been my standard argument supporting Pythagorean commensurables for some time but wanted something fancier before publishing this essay. Not being adept at mathematics and under the spell of one of my brainstorms that impair my memory and cognitive abilities, I foolishly offered arguments not valid as theorems. I am still working without the benefit of an editor and hope to change that in the future. This is a second update on my 3rd edition with hopefully all important syntax errors removed, but then how would I know? ***Back to Table of Contents **

The purpose of this introduction is not to explain the scope of this work, already dealt with in the preface but to explain how objections to the concepts dealt with here are perceived by the author. As you might guess or come to realize, cubics requires a cubic physics as well. And while it is true that a science as such conceived in the modern English language sense of the term, must deal exclusively in the realm of the rational and so the realm of the finite - the infinite cannot be grasped by reason (which has not stopped many from doing so in the world of math and science) - it is certainly permissible to touch on the metaphysics of reason and of eternal verities in as much as reason itself and eternal concepts come into play in the process of reasoning and defining a science. True science cannot say anything definitive about the infinite in a positive analytic sense, but reason can divine the existence of the infinite and certain characteristics by arguments of exclusion. As Sherlock Holmes might say, Once all other possibilities have been excluded, what is left must be true, no matter how paradoxical or incomprehensible that conclusion appears to be.

(a paraphrase.) In other words, just because we cannot define something, does not lead to the conclusion that said something does not exist without some positive proof to the contrary. And as for eternal verities, that 2+2=4 is eternally true as well as the general additive axiom underlying it, these are just that - eternally true.

Moreover, while it is true that a great deal of the speculations of celebrated scholars of the past can plainly be seen to be false, many of the matters of science and metaphysics covered by these ancients come back into favor in light of some new notion. And I perceive that some notions rejected by many in times past were in fact on the right track but were rejected because the paradox that motivated this or the conclusion could not be explained away at that time. It is the nature of paradoxes to be a double edged sword like the truth itself. While the ancients rejected some conclusion because of the paradox, the very nature of the paradox involved some notion or value that seemed to be true despite this objection so that others later on or even in the same time period took the opposite side of the paradox. So the objector rejected the objection to his notion or value even if he could not truly refute the objection. And more often than not, the objector simply deluded himself that the objection was not valid by some spurious line of reasoning. I will resurrect some of these rejected objections here.

For example, the notion that calculus answers the objection made by Zeno's paradox of Ajax on the racecourse, to the existence of motion. We all perceive motion and telling us it is an illusion is not helpful. We would just as soon dispense with reason or engage in some sophistry. In this case the sophistry involves running two absurdities parallel to each other: that time is infinitely divided at the same time as distance and so we have a one to one correspondence between each point in time and each point in space. This is supposed to explain something! Something doesn’t add up, but by making a one to one correspondence to something else that doesn’t add up - case solved! As if it were a case of a man too dimwitted to count his fingers to know if he had the same number of fingers on each hand and solves the problem aligning his hands. He still can’t count to five but has solved his puzzle. Well Zeno’s problem was not that he could not count the half distance of the racetrack, and the half distance of the half distance and so on, but rather that the series could not be counted period. There is clearly no such thing as a potentially infinite traverse in the physical universe. An infinite series cannot be achieved. Another example is the infinitesimal, the very small extension of space that is evidently no extension of space at all - the little thing that is and is not at the same time.

And from these arises the transfinite number. It seems to appear that now infinity is not a counting number (as indeed it is not) because we cannot count it anyway! But that doesn’t matter because we are going to count up to infinity anyway while denying that we can count to infinity. Because just like the dimwitted fellow who can’t count his fingers we can put our so called infinite number strings together like our hands. Problem Solved! Oh by the way it turns out that infinity is in fact more than infinity depending on which infinity you are counting. This is maintained in spite of the fact that it is axiomatic that that which has no limit cannot be exceeded. And don’t tell me I need to count all the numbers in eternity to know this. Just because I might find it difficult to count all the little particles of the universe, does not mean I cannot count two particles and two more particles and add them to four. My not knowing the one doesn’t invalidate the other. Just because a man is ignorant of many things, doesn’t make him ignorant of everything as necessary corollary of his ignorance. But a man who denies what is self-evidently true is a hopeless case whether he can count all the electrons in the galaxy or not. All the knowledge in the world is of no value to you if you cannot see the world with a clear eye - this most fundamental thing - to see clearly so as to know the truth. **Back to Table of Contents **

**Axiom 1**: For a limit to be transited, the limit must exist

**Axiom 2**: That which has no limit cannot be transited, there being no limit to transit

**Axiom 3**: The infinite has no limit and cannot be transited

**Axiom 4**: The infinite cannot be bisected there being no extremities to calculate it

**Axiom 5**: The boundless cannot be divided, added to or positioned since these require boundaries

**Axiom 6**: That which cannot be arithmetically divided is indivisible

**Axiom 7**: The infinite is a continuum and uniform as correlate to its indivisible nature

**Axiom 8**: The indivisible infinite is not a number since it cannot be a summation, product or quotient

From Axiom 8 above it can be seen that the Paradox of Zeno where Ajax or some runner is forever dividing half the distance of the racetrack while completing the course can never be refuted. It is not possible to place a limit on the number of divisions of the race track; correspondingly it is not possible to achieve a number that does not exist even potentially. Infinite summation or division neither exists as a potential fact nor in any sense when applied to a finite world of space and time. As mentioned previously, one to one correspondence between moments of time passing and distances covered while running the race in no way removes the obstacle. The problem is infinity being used as an arithmetic operator. This cannot be so, and this seems to be what Zeno had in mind. Therefore one must use another explanation to explain how Ajax completed the race.

From the eight axioms above it must be concluded that infinite objects, space, time or any series of quantitative values are undefined, meaningless and untrue. Only the juxtaposition of the words and foggy ideas of number in the mind of those who use these juxtapositions have any valid existence. One can always speak of a square-circle by combining two words. But squares are not circles, nor circles squares. It is not possible for a square to have an infinite side, since this would entail its perimeter and diagonal exceeding a value that has no limit and cannot be exceeded. At any rate, it is not possible for a side or line to be infinite, so the conclusion is frivolous. **Back to Table of Contents **

Axiom 7 above states that the infinite is a continuum as a correlate to its indivisible nature. Whatever this existent state is, it is the same nature without any complexities, sub-divisions or other distinguishing attributes that might pertain to finite objects. Its relationship to other states that must by their very nature be considered aspects of a continuum must be tentatively placed in another form of existence. Awareness itself is seamless though it may be aware of many distinct things with varying degrees of complexity. As a special case divine awareness would be all pervasive. Man's awareness is not all pervasive but one could never correctly place a limit on it. Man's mind assumes what is behind the closed door and beyond the horizon and so reaches beyond the limits of his perception. This additive property is as certain as the additive axiom that any number can be increased by 1 and so on. Sentiments fill the consciousness though they are commonly triggered by and associated with incidents. Thinking as opposed to sentiments involves particular sequences of terms and situations. These continuums are classed under the mind. This ends the scientific investigation of this matter.

There is a qualified continuum in space and time which is a matter of perception. When we speak of an object as a whole, the whole object is treated as one contiguous thing (continuum). When we define or analyze the object it ceases to be a continuum. The parts as distinct from the whole are different from the whole, but the sum of the parts is a synonym for the whole and so like the whole. There is no logical discrepancy here.

Since mathematics deals with the relationships between the one to the many, whatever that one may be, there can never be a valid mathematical argument that posits or depends upon an operation involving continuous juxtaposition of number lines, geometric objects or equations. These things are only continuums when perceived as the apple is perceived when viewed as a whole. All arithmetic operations are discrete

You've reached the end of this preview. Sign up to read more!

Page 1 of 1

Close Dialog## Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

Loading