Paradox Examples

The old words are easy: no name existed before Creation was created, and no name can now be given to the unknowable original cause of Creation, but names can be given to all that were created and are now knowable. The unknowable origin of Creation cannot have the same boundaries as created things, but all that are created and knowable, are knowable because they have boundaries that can be seen.

The old words agree with what is logical: a created thing cannot know that which created it. Unfortunately, many people believe that the Source of Creation has similar boundaries — three-dimensional form — as what Creation has. Also, many people believe that the unknowable Source of Creation can be given a knowable name.

The laws of Nature — Nature's way — dictate what is true, and what is false. It might appear to be a simple thing to reason that Nature rules man, and that man does not rule Nature, but many people appear to forget, and to begin believing that they can do things that are not possible in Nature.

The Source of Creation, its creativity is without boundaries — it is as an open system — but the created things are as closed systems, and have boundaries. Created things can invent methods of measuring themselves, but the measure of a closed system's boundary is not the measure of an open system that has no boundary.

There is no harm in inventing an imaginary name and an imaginary Source of Creation, but when an individual begins to believe that their imaginations and measures are true truth and not imaginary, then the individual may begin to believe peculiar beliefs that no longer agree with the simple reasoning that Nature rules man.

Perhaps the most valuable of the above quote — 'Constant exist, intend together, appearance it boundary' — is that it points to the obviousness that what an individual intentionally places together, then becomes the individual's own boundaries: people create themselves in their own image. The self-creation is obvious, but there are no known teachings of self-creation, nor teachings of how one's ingredients of behavior will create a specific self-nature, but rather, man's teachings ignore the laws of Nature while believing that man is able to supernaturally do anything that he wishes to do without the behavior being an influence upon his mind, body, and environment.

The following sections briefly point to several different ways that people throughout history have forgotten their own reasoning that the laws of Nature dictate what is true, and what is false.

Paradox Definition

Most commonly today, 'paradox' infers the presence of two ideas that are both true, but both ideas logically disagree and contradict the other. A typical dictionary definition: "[Gr. Para-, and Dogma.] A tenet or proposition contrary to received opinion; an assertion or sentiment seemingly contradictory, or opposed to common sense; that which in appearance or terms is absurd, but yet may be true in fact."

The definition of 'paradox' used within this article is that of it being two or more 'truths' that contradict the other, and yet people still believe that the 'truths' are true truths that are flawless and cannot be changed. The illogical contradictions of mind from the firsthand point of view are then given the ad hoc excuse of being a 'paradox'.

An ingredient within the personal act of mentally determining a thing to be a 'paradox' is the ability to hold a belief that one's own imaginations are true truth, so very true to oneself that the belief cannot be shaken. When two different beliefs relate to a single topic, but both beliefs claim different truths, the conflict of beliefs ought to spark an analytical self-investigation into why the beliefs do not agree: the self-analyses ought to discover why one or more of the beliefs have errors. However, some people choose to not self-analyze, but rather the people choose to continue believing that their imaginations are true truth, and, within the mental stance that both beliefs are true truth regardless of how they contradict the other, the ingredients of [1] two different beliefs, [2] the topic, [3] the logic that a contradiction exists, and [4] a continued insistence that both beliefs must always be true truth, then [5] that is when the ingredients give birth to the noun 'paradox'.

As a fictional example, if people in Flat Land discovered that their flat square caused less light ten feet to the left and of a similar width as the flat square, the individuals would not understand why there is less light to the left, because, the Flat Land people could not think of heights, nor know that their square is ten feet tall, nor know that the source of light is at a higher angle to the right that enables the square's height to give a similar shadow as the square's height. The Flat Land people might believe that the flat square is true, and believe that the less light is true, but since the two true beliefs contradict the belief that all things are flat, then there must be a paradox. Similarly, people who do not know that Nature is curved, the people easily form false beliefs of flat things being true, and when the flat things contradict, the people say that there exists a paradox.

Mathematics is flat. Mathematics cannot measure a curve. But people still believe mathematics to be true truth. People say 'paradox' when the same mathematical sum pertains to two or more different things that are not the same things.

There does not exist a paradox in Nature. Nothing in Nature contradicts — except, of course, man's beliefs (and likely other animals' beliefs as well (although there, it is still the Nature-based design of the mind as well as the individuals' choice that enables the possibility for wrong beliefs)).

It is very useful to observe which things that people believe to be paradoxes, because, the false beliefs lend evidence of [1] how well the individuals understand what the topic is, [2] what base of knowledge that the individuals use for reasoning, [3] how well the individuals can reason unknowns, and [4] which systems of belief are rational or irrational.

Fermi Paradox

First a definition of mathematical statistics: 'noun: a branch of applied mathematics, interpretations of quantitative data, use of probability theories: the branch of mathematics which studies methods for the calculation of probabilities.' Statistics work well enough for closed systems that have predetermined limitations of preexisting variables. An example is flipping a paper-thin coin in a varying breeze and then seeing which side the coin lands on. Statistically, there are only two variables — heads and tails — and thus, the coin is said to have a 50-50 chance of heads or tails. Statistics and the laws of Nature state that it is not possible for the coin to not land on one side. Financial statistics rely upon the preexistence of finances which have specific limitations of possibilities: zero money to a lot of money. If there were no finances, then financial statistics could not accurately judge something else. Similarly, many people believe that since mathematical statistics are able to closely estimate probabilities of preexisting boundaries, then the people also believe that mathematical statistics must be true truth that relates to everything, including things that do not exist, as well as to things that have no boundaries. The belief is wrong.

When people discover that their mathematical statistics fail to closely estimate a chosen topic, the people [1] continue to believe that mathematical statistics is true truth, [2] the people recognize that mathematical statistics did not produce the expected results, and the people then [3] say that the two truths are a 'paradox'. Similar to western philosophy having the classification 'applied ethics' without first knowing what an ethic is, so does mathematics have the classification of 'applied mathematics' without first knowing what mathematics is. The result is of people often saying 'paradox' because the people believe in things that the people know nothing about.

Mathematical statistics strongly suggest, that, if there are about two-trillion galaxies in the observable universe, with each galaxy containing about a hundred-million stars on average, and if life pops into existence and then evolves as modern science claims, then of the approximated 200-million-trillion stars — some of which allegedly have planets billions of years older than Earth — then it is mathematically-statistically certain that there must also be planets of similar life-supporting features as Earth's, as well as have life on the planets.

According to mathematical statistics, within the Milky Way galaxy alone there ought to be around 1,000 to 100,000 intelligent alien civilizations that are similar or more advanced than humans. The reported problem, however, is that there is no evidence that civilized life exists beyond the planet Earth.

The contradiction between the statistical mathematics-based 'true-truth' certainty, and the absence of true evidence, is often referred to as Fermi's paradox, named after the physicist Enrico Fermi who, during an alleged casual conversation about space aliens in 1950, allegedly asked 'where is everybody?' when asking why space aliens are not on Earth.

Man's imaginary math-based science of statistics was incorrect, resulting in the Fermi paradox, and yet man still believes that his man-made mathematics is true truth that has no flaw. Man's mathematics is man-made, imaginary, it is an elementary man-made language that may work well enough for simplified closed systems (that are flat), but even when the mathematics is shown to be flat, most people still strongly believe that their mathematics is true truth that even space aliens must use.

Most people also believe that they are so highly evolved and intelligent, that galaxy-hopping space aliens would want to come speak to humans. Humored laughter is usually the best rational response to the belief...

Also, most people sincerely do believe that 'evidence' of space alien civilizations can be found within the electromagnetic radiation emitted by space alien radios, television broadcast stations, and telephones. It often appears that most people do not realize that the use of electromagnetic radiation (which is one small step above the use of open fires) is itself indicative of a primitive species: most people, and all or most all government-funded scientific searches for intelligent space aliens, assume (believe) that space aliens cannot possibly be more intelligent and higher evolved than the human animal.

Also, the modern belief of Darwinian evolution is itself primitive, it relying upon imaginative two-dimensional (flat) thinking that does not so much as agree with arithmetic, with the believers somehow believing that the belief in the belief of Darwinian evolution should also be a true truth that rules over all living beings on Earth as well as throughout the whole of the universe.

Nevertheless, there are thousands of firsthand accounts of peculiar things on Earth that exist outside of man's anthropomorphic beliefs of what space aliens and all other living beings are supposed to look like, as well as videos of numerous 'UFOs' that continued for an estimated 118 miles (through open lands, cities, and deep canyons), plus lengthy sightings that occurred every night for over five years. When a common man sees the evidence, the common man does not understand what the evidence implies, nor does he so much as ask questions, but instead he merely invents ad hoc excuses and an imagined belief that the evidence must be of man-made things.

Curry's Paradox

As an abbreviated and highly generalized idea, the Curry Paradox is a self-referencing statement that contradicts itself. Within the normal use of language, it is very common for individuals to make statements that are intended to be true, and yet the wording contradicts itself. An example might be something like "Everyone is hungry for the things that I do not want." The phrasing relies upon the listener to interpret what was intended, but the words themselves contradict: the speaker must be one of 'everyone', and thus the sentence is false even if intended and believed to be true.

Closely associated are the mental ills of dementia and Alzheimer's. Alzheimer's is as the forgetting of what was thought the moment before (no durational thought, and no mental connection nor knowing what happened in-between points A and B), and dementia is as the twisting of perceptions and thoughts into imaginations that are not true: "when an individual begins to believe that their imaginations and measures are true truth and not imaginary". 'Paradoxes' rely upon people forgetting the words and sentences that were spoken previously, plus not thinking in-between points A and B, while also relying upon the twisting and inventing of beliefs that cannot be true. Alzheimer's and dementia are merely as the increased quantity of the normal behavior of the normal state of the normal human mind.

Also related is the Liar Paradox example of an individual saying "I only speak lies." Most commonly the statement is believed by listeners to be as a paradox because [a] the speaker always lies, but [b] the speaker is telling the truth about his always lying, which [c] renders the true statement to be false. Since the speaker did not clarify for how long he had been speaking lies, nor what the lies were, nor to whom the lies are told, then the common assumption is to leap to believe that the speaker was referring to his entire life, which is not a plausible belief that his every word since birth had been lies.

Within all forms of all non-mathematical languages, if a statement does not include sufficient explanations, then the statement is open for interpretation. Statements within the Curry Paradox are interpreted as a paradox because the speakers did not elaborate on the details, and also because the listeners merely leaped to assume what was not said.

Just because someone says something, it does not mandate that what the person says must automatically be literal true truth, nor the whole truth. The early English translations of Confucian and Tao texts are also replete of words and sentence structures that are incoherent and self-conflicting, but so were many of the original texts.

Western philosophy offers uncomfortably lengthy discussions about the many variations of Curry's Paradox, which exacerbates the problem further because the normal philosophical use of language is commonly phrased within circular reasonings of self-referencing contradictions and absurdities.

However, western philosophy's methods of analyzing Curry's Paradox are very useful to be used as examples of how beliefs in paradoxes arise. Note the previous statement "western philosophy's method of analyzing" is a common manner of phrasing that is widely used and understood for its meaning, but the common phrasing implies that western philosophy is a living being that can think and analyze (reminiscent of many people today having raised science into being an infallible godhood). The common use of English is satiated of absurdities which often lead to false beliefs if the listener is not mindful to separate imaginations from Reality.

Perhaps the most easily illustrated philosophical absurdities are within mathematics. Philosophy begins with the firm belief that mathematics is a true truth that cannot be denied as being true truth. When the true truth maths do not agree (different flat shadows), philosophy then believes that a paradox exists.

I have created the following simplified examples to be illustrations of how easily most people leap to believe self-contradicting things that cannot possibly be true.

Adding a one pound green apple and a four pound rotten red apple mathematically equals 2. Mathematics emphatically states that the statement is true truth. Most adults today sincerely do believe the math to be a true truth that cannot have fault.

However, when mathematics weighs or measures the dimensions of the same apples, the apples' weights and dimensions are not equal nor exact. The separate mathematical measurements contradict the previous claim that [a] each apple is an exact 1, and [b] when counted together, the apples sum to an exact 2, which [c] had mandated that both apples are perfectly identical in all ways.

All different mathematical measurements of the apples will always disagree and contradict all other mathematical measurements. Similar to financial statistics that can only measure finances within a closed system, each mathematical measurement is also only able to measure a flat measurement within a single 'point A to point B' closed system. There is no paradox; the mathematical sums are merely false statements that do not relate to the other, and yet people still tend to believe that each mathematical sum is self-relating to all other mathematical sums.

Individuals who know what happens in-between points A and B, also know why the math changes from one measurement to another, and know that all mathematical measurements are self-invented imaginations of things that do not exist. Individuals who do not know what happens in-between points A and B, the individuals are unable to mentally grasp why different types of mathematics are possible, and also unable to grasp why all forms of mathematics contradict.

Since the world's topmost scholars do not know why all forms of mathematics self-contradict, then the unknowing is an illustration of the scholars' and common people's manners of thinking, as well as the absence of self-thinking.

Similarly absurd is that some scientists sincerely do believe that space aliens must use a form of mathematics that agrees with man-made mathematics. Like western philosophy inventing classifications of ethics without first knowing what an ethic is, so do mathematicians invent classifications of mathematics without first knowing what mathematics is, and then the mathematicians inventing the belief that even space aliens have the identical same minds as humans'.

It has been said that paradoxes within mathematics do not exist until seen within lambda calculus. Nevertheless, some individuals first recognized the 'paradoxes' in algebra, and some individuals recognized the 'paradoxes' within the most elementary forms of arithmetic. Since most people apparently do not ask for additional explanations to determine whether a worded statement is true or false, then it is expected that most people will also not ask for additional explanations of whether mathematics is true or false. The popular belief in mathematics is so very strong that most people cannot imagine that the belief is false, and, so, it becomes an easy thing for the people to believe that contradicting maths do not exist, and any contradictions that might be found must therefore be a paradox.

Within all languages, all words are symbols. There is no such thing as a word not being the symbol for something else. Symbols are symbols, symbols are not the things that they symbolize, and regardless of whether the symbols are stick figures, numbers, or letters in an alphabet, all are still symbols. All symbols are also interpreted solely by each individual, and no two individuals interpret the same symbol the same. It is already an absurdity for anyone to claim that a word or a number could actually define or measure a real thing in Nature.

窈 (yao) within Daodejing #21 has numerous English synonyms, with all known early translations having chosen the English idea of 'deep', as in 'obscure', 'mysterious', and 'supernatural'. However, individuals with firsthand experience recognize the Chinese symbolism to be much more meaningful within the symbol's roots containing ideas of 'cave, hole, covered, hole made by removing dirt, small child, tiny, infant'. Throughout Daodejing early translators interpreted similar words to be of deep mystical things, while other individuals' hearts hurt while thinking of an infant's grave, while yet other individuals see the metaphors that relate to the surrounding sentences' topics.

The wording within Daodejing #21 was interpreted by all known early translators to be as a paradox of mystical meanings, but individuals with firsthand experience see no paradox at all. All known mathematical examples of Curry's Paradox are similar: the 'paradoxes' only exist within one's own imaginations.

As a personal example, when I was first told of mathematics at about three years old, I thought of the things that I had firsthand observed, including fruits that each had different shapes, different sizes, different colors, different aromas, different tastes, each sense describing the fruits' age, health, health of trees from which the fruit was harvested, the region of the trees', distances between different fruits, and on and on each of the sensory perceptions had described with fine details that no two fruits are identical, nor are the fruits able to be accurately measured with the flat number 2. I had already self-created my own system of 'counting', using active mental concepts like single, dual, quad, triplicity, durations, curvatures, intensities, ratios, etc., each being relative to what is real in life, of what is accurate of measure, and not based upon imaginary symbolisms.

Some scholars claim that no one can count anything without individuals first being taught how to count by scholars, but the claims are false. If learning were only possible through a scholar, then why do some individuals (including those who loathe mathematics) score at the ceiling of IQ tests' math sections while the scholars themselves cannot score above average? If learning of quantities were only possible through a scholar, then how could it be possible for an infant child to play with toys? 'Counting' ought to be a normal innate mental ability for all people with a healthy mind.

The mathematical term "equal" is an extreme absurdity. There can be no paradox of mathematics nor of any other language because all of the languages ignore what is real within Nature, and thus, are already false. Unfortunately, many people have convinced themselves to believe that flat thoughts of flat languages are true truth thoughts that no one is able to think beyond.

The best advantage of Curry's Paradox is that it illustrates some of the ways of how most humans process thoughts, ways that illustrate that the human mind is not yet as idyllically acute nor as conscious of life as most people want to believe.

Ship of Thesus Paradox

Dating back to around 500 B.C., a popular philosophical question has been to ask, that if a ship were to be repaired over a period of many years, until finally every piece of the ship were replaced, would the ship still be the same ship? The alleged 'paradox' is still being debated today.

A modern example might be of an individual restoring an old classic car: new frame, new engine, new tires, new paint, new body parts, and over several years there may not exist any original part on the car. To the mechanic who firsthand replaced the parts, he may hold a concept that the car is the same car, while the mechanic simultaneously knows that the 'sameness' is only of appearances, personal familiarity, and legal ownership. To the car owner, he may not know nor care about the new parts, while self-inventing the imaginary belief that the restored car is the 'same' car.

The human body is composed of various parts that are wholly or almost wholly replaced as a person ages. From the inside, the person firsthand interprets himself to be the same 'me'. Inside point of view, outsider point of view, each are infinitely different (and cast different shadows). If the ship and car had a mind, then their minds might think of themselves as being the 'same me'.

Firsthand points of view are very different from the common outsider points of view that are wholly imaginary. The Thesus paradox is similar within it inferring and relying upon the incorrect assumption that all people have the identical same thoughts and experiences.

The Thesus paradox also parallels the common inability for an individual to recognize what happened in-between the mathematical measuring of points A and B. The Thesus paradox would not exist, nor would the debates exist, if people were commonly able to know what exists in-between mathematical points A and B. The alleged paradox exists because the scenario is presented in and evaluated by flat measures of time and mind.

Supernatural Paradox

Of the estimated seven-billion people on Earth, likely at least half of the people believe in a belief that believing the belief will result in the believer attaining supernatural powers.

Based upon the alleged 'true truth' of mathematics' statistics, there should exist many millions of people walking through stone walls all day, tens of millions of people floating through the skies all day, tens of millions of people healing other people by touch all day, tens of millions of expert scholars without firsthand experience teaching true truth all day, billions of students understanding topics by memorizing book words, and many millions more people doing other magical mystical supernatural stuff every day.

'Where is everybody?' Where are the people with supernatural powers? Most all people on earth sincerely do believe that mathematics is true truth, and since mathematics states that there must be many millions of people exhibiting supernatural powers all day every day if the people's beliefs are true, then, 'where is everybody'?

Similar are the ideologies of science and western philosophy, both claiming to know everything about everything, but if that were true, then millions of the 'masters' of the ideologies could describe what an emotion is, or what a thought is, or what a memory is, or what consciousness is: where are they?

Falling IQ Paradox

Recent articles by scholars and the news media have claimed that there is a lowering of IQ scores, most notable within individuals born within the mid-1970s. The educated 'expert' scholars do not know why IQ scores are dropping, nor why there is so much difference even between siblings and parents. Many scholars and 'expert' scientists have proposed numerous ad hoc excuses, but, all of the excuses are formed upon imaginations without being based upon real evidence, nor based upon firsthand experience. All of the scholars' and scientists' ad hoc excuses fail all five of the core principles of logic.

Scholars do not know and never have known why some people have higher or lower IQs than other people, but some scholars have often commented about the 'true truth' of the Flynn Effect, of how IQ ought to continue rising. The Flynn effect is philosophical: a belief formed upon imagined statistics of an imagined IQ that was itself formed upon imagined statistics. Without first knowing what intelligence is, the scholars invented IQ tests, and then invented the Flynn Effect name, all while still not knowing what is allegedly being measured: the behavior of circular reasoning of unknowns is given the name 'philosophical'.

Some individuals have stated that since [1] the true truth Flynn Effect is based upon the true truth of mathematical statistics, and [2] true IQ scores are truly now dropping, then [3] there is a paradox. There is no paradox, there is not so much as a contradiction. A real fact, based upon real firsthand experience, is that in 1974 almost all baby formulas known in the USA (and plausibly in many other countries as well) purposefully omitted vitamins like choline and inositol, which are extremely important for brain development. Only one known brand of baby formula (and only available on the other side of my city in a poorer neighborhood) included choline, inositol, and other extremely important vitamins for babies.

My wife and I spent more money on baby formulas and vitamin drops than what we spent for our own food combined, but we ensured that our baby would be given a proper opportunity to grow up healthy. One night, while leaving the store where we bought baby formula, I voiced an opinion to my wife that there would now exist a mentally stunted generation.

It was not until several years later that baby formula manufacturers once again began to include some of the proper vitamins, but not all.

People who believe in science, the FDA, and the news media, tend to believe what they are told to believe; that vitamins are poisonous. A quiet secret amongst high rated chess players is to maximize specific vitamin intakes prior to and during tournaments. Proper nutrition always has and always will be a key ingredient of intelligence: good nutrition does not guarantee higher intelligence, but without good nutrition there is no possibility of higher intelligence.

There is no mystery, and no paradox: an individual's intelligence is always directly relative to what goes into the body while the body is being created, and what is later added to the body by the environment. No paradox.

Mathematical statistics are not true truth, nor are the mathematical scores of IQs true truth, and if neither are true, then neither can be an ingredient of a paradox except within one's imaginations.

One night, about ten years ago, while observing how numerous parents are now giving their little children smart phones and electronic tablets to play with rather than permitting their children to learn through the act of playing outside, nor of playing with inanimate toys that require firsthand touch and firsthand thinking of how real things behave in Nature, I voiced an opinion to my wife that there would now exist a mentally stunted generation that will be unable to rationalize the reality of Nature. That generation is also now present, and so deeply distant from a sense of Reality, that they are gullible enough to become the victims of fear-mongering doomsdayers.

The fault is not wholly the children's, but rather, the fault is of the adults' who purposefully chose to destroy their children's minds.

What goes into the mind while the body is forming, and what goes into the mind after an individual is born, dictates what the individual is capable of believing. Combining the bad ingredients of smart phones and malnutrition, cannot create an intelligent mind. As simple as that might appear to be, and regardless of how frequently Qinren (Laozi) made similar statements within Daodejing, apparently no known previous translator of Daodejing knew of it because all of the translators interpreted the statements to be of wildly crazy claims of supernatural magic.

Darwin Paradox

[Note: I rarely ever speak of a paper written by a living individual, simply because it is impolite, it harms people's feelings, the chain reaction harms everyone, and it has no creativity to point to any potential errors that the author may have made. However, the following quotes from an article by David Gelernter receive a 100% praise, and are worthy of the praise.]

David Gelernter's excellent article Giving Up Darwin is quite good of presentation, very rare of actually being sensible, plus being a useful source for observing how Darwinianism is interpreted by individuals who themselves (happily or unhappily) dwell within the belly of the beast.

Quoting Gelernter's article: "Darwinian evolution ...it is basic to the credo that defines the modern worldview. Accepting the theory as settled truth — no more subject to debate than the earth being round or the sky blue or force being mass times acceleration — certifies that you are devoutly orthodox in your scientific views; which in turn is an essential first step towards being taken seriously in any part of modern intellectual life."

Very much agreed. If an individual does not bow to and profess belief in the identical same Darwinian evolution that the masses believe to be true, then the individual is hated-on by the masses. Observe the common human animal's reaction towards any individual who does not follow the herd: the common human animal becomes violent, not for a reason of physical self-defense, nor for a reason of attaining food, but rather because of the self-defense of an imagined belief, resulting in hatred for all individuals who do not kowtow and sacrifice their lives to the believer's and herd's imaginary beliefs. The herd demands equality, and hates all that is not identically the same (which also illustrates that the common human animal refuses to analyze any topic, as well as denies the laws of Nature, the same laws that the same people claim to believe to be true truth).

Immediately catching the eye is the comment "force being mass times acceleration". The topic of 'force' is important for this site because the idea of 'force' is spoken of within various Confucian texts. But, the man-made mathematical formula for 'force' is not 'settled truth', not so much as close to being settled, but, popularly, the mathematical formula is indeed believed by most people to be an undeniable true truth. Mathematical formulas for kinetics are flat, two-dimensional, and only measure flat things while ignoring shadows. Nature is not flat, but mathematics is flat, yet almost all people still believe that mathematics is more true truth than Nature itself.

"Charles Darwin explained monumental change by making one basic assumption — all life-forms descend from a common ancestor — and adding two simple processes anyone can understand: random, heritable variation and natural selection."

Gelernter's statement touches upon numerous topics simultaneously, but important here is that the statement's ideas relate to [1] the false scientific belief in the binary creation of the universe, as well as [2] relate to the many ancient creation stories that claim that there was a flat two-dimensional sequence of many magical events from 'first' to 'last'. Most individuals, whether naturally or by being trained in schools, truly believe that Nature is flat with flat sequences, and with a lot of magic in-between each sequence's points. Belief in Darwinianism requires flat thinking that is unable to think beyond nor between points A and B.

"They remind us of the extent to which Darwinism is no longer just a scientific theory but the basis of a worldview, and an emergency replacement religion for the many troubled souls who need one."

Precisely. Darwinianism is as a worldview, a common belief, a shared belief, a cult of belief, a religion of belief, an ideology of unsubstantiated belief, a false belief believed by people who believe that Nature is of flat sequences.

"The engine that powers Neo-Darwinian evolution is pure chance and lots of time. By filling in the details of cellular life, molecular biology makes it possible to estimate the power of that simple mechanism."

The English language is very poor and requires the use of words that make no sense, plus common modern idioms themselves often do not really mean what the words imply, and so the given word "chance" may or may not have been given within its dictionary definition of meaning. Nevertheless, the idea of "chance" does strongly exist within Darwinianism, which relies on two faiths: [1] mathematics is true truth, and [2] evolution is a supernatural event that supersedes the laws of Nature.

[1] If Neo-Darwinianism's claim of chance were true truth, then there ought to be billions of 'missing links' still walking (or slithering) around today all over the world. 'Where is everybody'? (Some people have opined that the missing links are "in-laws", and though that might sometimes be close, still a valid missing link would exhibit physical structures that do not closely correlate to any specific species. The answer of why species appear similar of physical form is obvious, but not obvious to science. The obviousness fully disproves Darwinianism.)

[2] If Neo-Darwinianism's claim of chance were true truth, then, instead of floating in the sky, why do rocks lie upon the ground? Why does gravity not play an important role within Darwinian evolution? Do clouds float in the skies by chance? Does water form by chance? Do winds blow by chance? Does the Earth revolve around the sun by chance? Does the Earth itself revolve by chance? Do ambient temperatures seasonally change by chance? Do computers assemble themselves by chance? Do you breathe by chance? Absolutely nothing in Nature exists by chance. Darwinianism's claim of "chance" immediately nullifies the ideology while proving the ideology to be a fully false faith-based religion.

Nature rules man, Darwinianism does not rule Nature.

Gelernter enters into a nicely written glance at biological molecular structures from the normal politically correct point of view: "Proteins are chains: linear sequences of atom-groups, each bonded to the next." The politically correct point of view is flat, sequenced, and two-dimensional, which, obviously, cannot possibly be true.

Surely very much true is the statement: "...DNA, the world’s most admired macromolecule." A humorous example is of a known individual who has a German surname, both parents had German surnames, all grandparents except for a Cherokee grandmother had German surnames, great-grandparents had German surnames, and except for some distant ancestors having married English, Irish, and Native Americans, hundreds of years of physical documentation (marriage licenses, birth certificates, etc.) prove that the individual is predominately German. The documentation would hold-up in a court of law that the individual is predominately German. However, the individual paid an online scam (ancestry website) to do a test of the individual's own personal DNA. The 'true truth' scientific DNA results said that the individual's ancestors were African and of several other regions, but had absolutely no German and no Native American blood. Far worse — and regardless of what their mirror proves — is that the individual now truly believes that they are not German, nor of Native American. Another known individual also paid the online scam for a DNA test, and the results came back that the individual's ancestry was from the nationalities of the person's spouse's, and not of the documented nationalities of all known ancestors. And again the individual believed the scam DNA results to be true truth because 'DNA tests are scientific'.

People today believe in science and DNA so deeply that the people will deny documented — and visible — evidence if the evidence does not support the belief in DNA. People today deny Nature's laws, while claiming that DNA is true truth and that scientists know everything about everything about DNA.

And the previous quote leads up to the expected: "...DNA actually consists of valid genes separated by long sequences of nonsense." Tonsils used to be cut-out with a knife from innocent children because 'expert' doctors believed that tonsils were nonsense vestigial organs. 'Expert' doctors did similarly for other 'vestigial organs' that were — and still are — nonsense to doctors. There is no such thing as a nonsense created by Nature: the alleged 'nonsense' is merely the result of the observers not being intelligent enough to recognize what they are looking at (different shadows). 'True truth DNA science' is riddled with false beliefs that render the whole of science itself to be a false religion.

"Starting with 150 links of gibberish, what are the chances that we can mutate our way to a useful new shape of protein? ...yielding around 1040 mutations under Axe’s assumptions. That is a very large number of chances at any game. But given that the odds each time are 1 to 1077 against..."

And there again we are brought back to the false popular belief that mathematics is true truth, so very true that apparently no scientist has cross-linked basic arithmetic with the myths of Darwinianism. About thirteen years ago I publicly wrote that if evolution through DNA mutation were true fact, then from the first bacteria to today, there would have had to have been numerous successful 'chance' mutations daily within each individual living being before there could have been enough mutations to have created an ant or a human. Factually, the Earth-bound 'chances' of 'chance mutation' causing an ant or a human body as is seen today, are absolutely and eternally zero. It simply cannot possibly be done as how the Darwinianists claim.

If so many chance mutations occur (daily according to the true truth of mathematics) as Neo-Darwinianism claims and believes, then, where are they? Where are the space aliens? Where are the people floating through the skies? Where are the supernatural powers? Where are the billions of 'missing links' walking the earth today? 'Where is everybody'?

I personally heard a university biology teacher preaching Darwinianism while saying that the environment had no effect on evolution, that instead, all mutations are 'chance'. Generally, and apparently without his knowing it, the expert biologist was claiming that all of Darwinianism's evolution occurred outside of the laws of Nature (supernatural). If evolution were mere 'chance', then why do humans not have many arms and legs of different shapes and lengths? Why only two eyes? Why are the two ears on the sides of the head instead of having dozens of ears all over and inside of the body?

Darwinianists' ad hoc excuses claim that stereo hearing is useful, and, therefore, stereo hearing is why there are two ears: the Darwinianists apparently sincerely do believe that the usefulness of a finished product is the cause and method of how the product was created, but the claim also infers a consciously reasoned choice to create the ears (this relates to Daodejing's thirty spokes, door, window, and vessel), which would raise 'Evolution' to godhood, while also removing all 'chance'. The contradictions and supernatural superstitions within Darwinianism are endless.

If evolution were pure 'chance mutations', then there would be no symmetry of body form, and all living creatures — all, bar none — would be formed of wildly arranged appendages and inner organs. Darwinianism fully ignores all laws of Nature while loudly demanding that the cult's supernatural beliefs are true truth (which very closely parallels the ancient superstitions that supernatural powers exist by an individual not having any sensory perceptions).

There is no such thing as 'chance' in Nature: period. It is literally impossible for any living being to rise into life without the being's form being dictated by the laws of Nature. All living creatures absolutely must exist relative to the laws of Nature.

'Create way, it call standard way. Person-ist not able must a-moment leave. Can leave, not way.' (draft translation of a portion of Zhong Yong 1)

No one can leave the laws of Nature, not so much for a moment, even if necessary. Even common 'primitive' people knew that over twenty-five-hundred years ago, but Darwinianism claims that evolution exists outside of the laws of Nature.

I had marked numerous statements in Gelernter's article as being important enough — and interesting enough — to look at again, but I will conclude the quotes with only one more: "There is a general principle here, similar to the earlier principle that the number of useless polypeptides crushes the number of useful ones. ...McDonald calls this one a "great Darwinian paradox.""

The common scientific approach to Darwinianism is to [1] ignore everything that is unknown (call the unknown shadows to be "nonsense"), [2] invent horrifically horrible religious rites of sacrificing one's children to the science gods for vivisection (cutting-out tonsils, etc., some ancient cultures sacrificed their children to Baal and other false gods), [3] loudly insist that the false god of flat 'mathematics' is true truth, [4] to first not possess any firsthand experience whatsoever of the topic (failing all five of the core principles of logic) and [5] to then continue believing (and loudly demanding) that thinking within flat two-dimensional sequences of closed systems is able to measure the origins of life.

There is no Darwinian paradox, the 'facts' are merely made-up inventions enforced by ad hoc excuses blended within the circular reasonings of flat mathematics. Some of us want to hear about real things, things that relate to real Nature, things like curvatures, durations, transductances, dilations, and all of the other variables that influence everything related to the topic of 'evolution by DNA', but no, of the hundreds of papers that I have read by the alleged 'expert Darwinianists', none spoke of anything beyond flat two-dimensional sequences, with the papers not so much as hinting of possessing the competence of a first semester high school level of electrical theory. Darwinianism is of imaginary scenarios, contradictions, supernatural magic, and religiosity; not about the study of the origins of life.

The following is a related quote from an article titled Pathological Science:

"The 'scientific method' too often forms conclusions without the user having an understanding of what they are measuring. An easy and entertaining example is found within Einstein's ether:

"Michelson's Interference Experiment by H. A. Lorentz

The experiment was carried out by Michelson in 1881. ...The whole instrument... could be revolved about a vertical axis... as nearly as possible in the direction of the Earth's motion. On the basis of Fresnel's theory it was anticipated that when the apparatus was revolved from one of these principle positions into the other there would be a displacement of the interference fringes.

...Michelson thought himself justified in concluding that while the Earth is moving, the ether does not remain at rest."

...There would be this same difference if the translation had no influence and the arm P were longer than the arm Q... (The Principle of Relativity, A Collection of Original Memoirs of the Special and General Theory of Relativity, H. A. Lorentz, A. Einstein, H. Minkowski, H. Weyl, translated by W. Perrett and G. B. Jeffery, Dover Publications, Inc. edition first published in 1952, originally published in 1923 by Methuen and Company, Ltd.)

The focus here is to merely give attention to the researchers' approach to the topic, which in this example illustrated three dominate features: [1] the two-dimensional experiments were formed to prove or disprove a predetermined hypothesis, [2] the experiments were not designed with a knowledge of what the researchers were actually measuring, and [3] the Michelson interferometer conclusions did not include extraneous effects unknown to the researchers (the researchers merely ignored as erroneous any measurements that did not agree with the current hypothesis). (Pathological Science, Larry Gowdy, Copyright© July 16, 2017.)"

It always has been and always will be the scientific method to ignore unknown things as being "nonsense".

Likewise similar to all other cults, Darwinianism does not permit anyone to disagree with the cult's doctrines of faith, and I normally would not so much as waste a breath speaking about Darwinianism, but the topic does have value in how it mirrors the primitive ancient superstitions that were written about in ancient Chinese texts.

Contradictions and Absurdities

Statistically there should be hundreds or thousands of Rembrandts living today. Where are they?

Statistically there should be hundreds or thousands of Bachs living today. Where are they?

Statistically, of the millions of the 'save the planet' and 'back to Nature' hippies (albeit mostly plastic) that protested in the 1960s in favor of reforesting the USA, there ought to be at least around fifty-billion new trees that were planted by the hippies during the past fifty years. Where are they?

Herbi Hancock's "Future Shock" song lyrics include "We've got to stop ole' man, from messin' up the land, with what we understand, this is our last and only plan. Everybody, it's the future shock, future shock, future shock, future shock...". (The lyrics were firsthand taken from the song itself as the song was being played (I still have the original CD). The singer 'Louie-Louie-like' slang-sang "We've got to stop ole' man" which rhymes with 'land', 'understand', and 'plan' while 'man' was also a popular 80s slang for 'the man', and could also merely imply mankind. Confidence of the lyrics' accuracy is not 100%, but still much better than the online lyrics sites that exclude/add different non-rhyming words which were obviously copied from other copiers who, apparently, never actually listened to the song). The song's words are similar to what the 'March for Science' and global warming protesters today are saying, but the song is from August 1983, about 36 years ago, and nothing was done about the environmental pollution. Nothing will be done now.

"Find what you really care about, live a life that shows it." Sung by the beautiful voice of Kate Wolf within the song You're Not Standing Like You Used To, the song's message is strongly relevant to all generations. If so many people have claimed that humanity needs to change its behavior, then where is everybody who has changed their own behavior? Why is it so rare to meet anyone whose life shows the person's claim of caring about Nature and the climate? The song is from 1977; people never did live lives that showed claims of caring about the environment, and people's lives will not show it now, because, almost no one on Earth cares.

'Back to Nature' people did nothing in the 1800s, hippies did nothing in the 1960s, 'Rocky Mountain High' people did nothing in the 1970s, disco people did nothing in the 1980s, doomsday survivalists did nothing in the 1990s, and people today — including the pro-science 'global warming' people — will do nothing except whine and wring their hands while crying 'the world is coming to an end'. For thousands of years people have whined and wrung their hands that the end of the world is near, and yet the people did nothing, and still do nothing.

Statistically, of the hundreds of millions of people who are crying and wringing their hands about global warming, there should be no fewer than fifty-billion new trees planted each year by the people themselves. Where are they? Why, instead, is global deforestation reportedly rapidly increasing? (South Korea might be the sole exception.)

Statistically, the hard politically correct push towards electric cars, wind turbines, solar panels, and other gadgets ought to be saving the world from greenhouse gases. The alleged paradox is that in spite of ever-increasing 'environmentally friendly' gadgets, the planet not only allegedly continues to warm, but is now allegedly warming faster than before. One of the many variables is the sulfur hexaflouride gas — measured to cause about 23,500 times more greenhouse warming than carbon dioxide — which is a common gas used within power grid switching, the same switching that is required to power the additional 'environmentally friendly' gadgets. The more 'science' that is thrown at pollution problems (which, in fact, were all originally caused by science), the worse the problems grow. Apparently, most people somehow assume that the politically correct gadgets are supernatural perpetual motion devices that required zero energy to create, and are supernaturally immune to the laws of Nature (i.e. thermodynamics). Like building twenty-billion fires and then claiming that the fires emit no heat into the atmosphere, most people sincerely do believe — contrary to the laws of Nature — that their microwave-emitting cell phones and other wireless devices have zero effect on the atmosphere. The only way to reduce heat production is to use less energy, and the only way to stop pollution is to stop polluting, but, of course, that kind of reasoning is not politically correct and will not be accepted by the masses.

As a quick note, if electric cars gained popularity, then electric companies would be forced to install at least double the power lines, which would cause residential electricity costs to rise 100% to 300% or more, causing increased poverty for people who cannot afford the higher prices, while also forcing many middle-income people into poverty, which would have a large negative impact on all economies and environments throughout the world. Many people would be forced to burn wood for heating, resulting in more CO2 emissions than using electricity. The 'save the planet' people cannot think far enough ahead to realize how their demands would cause intense human suffering while also not helping the environment at all.

Which is the error within all of the above 'paradoxes'? The belief in mathematics, or the belief in supernatural powers, or the belief in quality artists, or the belief that anyone truly cares about the climate, or the beliefs in myths like Darwinianism? Might all be of error?

Most people ignore Nature — the people are not able to be conscious of Nature — and yet the people, their every step dwells within the laws of Nature, of the individuals' unconscious minds reasoning Nature's gravity, reasoning sensory perceptions that judge Nature's lengths and heights and weights, reasoning the sensory perceptions of sights of Nature for the individual to judge where to walk, reasoning the sensory perceptions of hearing and smelling and tasting Nature, the people also inventing imaginary numbers and statistics while consciously ignoring that the numbers and statistics do not relate to Nature's way, and the people sincerely do believe that they are not bound by Nature's way, the people already believing — but not knowing that they believe — that they are supernatural.

Many people sincerely do believe the belief that people can attain supernatural powers by eliminating all sensory perceptions. Many of the individuals have claimed of themselves to already possess the supernatural powers by having eliminated all sensory perceptions, while, of course, the individuals can still walk, talk, eat, follow a path, mentally discern male from female, judge a rock from a tree, vocally teach their teachings about supernatural powers, and all the other acts that all people rely upon sensory perceptions to do.

The contradictions exist: one clique believes in statistics, a second clique believes in supernatural powers, and a third clique believes in chance evolution, but none of the cliques' beliefs can be found to be real. All three, not conscious of Nature, nor conscious of their own selves.

Statistics are wrong, beliefs in Darwinian evolution are wrong, beliefs in human-observable evidences of space aliens are wrong: the three wrongs do not make any one belief right, nor make a paradox; all three beliefs are merely wrong. Similarly, statistics are wrong, the belief in not having sensory perceptions is wrong, and beliefs in supernatural powers are wrong: the three wrongs do not make any of the beliefs right, nor make a paradox; all three of the beliefs are merely wrong.

While editing this article I happened to see a couple very funny articles that help to further illustrate the above paragraphs: [1] "Al Gore’s Inconvenient Reality: The Former Vice President’s Home Energy Use Surges up to 34 Times the National Average Despite Costly Green Renovations" (nationalcenter.org). [2] "Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions" (cei.org).

Funny peculiar (not funny humorous) is of the many recent photos of climate change protests that show all of the protesters wearing synthetic clothing, many seen to be using cell phones during their marches (likely over 99% of the protesters use cell phones and other wireless devices at home), and the protesters destroying trees to make signs that will later be tossed into the trash to be carried off to further pollute landfills and the atmosphere. The signs read "Sick of Pollution" (held by a woman wearing synthetic clothing and who had obviously used synthetic chemicals on her hair and face, which, once the chemicals are rinsed down the drain, pollute the water supplies), "The End is Nigh", "Clean Power to All People" (as if that supernatural feat were possible), "Stop Denying Our Planet Is Dying" (held by a girl who was wearing an over-abundance of synthetics, decorations, and tinted glasses that made her appear similar to the plastic hippies of the 60s), plus of course the many 'Science Based Solution' signs (ignoring the fact that all pollution and all alleged 'global warming' was and continues to be caused by science).

None of the protesters were "Find what you really care about, live a life that shows it."

100% of the signs proved that [1] the protesters were fully ignorant of what the topic was, [2] that the protesters merely believed what they were told to believe, as well as [3] the protesters not being able to rationalize their own contradictions. The protesters believe that global warming is true truth, plus believe as true truth that passing laws can magically cause the earth to cool, as well as believe that they can personally continue wasting energy and resources with no effect on the environment. Little different than the 1800s, 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, the protesters will themselves not do anything to 'save the planet'.

Nevertheless, the world will indeed end soon: the known world always ends for the older generation when the younger generation takes over. Always has, always will. Confucius bemoaned it, Aristotle bemoaned it, and each older generation bemoans it of the younger generation. The world of the 50s, of clean food, of clean water, of clean air, of clean soil, of few common synthetics beyond things like tires and basketball shoe soles, of very little radiation, of small energy-efficient homes, of when fraud was illegal, of when identify theft was illegal, of when theft of copyrighted materials was illegal, of when false advertising was illegal, that world is now fully dead. Today's world of poisonous preservatives in most all foods, GMOs, all known water supplies are polluted, the air is unhealthy to breathe in industrialized nations, of average homes that are three to four times larger than the 50s (and require six to twenty times more energy to heat and cool (most 50s houses did not have air conditioning, and central air conditioning was almost an unknown), of fraud being the accepted business model (largest online retailers), of theft of copyrighted materials being publicly accepted (the top Internet companies openly steal and sell stolen copyrighted materials), of all forms of advertising today being predominately false and deceptive, of the Internet's largest companies openly stealing people's identities and private information without fear of arrest, of about 90% of all websites containing spyware and tracking scripts, today's world will also end within thirty to forty years. Today's generation does not recognize that it is living in filth. immorality, and global crime, nor will the next generation recognize their increased filth, immorality, and crime.

A very serious vacuity within schools is the absence of a teaching of learning through firsthand experience. Schools claim that a student can perfectly understand any topic by memorizing book words, but, the absurd belief is also held within all or most all ideologies that claim that people must have compassion and love. No living being can feel nor express compassion without first knowing what the compassion is for.

Similarly, most of today's younger generations possess no idea of what it is like to not have running water, not have indoor plumbing, not have air conditioning, not have any automatic heating, not have any electricity, not have a telephone, nor what it is like to have to cut wood for six hours to heat the house for four hours. Today's younger generation has it so easy that there are now many reports of the younger generation experiencing heightened stress: the stress would likely not exist if the people appreciated what they have, or if they stopped permitting themselves to be victims of the fear-mongering from television and social media. Appreciation is created within an opposite-like way of compassion: a person must firsthand experience not having a thing before the person can then appreciate having the thing.

It is the adults' fault that children do not have appreciation for what is common within the children's environment. An adult angrily telling a child "You have no appreciation!" is not just permanently emotionally harmful to the child, it is also an open proof that the adult is fully ignorant of what emotions are and how emotions are created. According to the angry adults and science believers, children ought to somehow magically and supernaturally possess emotions and mental judgments for things that the children had never firsthand experienced. The new generations of children having been given smart phones and tablets to be toys, they, and the world around them, will suffer for what the adults did.

It has now been about eighteen years since I lived for over five years within an off the grid semi-19th century lifestyle (albeit with five low watt solar panels and access to grocery store food). I would still be living there if it had not been for unwanted circumstances that forced me to move back into a city. Today I still feel a deep appreciation when hot water flows from a faucet, when the central heater comes on, when the air conditioner comes on, when I am able to cook on an electric stove, and the many other luxuries that the younger and older generations take for granted.

In earlier years I curiously watched as Vietnamese individuals turned water on to wet their hands, then turn the water off, then soap their hands, then turn the water back on to rinse-off their hands. I knew why the Vietnamese conserved water, but now I understand and can feel compassion for people who do not have the luxury of indoor plumbing nor have access to quantities of clean water.

The children within the global warming protests are not old enough to understand that their 'normal' way of life is far more luxurious than what any king or emperor ever had prior to the 1900s. Without the firsthand experience of living a pre-1900 lifestyle, the children cannot appreciate what they have, nor grasp why their demands are so rude. It appears that the global warming protesters are doing what they learned to do: stomp their feet and have temper-tantrums to get their way.

One individual had written that to help stop global warming, people should begin to learn how to sew a button back on rather than buy new clothes. The individual's 'logic' might have appeared sensible to them within their flagrantly wasteful luxurious lifestyle, but the individual's comment suggested that the individual had always before bought new clothes instead of exerting the tiny effort to sew on a button. Similar global warming people have no skills, no talents, no experience, no willingness to exert an effort to learn, nor so much as a baseline of common sense to form rational opinions. Many ancient masters of 'the way' also voiced many demands, while also not having any firsthand experience with the topic.

In the 1990s people cried and wrung their hands while worrying about El Nino (the world did not end as the people were claiming), while today the global warming people whine about the lack of rain — as well as too much rain, both simultaneously — and yet the global warming people will not speak a word of removing the dams that are causing downstream lands to dry and to cause fewer rains (and thus increase global warming). In some countries the people are crying about climate change and of how their crops no longer grow well because of the crop water increasing of salinity, but apparently no one is blaming the upstream dams (it is common for less water flow in rivers to result in increased percentages of salinity). Many people have built shacks on soft river beds, and then blamed climate change because the shacks collapsed. Climate change has become the boogie-man that receives all blame. (Further in this article are Confucian and Daodejing quotes that very clearly illustrate the unfairness of blaming other people and things for what tiny people do to themselves.)

And still no one is doing anything to help the environment. None are seen planting trees, nor reinforcing river banks, nor living eco-friendly lifestyles, nor forming zero-emissions communities, but rather the global warming movement has become as a cult of merely proselyting new believers (while the cult's leaders pocket more donations). The ancients did not do anything either.

About fifty years ago an elderly Native American man said that his land in the New Mexico region was green when he was a child. The region has been drying for about 130 known years, not drying because of modern technologies, and not because of man-made global warming, but because of natural cycles. The news media states that recent temperatures in the UK region are the highest ever recorded, and that, allegedly, the high temperatures somehow prove global warming. However, the related records only go back to 1951, and, so, yes, with only about 68 samples, yes, record high temperatures and record low temperatures must be common until there are many hundreds of samples. The news media twists and sensationalizes tiny facts to appear to match large imaginations. The ancients twisted tiny facts similarly within the aim to sensationalize the ancients' beliefs.

For myself, after having observed my first four seasons of hot, then warm soils cooling, then cold, then cool soils warming, then hot, I wondered if the cycle would repeat itself similarly as how all other cycles in Nature repeated themselves — days, nights, sleep, wake, aromas, weeks, months, sounds, textures, people's activities, etc.. During the third hot season, I concluded that the cycles of hot and cold would likely continue, but could still change. By the fifth hot season I concluded that the cycles were likely stable, and would likely continue to be stable, but there was always the possibility that the cycles might change in the future because I had only witnessed five cycles. I have witnessed several cycles of global warming and cooling, and I find no reason to assume that the cycles of warming and cooling will ever stop. Logically, rationally, and based upon firsthand experience of Nature's cycles, I myself see no evidence nor reason to believe that the world is coming to an end.

Also give note to the individuals who are bemoaning global warming. As people age, it is common for people to become more affected by temperature changes than when the people were young. When young, a 100 degree summer day is still comfortable, but at fifty years old the 100 degree day is felt to be uncomfortable, and at seventy years old the 100 degree day could be life-threatening. When watching old people on television going nuts about global warming, ask yourself why the old people did not go nuts twenty years ago when the temperatures were much hotter. What is the typical age range of the scientists and politicians who are currently mouthing the claims of global warming that the children protesters now believe in? Why are some of the historical records of global temperatures being reported (and allegedly proven with documented evidence) that someone has purposefully altered some of the historical records to show past temperatures to have been much cooler? Some ancients did similarly when inventing claims that previous generations did different things than what the current generation did, but the claims were not substantiated by evidence, and, in fact, the evidence suggests that the previous generations were generally very similar to the present generation. Life is not black and white, and just because someone says something, and just because millions of people are convinced to believe a shared belief, it does not mandate that the belief is true truth.

I know through firsthand experience what it is like to endure weeks of 115+ degree summer days with no breeze, no clouds, 99% humidity, and swarms of flesh-eating insects, so hot that soil moisture was visible as it rose from the ground and drifted into the sky. The summer days were uncomfortable, but nothing to worry about. In the 1990s some radio news programs spoke of the sun's radiation increasing, causing warmer temperatures on Earth as well as on other planets. If the true truth science of the 1990s was true truth, then why is it not still true truth today, and why do people no longer speak of science's claims of solar radiation? Many of the ancients did similar, making one 'true truth' claim one day, and then the next day pretending that the claim had never been spoken.

A healthy child, playing, discovers that a cube of ice melts slowly at first, but when the ice becomes small, the speed of melting increases because there is less ice to keep itself cold, the inside of the ice is not as cold as before, and because there is increased ambient temperatures relative to the ice's size. Little children know that. The news media, however, claims that glaciers have always been melting, but now that the glaciers are smaller, now the speed of melting is increasing, and, that, somehow, the faster melting proves global warming. Even little children recognize the news media's absurdities. Many ancients also made absurd claims, claims that even little children know cannot be true.

Another news report hypes a claim that a glacier is about to lose a huge chuck of ice due to global warming. According to the news media, the size of the ice that is about to break off contains about 250,000 cubic meters of ice. The news media, of course, ignores and does not state how wide and deep the alleged ice fault is, but simple arithmetic suggests that the ice might be maybe around ten acres of surface area, and maybe around ten to fifteen feet deep. Ten acres is insignificantly tiny to individuals who live in rural regions, but might seen to be huge to people who live in city cubicals. Some ancients did similarly, their only speaking of one angle while not explaining enough about the topic for other people to rationalize whether the claim was true or false.

'Zi said: Not offended, not start, not want-speak, not express-interest, to-hold-up one corner, not with three corners up, then not repeat also." (draft translation from Shu Er 7.8) Anyone who exhibits no interest in a topic, nor can present at least three angles of the topic, that individual is unworthy of speaking to. The global warming paranoia only holds up one corner while not expressing a sincere interest, nor 'living a life that shows it'.

Without anyone having presented three corners, countless thousands of times I have been told that the world will end within a few years — famine, global ice age, nuclear war, angels, pollution, global warming, etc. — and yet 100% of all of the prophesies failed. 100%. According to mathematical statistics, the world should have ended at least several times. If mathematical statistics are true truth, then the world has ended, and everyone died, several times already, apparently without our knowing it.

According to recent surveys, about 51% of voters under the age of thirty-five years old believe that it is somewhat likely that humans will be "wiped out" within ten to fifteen years. About ten percent are said to believe that it is very likely.

Which is the false belief? Mathematical statistics, or the claims of the end of the world? Logically, a person has to choose one or the other, else admit both are false beliefs. The ancients did similarly, that of making claims that did not come true, and yet the ancients continued making the same claims over and over as if saying the claims again could somehow make the claims become 'true truth' again.

The scientific knowledge of atoms is believed by most everyone to be true truth. Someday the scientific belief in atoms will change, proving that the old beliefs were false, and also proving that everyone who believed in atoms had merely believed an imaginary belief. Without firsthand experience, everything else is of imaginations. The ancients did similarly, of frequently changing and bending their 'true truths' to fit whichever new ideology that happened to be in vogue for the day.

The interesting thing is to wonder, that if each generation digresses while still having similar false beliefs, then what might have the generation been like during the pre-China warring states era? What might the Yellow Emperor generation have been like? Might there have indeed once been a culture that was like as if a garden of Eden? And if so, then would that not also suggest that Darwinian 'evolution' is going backwards? The more plausible answer might be that people have done and believed basically very similar things that all generations have believed and done, but each generation has a different set of environmental influences, resulting in different circumstances and different ways of believing similar beliefs.

Nevertheless, and unfortunately, one of the natures of the human animal is to hoard. Once people begin doing something, like a severe addiction the people keep doing it. History illustrates that people today have similar behaviors and beliefs as people did three-thousand years ago. The only sizable difference is that people of today hoard different things. One thing that humans have always hoarded, is pollution: humans cannot stop polluting, it is not within their nature to stop. Recent news media hype has claimed that people should eat less meat so as to help reduce the global warming caused by animals, but many 'global warming' people still have many dogs and cats in their homes, the inside and outside of their homes stinking of animal feces, the people literally living in feces, all while the same people cry about pollution caused by animals. Eventually the planet will be so polluted that humanity's population will unwillingly decrease. The world will not come to an end, but it will require unknown thousands of years to begin healing.

Forty years ago people were not satisfied to have rotary phones; today the hoarding has resulted in smart phones, and the continuing hoarding has led to 'Internet of Things', including appliances and even light switches that are controlled over the Internet. The problems compound, people now spend a lot of money for anti-virus, people are now stressed because of hackers getting into bank accounts, and there will be no end of more useless gadgets until either the Internet goes offline, or people get smart. The ancients' teachings did similarly, of finding a good idea, but then adding (inventing) more ideas, and the hoarding still continues, having created countless ideologies, all of which still do not know what the original idea implied.

Of about twenty years of watching recorded data from dozens of different websites, I learned what the most popular topics are, as well as which are the least popular. From 2011 through 2018, the one topic that ought to have been popular, but had almost no online individuals interested (and zero 'global warming' people), was related to protecting the environment. Generally, no one was interested, and generally, still no one is interested.

The highly promoted 'March for Science' protests of a couple years ago have already waned into almost nothing, and nothing meaningful was accomplished. Today's global warming protests are but one more of the momentary 'flash in the pan' cry-wolf fads that will also quickly fade into humored memories. Some of the world's best known ideologies also began with strong public interest and faith, but quickly the interest in the ideologies faded when the public chose to chase after a different ideology that promised more material profits.

Judging an individual's ethics and interests is easy: offer each global warming protester a million dollars to go home and to never again speak about global warming. Most, if not all, of the protesters would accept the money because, the individuals value self-profit over fairness.

'Zi say: Junzi bosom virtue-goodness, tiny people bosom earthen-products. Junzi bosom fairness, tiny people bosom favor.' (draft translation of Li Ren 11)

The global warming protesters do not bosom fairness, nor bosom a concern for the planet. The protesters demand that modern methods of energy production somehow be supernaturally made clean, which, of course, cannot and will not happen. The protesters themselves are not busy inventing new energy sources that are clean, which is a good thing anyway, because it is already known that all new technologies will be abused by some individuals who are wanting financial profit, and by other individuals who would very quickly twist the technology into a weapon that could destroy far more than what man is currently able. Humans are not yet ready for, nor worthy of, a pollution-free world.

Life is not black and white, life is not flat, there are never only two choices that could nascent a 'paradox', and that topic leads into Qinren's comments about mutuals.

A humorous note and example is of an individual who sent surveys to numerous people, including myself. The survey asked whether I was a theist, atheist, agnostic, or one of the few other related nouns. I replied a general 'none of the above'. The individual, apparently confused, told me that I had to be at least one of the categories. If an individual can choose between two flat choices, then the individual's thoughts are also flat.

Tao Paradox

The following are seven translations of the last sentence within Daodejing's section #78:

"Words that are strictly true seem to be paradoxical." (James Legge 1891)

"These are words of truth, Though they seem paradoxical." (Ch'u Ta-Kao 1904)

"The truest sayings are paradoxical." (Lionel Giles 1905)

"Truth, when expressed in speech, appears paradoxical." (Spurgeon Medhurst 1905)

"True words seem paradoxical." (D.T. Suzuki & Paul Carus 1913)

"True words in paradox." (Isabella Mears 1916)

"True words are often paradoxical." (Dwight Goddard 1919)

It is unknown if the translators used the word 'paradox' to imply two believed truths that contradict, or perhaps imply two truths from different points of view, or perhaps some other definition. Since the translators failed to define what their own words meant, then today it is not possible to accurately translate the seven translators' English sentences into English.

The last two words of the sentence are 若 (ruo), implying 'as, choose, comparable, identical, like, same, seem, similar' and 反 (fan) implying 'contrary, counter, instead, like-this, on the contrary, rebel, revolt, turn-over, wrong side out, wrong side up', creating a concept like 'same wrong side up' as in contradicting or conflicting one nature or behavior as compared to a different nature or behavior.

Within modern English cultures, the paragraph might read something like "Within all of Creation nothing is as gentle and weak as regards to water, but even a strong powerful person is not capable of being victorious over water: he does not have the capacity to change it. Weak is victorious over powerful, gentle is victorious over strong. In all of Creation no one doesn't know water's nature, yet no one is able to be of a similar behavior. A sage person said: [poem] 'Receiver of the nation's humiliation, he be named priest. Receiver of the nation's lack of good fortune, he be named king.' Common speech is the same wrong side up."

Depending upon how an individual interprets the underlying concepts, the priest could [1] be as the scapegoat for the people's blame of national humiliation, or [2] the priest might blame himself for the nation's humiliation, which in turn causes the people to venerate the priest's sense of personal responsibility. Similar for the king to [1] be the scapegoat blame for the nation's misfortunes, or [2] the people venerate the king because of his accepting personal responsibility for the nation's failures.

A nation's sins are caused by the citizens, not by priests, and it is unfair behavior to blame a priest for something that the citizens did. Likewise, it is also unfair for a priest to blame himself for what other people did. Similarly, it is unfair to blame a king for what the people did, and it is also unfair for a king to blame himself for what the people do. Nevertheless, it is common for people to unfairly blame their own faults upon priests and kings (and global warming), and, it is also common for people to enjoy having someone else take blame for the people's evils.

The following is a related topic about how some people blame other people. The first modern English phrasing is of the concepts from within Zhong Yong section 14, and the second phrasing is from section 15. Note that the phrasings are intended for ease of reading, and are not intended to properly convey the original texts' mental patterns.

[1] 'A junzi's personal position is rooted, and his behavior does not change to be similar to how the people behave in his outer environment. The junzi's root is abundant, and his precious behavior is similarly as abundant as the precious root. A person's poor cheap behavior is similar to their poor cheap root. The barbarians' behavior is similar to the barbarian's root; suffer hard behavior has a similarly suffer hard root. Junzi can enter into a barbarian land and not himself attain the barbarians' behavior.

People in high positions should not work to death people in the below positions. People in below positions should not take-on the role of higher positions. Correct oneself and do not investigate people; do not trace blame to other people. High position people should not blame Creation, especially not blame people.

A junzi lives a simple life, waiting his own fate, while tiny people's behavior gambles with the hope of luck.' [note: the word 'gamble' implies chance, as in Darwinian chance evolution]

[2] 'Zi said: Archery has a similarity, it is like when a junzi altogether misses the correct target, he instead investigates his own person.' The concept is to investigate one's self — self-analyses, self-critiquing, self-thinking — for the reason of why an error occurred, and to not blame the bow, arrow, target, nor other people (nor global warming).

Although the Confucian writings are separate from the Daodejing writings, still it is common for bright individuals to recognize and to know that it is a mark of a tiny person to blame someone else for one's own faults, and also, that what root oneself has inside will rule over one's own outwardly expressed behavior. The topic of blaming other people directly relates to the last sentence in Daodejing #78.

If the Daodejing poem did infer that it is common behavior to blame priests and kings, then the last four words of the paragraph — common, speech, same, wrong-side-up — relate to the previous sentences that spoke of the priest and king (which were themselves related to the natures of water). If the poem inferred that people who accept personal responsibility for other people's sins can then be named a priest, or a person who accepts personal responsibility for the welfare of a nation can be named a king, then the poem still points to priests and kings unfairly suffering all responsibilities while the citizens unfairly accept no responsibilities.

Similar are the 'March for Science' protesters, 'global warming' protesters, and doomsdayers who blame governments, corporations, and everyone else except themselves: no "live a life that shows it". The people's outer behavior proves the people's inner root. The Daodejing poem's words point to the common human nature of individuals being unfairly blamed (receiving) or accepting responsibility for things that the individuals have no power over, as well as relating to how the whole relates to the nature of water.

Water is weak and gentle when not moving in one's palm, but water, when moving, is stronger than the strongest mountain, stronger than steel, and stronger than the strongest people. Saying 'water is weak' is both true and false, but that is the common way that people talk. Saying the priest is responsible for people's sins is a common way that people talk. Saying kings are responsible for the nation's welfare is a common way that people talk. The common way that people talk is inaccurate, and is still inaccurate today.

Therefore, the paragraph ends with 'Common speech is the same wrong side up'. There was no paradox, nor any contradictions, nor so much as a hint of a paradox of any form. If an individual does not know of the nature of water, if the individual does not understand 'In all of Creation no one doesn't know water's nature' — which is a thing that even little children learn while playing with a garden hose — then perhaps the individual might could personally believe that the nature of water is a paradox.

Regardless of howsoever an individual might choose to interpret the original words, the obvious fact remains; if the stories of the 'masters' of 'tao awareness' repeatedly claimed that 'tao awareness' is supposed to imply an absence of sensory perceptions and an absence of conscious reasoning, then why did the author give importance to his own conscious reasoning of words? Why did the author apply conscious reasoning to recognize that other people ought to see and feel similar natures of water, weak, and gentle? The author's claims within #78 were not a paradox, but rather the very simplistic claims were of tiny things that all healthy minds can easily reason to be valid of Nature.

A valid question is to ask why all seven of the previous translations used the same word 'paradox', or a variation of the same word. The answer cannot be confidently known, but, considering that all of the authors had previously copied previous translators' words, and since none of the translators had firsthand experience with the topic, nor did the translators exhibit an ability to retain durational thought from one sentence to the next, then it seems most plausible that the scholarly translators had merely foregone the personal responsibility of reading the original Chinese texts, and instead, merely copied what the previous scholarly translators had copied from other scholars.

The translators' use of the word 'paradox' is a related example of 'Common speech is the same wrong side up'. About sixty-five years ago there was a very popular television program that had a segment titled "Kids Say the Darndest Things". A fun modern version might be "Adults Say the Darndest Things". All languages of all cultures of all eras have all suffered from the similar problem of having the inability to speak true words, because, all words are mere symbols, none of which are fully true.

Purposeful Paradox

Sometimes a 'paradox' is purposeful. An example: 'through the greatest of effort, the most difficult thing in life arrives without effort'. The 'paradox' is merely the purposeful omission of the details that would explain that it requires an intense self-effort to achieve the personal ingredients necessary to create a specific state of self, but once the ingredients are present, the state of self nascents on its own without further effort.

An analogy is the effort required to assemble the blocks of a pyramid. A lot of effort is required to acquire and assemble the blocks, but once the blocks are stacked, the concept 'pyramid' then nascents all by itself.

Similar is bread, that requires sizable effort to assemble the ingredients of growing wheat, harvesting wheat, grinding the wheat, pressing vegetable oil, harvesting flavorings, chopping wood for heating, kneading the dough, forming a bread pan to place the dough in, and building a stove to place the wood in, but once the ingredients are assembled, no further effort is necessary for the dough to become bread.

When a statement appears to be a paradox, the reason is because of one's own lack of knowing what happened beyond and between points A and B.

Powers Without Effort

Thousands of years ago — allegedly during the era of the Yellow emperor — a virtuous man wrote of a self-experience. The man interpreted the self-experience to be tranquil, and to be a self-observation of how his own thoughts arose: the man, spoke of virtue as being among the core ingredients.

Believers believe that they themselves are able to attain the identical same state of tranquility through the use of greed and force sans virtue. There is no paradox. The belief is simply wrong, the behavior is wrong, the root is wrong, and the outcome is wrong.

Self-thinking: if all known men who spoke of similar things as the virtuous man's self-experience, also spoke of the prerequisite being virtue, then an individual ought to be capable of sufficient self-reasoning that the virtuous man's self-experience was made possible through the state of virtue. However, 'where is everybody'? Why are there not tens of millions of extremely virtuous people walking the streets and shopping malls all day every day?

Billions of people believing that they will attain some sort of supernatural powers, while the people themselves will not exert the self-effort and a self-participation to first strive to attain inner virtue, no "live a life that shows it": the behavior is not paradoxical, it is simply wrong.

Nature-based reasoning, is that it is more likely to unknowingly meet a space alien on Earth than to knowingly meet a truly virtuous human.

Stable Mind

If a belief can be changed, then what is now believed is also an imaginary illusion.

Biologists used to believe that they knew everything about everything about the human body, until the day that DNA was discovered. Now biologists believe that they know everything about everything about the human body because they have memorized words about DNA. Someday, the belief will again change when a new belief is invented that also ignores the laws of Nature.

Most all school children have been taught the true truth of Lucy, the one true missing link that all humans evolved from. But now new fossils have allegedly been found that suggest that a different species coexisted within the era of Lucy, and the new species did not evolve from Lucy. The belief in Lucy and Darwinianism, is once again being proven to have been a false belief, but, most people will continue making excuses to believe in Darwinian evolution while ignoring the laws of Nature.

A few decades ago, most all school children were taught to believe that no water existed anywhere in the solar system except on Earth. The belief has now changed, but the new beliefs also still ignore the laws of Nature.

"In grief, the inner organs are unquestionably anemic as well as the skin. This is of course not obvious to the eye, but many phenomena prove it." (The Principles of Psychology, William James, 1890, quoting Danish physiologist, C. Lange.). One-hundred and twenty-nine years later, look at what science has done with its knowledge of how emotions influence the physical body. Not much different from the doomsdayers, 'back to Nature' hippies, 'save the planet' disco-ers, and 'global warming' people of today, scientists did nothing except make all things worse. And it is there, precisely there, that proves that although most people do sincerely believe in science, still the people will not live according to their own beliefs — not "live a life that shows it" — and, the people still ignore the laws of Nature.

Many people claim that mathematics and science are true truths, but none of the people behave in accordance with their beliefs. Look at today's cultures; all of the cultures are of violence and of harmed emotions; all of the cultures exhibit as if a split personality schizophrenia. One cultural personality believes in science, the other personality behaves against science, all while the dementia and distortion of Reality grows increasingly violent. It is reported that about fifty years ago the FBI investigated the song 'Louie Louie' for about two years because the song might have had bad words, but today many songs have bad words, and some public schools are now teaching little children how to physically commit the bad acts upon themselves that the song's bad words allegedly spoke of, but, almost no one notices, nor cares.

And there is one of the differences between the normal person and the junzi: normal people behave with split personalities that believe in conflicting beliefs while claiming and excusing the contradictions to be paradoxes, while the junzi, the quality individual, self-critiques and behaves with one mind and one personality.

'Zi say: Junzi him compared-to heaven below. Even-if fit, even-if cannot, right-conduct him follow...' [Even-if conduct fit situation, even-if conduct not fit situation, right-conduct him follow] (draft translation of a portion of Li Ren 10)

Most people change their behaviors and personalities to fit whatsoever situation that the people are in: their minds and personalities are not stable, nor of right conduct. The global warming people have not first cleansed the Earth under their own feet, nor will they. The outward behavior proves the people's inner root, as well as proving an instability of personality.

The old Confucian quotes do not say much of anything new, but the way that many of the quotes are arranged of patterns is very beautiful of meaning. The junzi, the quality man, has one mind, and one chosen right-conduct; the tiny man, has several minds, each with wrong conduct. The tiny man believes in paradoxes; junzi self-thinks.