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.
I've not been all to aware of the existence of that kind until I read various texts about the subjects as part of what I would call sort of christian education, because some men that at least desered some respect for that put such text and books and recommended literature lists. It may be common knowledge for certain parts, but I don't agree that therefore it is not needed that the subjects is raised, or that it isn't needed to reliably and accurately deal with it and produce truth about it.
It's common knowledge that the environment is going to waste pretty damn rapid even. Common knowledge. That love will not conquer all, but that certain ways of live 'experimented' with in the sixties are more worth it is also pretty common knowledge, yet isn't effective at all completely in the world. That Jesus is probably more worth it than the devil (whereever that one is at the moment), also pretty common knowledge.
Does it than again end with the rich, probably catholic, maybe some jews, that want to rule the world because they're too evil and stupid to think straight, or simply because they've never learned to lie good enough? As in the Rothshields, probably the rockefellers, and the europeans making the 30 happen again? Or lets say the middle ages where anyone rich and if you're lucky the poor can buy their salvation from the church state system that didn't need the nazi's to violently rule the world. I'm not sure everyone is aware of what that was like, I learned that stuff in primary school (a most probably very far from perfect, protestant one), but realy, those nice churches were built over the back of workman that apart from being otherwise abused had to buy their alledged eternal salvation by paying actual money to that church system, and were usually not even capable of paying the debts from their ancestors which they inherited, rendering them actual, effective slaves for their whole lives.
That stuff was for real, and it didn't pass as a phase for world dominion, when the catholic system virtually ruled the world, it didn't become nicer or abolished itself, it was just as delusive, abusive, greedy for power and money, bad to the bone and religeously and otherwise utter evil as it has ever been. Not nice in any way at all. Lengthy and bloody wars were fought most likely for your and my constitution too, to get away from the betrayal that is inherent in that system, and that it always drags in, and the only reason that the west is so relatively prosperous, integrating over lets say 1500 years of history is that starting with the religion people got away from the modus operandes that so damned the whole of life in the middle ages.
And any religion that effectively does and preaches the same makes you and the world end up similar, that I'm convinced of.
"A part of the root of all evil is the greed for money", it says in some biblical text (I forgot where, it's a retranslation, I'll do this stuff accurate as I have opportunity). Is that so ? The riches the roman catholic church was historically after certainly make that clear. And other churches, too. And in the world, I'm sure I've long forgotten to remember the stories about the (rich) illuminati, world power plots, the rich families financing revolutions such as in russia and influencing the ones in france (I think they were illuminati that apart from money games also played information, spiritual and plotting games that in the end cost many the quillotine, for at least clear enough reasons). In russia, where the revolution was (for how much?) financed by I think it were the Rothshields from the us (I think from new york), appearently ended by considerations that would put the production means in the hands of the state, without question to counter such principles. That that didn't work good enough should not necessarily be seen as failure of the ideas of 'prophets' (marx and engels) that in their turn also were sponsored by the same illuminati circles, and at least the russians could have been worse of in the end.
Who is against all that? Who is saved from such lives, and who is privilidged enough not to live in it or even act without such means or bounds?
I'm certain many people exist that are against major parts or all of this, and even can show the fruits to prove it. In general, I gather it is not for nothing that the supposed word of God (the real one, not the stupid humanly and demonically rooted spiritual shit a four year old probably doesn't even realy take serious) uses such strong expressions to indicate the state of unsaved man and mankinds naturally declining world.
Is it possible to go against the powers that in spite of general knowledge are so much and so evil, with or without that real God making it possible, and if so what happens and what are the results? I think in principle it isn't possible to seperate the subjects, since I'm sure the real God and that wannabee thing that would want at least one planet to lie about that it actually could call itself god (without ever having made a damn thing) have everything to do with the roots of the problem.
For individuals and environments not directly in touch with such thinking, I think it should be possible to make use of what is to some degree there in various parts of various societies to live, and not make things all too bad, though probably not very presentable. I'm sure that for christians of the real kind, including persons trusting Him to win of the things the world system in its evil forms has against them to some extend, and that for the ones in His service, which is only reasonable when Christ personally saves a person, it is to be considered common that that victory is aimed for and achieved where appropriate.
Yet they are important socially, economically, scientifically, and probably cognitively, maybe psychologically, and certainly to some extend philosophically. Is it possible to make a 'law' to make computers work right, to specify the bounds and inner workings of their behaviour, is it possible to oversee and master every little thing deterniming how they tick, who creates them (if that is applicable terminology), and why, is it possible to raise any subject related to it and give conclusive answers with normal certainty?
For some time, people can live with and to some extend understand that computers can work together. They can do so in a scientific environment to take part in the same computation, they can do so to carry internet data between a web browser and a server computer, and they can even for some time already to put to cooperating work to see wether intelligence can be detected in radio telescope signals.
All these examples are not very intelligent, though some quite complicated to understand. They are of a kind of behaviour where information is spread about some known problem, which is solved in a known way by every computer taking part, without much communication during computation, and the main communication paths being understandable, logical, and only in the case of a larger portion of the internet complicated, but the methods are still understandable.
What about computers communicating all the time, in many ways, with many meanings, and various types of data? It is quite possible to let you tv automatically show channels or content based on the way of walking back from your office. And then over the whole of your life communicate that back with your mothers computer, estimate what your next met girlfriend will be, and make your car not start when the computer programmers that made it's microcontroller bleutooth to the home computer network that you shouldn't be allowed to chose another.
Technically possible. And link it with some master computer file where the balance of your life for the God of the numbers is made up in some secret and high obscure way to decide wether the next time you want to go through your companies' gate your picture will be put on a world wide list of incapable computer programmers, without human intervention. Possible. No problem. And it is quite possible to then make, as in certian movies, phones do imitations that the religeous people that want and need such a system guide, that make you believe quite a lot, and be deluded as to who is on the other side, and even easier maybe with emails (no so easy over the whole of things, depending on supplier and account holder).
It all depends on what the machines are programmed to do.
And realy, they are in normal modes of operation hard to follow every nano-second, for every of its billions of transistors (cmosfets), and the exact timing of ethernet packages may not be easy to predict, but overall the behaviour of a correctly functioning computer system is completely to the very last bit controllable, knowable, plannable, and according to certain technical, not idea wise, logic. I dare say that there is not a computer system in the world that I couldn't understand in all major components making up for their behaviour. The transistors, the logical circuits, the way they make bigger units, the strucures they form, and the systemwise actual bitflow. It may take incredibly much work, but it can be followed pretty much to the very bit (1 or 0) level what they do, and software can only make use of that what the electronical infrastructure can provide it.
And software too is not magical, nothing in it can not be understood, even in normal enough human thinking, though for larger programs or special computers, it may not be easy.
That means that software to start with is not something that has a religeous, symbolic, non-scientific value because of its constituents. It can be made to do anything that a computer is capable of achieving, that is another question, but there is no reason to assime software has a 'divine' or specially important property that puts it outside where it came from: science, electrical engineering experiments, and mathematicians thinking of fun enough of interesting ways to make use of certain circuits.
It is possible to let it have big effect, put it in a rocket on a save, fast, and reliable computer, and it can accurately blast away targets very far away taking any path, and with great desctructio as a consequence.
Just like with book print, a liarish book or pamphlet like mein kampf can be spread with great evil as a result. Or being prevented.
Software can be used to amplify the behaviour of the nostrils of a flee, to after some magnification and image processing jobs do the whole of einsteins cat experiment in a twenty minute time scale with the whole existance of the surface of the earth. For real. Technically no problem: vibration frequency under 6 herz: nothing. Over 6 herz: there fly the missiles: boom. What a power. No problem technically, except I dont know wether flees have nostrils. And who determines how they vibrate.
I'm sure there are deamons in line making clear they can, and that the experiment is worth it for the god that wants to rule the world. Yea, right.
The no is for two reasons: first the complexity, which is absolutely illegal in any continent scientific thinking to be compared as a whole machine. Second, there is a spiritual component that nay not be modelable by a computer approach, I don't know. Is God like a computer node in the spiritual network, that is what such thinking amoung other things leads to.
There are various religeous, philosophical, technical, scientific and general human arguments against adopting such a view, assuming the subjects involved in the choice are advanced enough to appreciate the ideas in the comparison. Or have better images, of course, which in the area of computer science I'll normally not anticipate, for objective enough reasons, because I'm quite well aware of pretty much all the areas involved, and provably so. I know about the physics, pretty well even, certainly phenomenologically and historically, with more mathematical backup than many physisists ever have, I know about electronics, at university and industrial level where only a few are realy above because or specialisms, long standing modeling work, or access to special equipment, and have long and effective experience in the area, I know of course all the electrical engineering materials from the normal curriculum, and pretty much up to and beyond PhD level intimatetly, and have achieved practical and working results with that knowledge, I officially know more than enough about the basics of networks, and professionally most lines of thinking minus imtimate knowledge of generally describeble behaviour of protocols and routing algorithms, and I and nowledgeable about scientific simulation techniques and software for them, I have official and up to world top level knowledge of many software areas, including the roots of many of them, and am also aware and knowledgeable enough about theoretical and lets say explorative mathematical models both for current computer operation models, and non-existing ones, into the fields of lets say 'the unknown', and have more than enough scientific track record to be considered capable of decently dealing with such knowledge.
In short, a computer system is very limited, call it one-dimensional in its computations, which is desirable when programming it in general, but which makes it model-wise hard to use on other, real life, behaviour modeled as theoretical machine. A computer can simulate various behaviour, but to take a quantum model for one atom, and without simplifications compute what the possibilities are to resolve the uncertainties in it or lets say compute what it looks like, would take all the computers in the world a galactic time scale amount of work to find the answer. Check official, recent enough theoretical physics books if you don't believe me.
The methods of operation in a computer are also not a good model of what happens in many other types of machine-like models, for instance the communication behaviour, which is very basic between computers, and the fact that computers are mainly machines working in logically consequetive patterns, and not as inherently connected pieces of a whole. The latter and former can be succesfully simulated on computers, but it is not fair to compare them as in the fundamental modes of operation.
I'm quite seriously sure that computing all relevant behaviour that with the current state of medical science can be modeled from a single out out of the 4 billion neurons in a human brain takes considerable scientific effort, and can by far not be done anywhere near real time on contemporary computers. Depending on the limitations of the model, and the specificness of the experiment, some behaviour may be succesfully modeled, and veryfied against practice, including the analog, structurewise and timing behaviour of it all.
What does God have to do with all this? Assuming He has something to do with the whole of things and persons that exist, probably created it all, it can be assumed that finding out about His universe wound most likely start with funding out about Him, and His ways. Though much of science may only have roots in such ideas, it is hard to circumvent the subject when so much comes together that could be so diverse, like noise without connections, when all things are by chance and certain physical laws gouverning the events.
Without going into the potential reliability and probability of biblecodes finding their fulfillment, it is quite unlike how many things hold together, and in a beta-science type of way, a scientifically done experiment suite about computer behaviour and some kind of hidden variables' behaviour is nice and relevant to bring to attention again. At princeton and other plaves experiments were done on random generators in computer, which are lets say 'stupid' mathematical formulas that produce seemingly random number sequences. In short, it has been shown way beyond normal statistical relevance thresholds that when half a nation is watching the superbowl, the random sequences' variance changes significantly when the computers are just continuously checking their own random patterns. And this is not pseudo science, as far as I can oversee the experiments are done over long periods of time, with care and experimental decency, and the results are not tampered with, though of course that requires trust in the credibility of the researchers and their prestigeous enough institutions.
That means those patterns somehow show correlation with public events that are certainly not made to comply with their content. We're talking about statistical properties of thousands of numbers on a row compared with scoring in the superbowl here. Remarkable.
Does it please God to play such games with numbers, starting the whole thing up at or before the big bang so such things come togehter? It is scriptural that there is no time with God, which may suggest He is into simpily overseeing the whole of such things, including quantum mechanics and mathematical reasoning and the makeup of numbers, it's just that no sane human would try. At least its hard to trick.
And quantum mechanics is mean stuff, realy, it's generating more uncertainty, and rules to make clear certain things cannot in principle be known by us, the amount of lets say noise in an atom is incredible, and the variations are rapid enough to defy any nornal method of being in touch with what goes on, except statistically based, and for certain variables. Within limitations, quantum physics and computer models can do quite a job at computing what our smallest particles are up to, but only for a few of them at the time, and it takes much, much work. And the processes at sub atomic and atomic scale, lets say the motions, are fast, incredibly fast.
The whole of the machinery they span can therefore not by far easily enough be seen as computers as we know them, the circuits and logic in those are made to be understood and do exactly what we can predict, which is quite not so at various scales and levels of physical and related behaviour in nature.
One might argue that the brian and human thoughts are for certain like certain types of computer programs, which provably is nothing but bull and wishfull wannabee selffullfilling prophecy stuff, that probably has everything to do with some evil persons and their deamons going for supreme positions in their own little damned and liarish pantheon.
In the end 'de mens wikt, God beschikt', official dutch proverb for stating that man may think what they want, but in the end God decides, or a less tendentious rendering of the same idea?
I think of course, but the question is about what, and why, and are there any rules? I think about whatever He chooses to occupy himself with in any way He choses, and He made at least a fair amount of rules known world wide in clearly enough readable form.