Theo Verelst Diary Page

Sun Nov 25 2001, 21:27 PM

I've decided after good example to write some diary pages with toughts and events.

Oh, in case anybody fails to understand, I'd like to remind them that these pages are copyrighted, and that everything found here may not be redistributed in any other way then over this direct link without my prior consent. That includes family, christianity, and other cheats. The simple reason is that it may well be that some people have been ill informed because they've spread illegal 'copies' of my materials even with modifications. Apart from my moral judgement, that is illegal, and will be treated as such by me. Make as many references to these pages as you like, make hardcopies, but only of the whole page, including the html-references, and without changing a iota or tittel...

And if not? I won't hesitate to use legal means to correct wrong that may be done otherwise. And I am serious. I usually am. I'm not sure I could get 'attempt to grave emotional assault' out of it, but infrigement on copyright rules is serious enough. And Jesus called upon us to respect the authorities of state, so christians would of course never do such a thing. Lying, imagine that.

Previous Diary Entries | List of Diary Pages | Home Page

New Age  

Computer Networks

Diary ?

Is this a diary, still, or what? At some point I decided to use quite some space under that heading to at times ferment, probably teach, or in general make my opinions and knowledge, as far as it indeed prooves to be that, known an audience that is at least out there, considering mails and pagecounter hits and more than a few persons in real life.

The idea of the diary is normally a personal writing, and about anything a person wants to entrust to paper, which is normally never made public. Such a diary I've never had, nor had the desire to have, and the idea on the web was mainly because in life at that time there wasn't much truth or lets say emotional normalness, and because I felt like sharing at least some thoughts and feelings with some who either did the same or who I'd want to reach, or simply because I thought there might be use for such unpaid and unscrutinized writing in public.

Probably not without reason freedom of speech even has been a major issue in western thinking, without question springing from american soil, though freedom to speak about religeous and other atrocities in the end of the middle ages together with the widespread use of bookprint in some form happened in europe just the same.

Now how do such general thought end up on a diary page?

Because in my direct life, they are completely relevant and practical issues and motivating ideas. I don't feel that free to speak about what I seriously and not in badness think as I would want. I'm sure that that is normal in an imperfect world, to protect friends' interest, to not reveal to much of the personal, to make badness forgiven, maybe, but there are important lies and evils in this world, and in the world directly around me that I cannot let live without at least exposure, and when there is hardly anyone I can seriously raise those subjects with because they feel threatened by possibly real threats in their live or in that of others I at least want to make clear what I think for those who have access to these pages, which is luckily just about everyone in the western world, at least.

And I'm sure at least I've raised subjects and produced truth which have affected people, probably also trough these means, and some even wrote me so or otherwise made it clear. I stand for what I belief in enough to normally speaking communicate clearly and openly about it, but few people would seem to have either the interest or lets say the guts or freedom, nicer put, to do so. But with rich families, who are not in power because of their being right, but simply because they're filthy rich, illuminaty, nazi's and catholics, and other organisations like them, wanting to rule also my world, I think it is quite important to kick them out of more than little power (completely is probably unrealistic), which in western history sense isn't alien and achieveble enough, at state, gouvernment, social, religeous and personal level, and formally, in most cases.

Historically, that is by exposure, too, by open gouvernment, by politics even, which are not all too obscure, by having freedom and speaking about what is important in those ways, as the greeks professed, too. The occult is not called hidden for nothing. When the sources of life have starting points in a spiritual which noone realy oversees, which is made of darkness and powers of such, it is not a surprise when the fruits of such lifes aren't good. And when illuminati, satanists of various incarnations, world wide fake religions and such parties have important positions in life, it is going to be damned for sure. And the only way out of there towards freedom I'm sure is the truth. Which has been made fun of by some in the past, when I've mentioned it, but I don't care much.

Engineers without thruth are worth nothing. 'My demon tells me to put these wires here, and that these kinds of design are the better ones'. Huh? What? Seriously?

How many parts are in a TV set? Maybe a 1000? Little resistors, capacitors, a few hands full of coils, depending on wether it is a new or old type, hundreds of transistors, or tubes of course when it is an old set, and maybe hundreds of thousands, in the form of chips, on newer ones, and maybe even millions in the memory of a 100 HZ tv, or one with picture in picure capacities. Lets say at least a thousand recogniseable physical parts go into a decent, working tv set. Electronics parts exist with anything from 2 to maybe a few hundred wires. Most conventional simple electronics parts have 2 or three wires, 2 for resistors and capacitors and simple coils, 3 for most transistors and their equivalent.

How many ways are there to connect those 1000 parts with lets say at least two wires up? The first wire can be chosen from 2000 connection points. The second has 1999 ways to go, at cetera, so we have 2000! (faculty)
possibilities to connect them all up, though there are some possiblities to exclude here, because for instance certain connections make no sense electronically. Still, if I take a working TV set apart by desoldering all the components, put them in a box, and give them to someone who thinks about little anymals creeping out of the sea as something of similar complexity as a working tv set, and let them play around, promising them a million when they end up with a working tv set, I'd not go poor, I'm positive. That number of possibilities is HUGE. If we take 5 parts, we'd have roughly 10! possibilities, which is 10*9*8*7*6*5*4*3*2=3628800, almost 4 million. Maybe they'd not try shortcircuiting every part as a possibility, so we arrive at 3628799 posibilities, and maybe some other cases aren't likely, but simply playing around with them electronics parts at random, is not even going to get you a 5 part piece of machine together right with more probabilty than winning the lottery every time one tries a combination.

Well well. That means that is a tv set works, we can be quite sure that someone designed the thing, and didn't just throw some parts together, hoping the thing will make an image. So the 'key' to the tv machine is quite complicated, though the testing wether it works is easy enough, crt's by themselves make no images, realy, they don't. And the number of ways of using the same parts even in a some messed up way is staggering, and will hardly ever make a working machine, maybe a few parts could be exchanged, maybe a few taken out, a number could be reversed (because that makes no difference with 2 wire parts, often, though certainly not always), but realy messing with the connections and parts in a tv will usually make it inoperative straight away, there are not many alternative circuits to be made with the same parts, realy not that many. And 2000! or so is an incredible number, it probably has at least
over hundreds of zeros, 2000*1999*1998 is a little under 2*2*2*1000*1000*1000, which means little under 8 billion, etc. Those are astronomical figures, not even atomic number figures, more along the lines of the number of atoms on the moon or so, just a guess, but anyhow, the probability of cracking the code which is by putting a tv together from its parts is incredibly negligable when one has no knowledge of tv's and electronics. And even then, the puzzle of putting a tv together from a set of parts which happen to be able to do exactly that is not trivial either, in fact quite hard. Electronicists who design TV's all by themselves are scarce too, I'm sure, which makes it an interesting challenge in general.

The comparison is not geared toward explaining the impossibilities of non-creationist views, but to make clear that when there is a complicated machine such as nature or man or society, or even the spiritual, one would better not be so incredibly optimistic that similar considerations as with respect to tv's do not hold, and are of great importance. In other words, we may make a little polution and think we can get away with it, but at some point our exhousts are going to make nature messed up if we push it. When man is seen as the product of evolution, there is remarkable little variation in his appearance throughout history, and the complexity of the brain is far greater than the complexity of a TV set. Supposing that nature or man works certain ways, such as normal thinking, our senses and control of our muscles, our metabolism and even reproduction of ourselves within quite small parameter changes overall, it is not unreasonable to assume that the TV set comparison goes for our medical and even psychological constitution, that is if we are out of certain correct connections, our bodies and minds are not working much anymore. Remarkably enough, medical science has made clear enough there is quite some redundancy and repair and take-over potiential in our bodies, though the very existance as it is is major proof of the idea that knowledge about detailed and course processes and parts of human beings, when well founded in their physics, can lead to corrections along the lines of what humanly is correct according to normal layout and design.

Messing people up is easy enough, there are bombs which can do that job rigorously enough to kill millions even, within a very short timespan, messing-up capacity in that sense means nothing much anymore. Power to heal and make right is another story. Medical science can be quite miraculous for normal observers, and of course that takes them more than little effort, knowledge, equipment and brainpower.

In society sense, many societies and social systems are known enough not to work right. That, too, it seems it not al too hard to achieve. Messing peoples' relationships up, or making a system corrupted or bad or against certain weak groups in general isn't too hard to do, probably, though there is the power factor involved to affect people and groups of people enough to bring something about. Bombs do that, but not in a social way. False information historically is a obvious way to try to achieve social damage, blackmail, maybe with bombs, is another. Information geared at something else than a persons' well being may work with some effort or time. A doctor could even prescribe a patient a lethal drug, which would work, but soon enough the doctor wouldn't be trusted anymore,

Is it reasonable to speak of a human 'design' in social sense? Probably to quite some extend, though without question protagoras wasn't far of an important viwe, that man is the measure of all things. Animals aren't going to teach men much, nature won't much either, maybe math and physics have a thing or two to say at human level, and the rest is either man thinking or teaching themselves, or the inevitable source of misery, mistery and salvation for some: the spiritual.

I'm convinced that what I've learned long ago from I think a reliable enough person that sense (through the bible course I did at the time) is true: by nature man is not capable of spiritual contact with God who is God, so that apart from those lucky enough to be saved by Him, though His Spirit, not even one person can live according to the real Gods will, or be in touch with Him in prayer. And the misery that comes from that is world wide known as the sinfull nature of natural man having produced all kinds of misery, lies, traps, abuse, exploitation, bondage, killing, and decay. Natural man can do science, be literary, maybe even be decent enough person towards many others, but sin has done damage, and it shows.

Is it reasonable to still speak about a certain image of man as being the main image to see as the design for man or mankind? I am sure that depends on what one acknowledges, is willing to put to scientific scrutiny, honesty, has access to see and compare, and on ones' state of living.

For certain, a pretty model is hard to find by chance, and lets say even deprived and decaying man and mankind can see the beauty as objective value of some person. The why is a logical and probably relevant question. Social justice in certain ways is not too hard to think about. Intellectually, one may want ot at least make clear that apart from wether people deserve to live at all, it is not unreasonable to make sure that people have enough to eat, that they are not made to live in miserable circumstance, that sort of stuff. That probably isn't too hard. Wether a certain person should be president, or wether it is at all desirable to have a form of state and if so what it is supposed to be is harder. It may be possible to see errors in existing, observable ones, but to make one up, let it exist, and let it become something that is worth while is probably at least hard.

Does the TV comparison hold for society in the sense that it is put together in such a way that taking a few parts out or misconnecting them will render it not functional or something completely bad ? Society is made of many humans, and maybe has external source of power, such as the spiritual, and of course the natural surroundings and forces such as the environment, the weather, etc. What if we have a model society and we change one little piece of it? Assuming we can imagine such a model society, the thought experiment would probably lead us to think there is little effect if one little Of course our society