A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He also showed how a new economic system can be created that protects everyone in the world from ever going below a basic standard of living.

Here is another point that was not clearly spelled out in the 'Golden Age'. Lessans asserted that everyone would be guaranteed to stay at their existing wage or at some predetermined minimum. However it was not clear where the money would come from to accomplish this universal minimum wage. If it were to come from the government, then that government could simply print more money or issue more credit and inflation would soon wipe out that minimum. Lessans asserted that everyone would continue to be paid but didn't specify who was going to pay them.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Whether you hear him or not is another story since you, just like Koan, Vivisectus, TLR, Angakuk, Spacemonkey, Dragar, thedoc, anonymous, and others, don't believe someone could come online and have an authentic discovery and are fighting me tooth and nail. That's the source of the problem.

Speaking only for myself, I have no problem entertaining the idea that "someone could come online and have an authentic discovery". What I do have a problem with is your insistence that Lessans made such a discovery when all of the available evidence demonstrates that he did no such thing and no evidence has been offered in support of the claim that he did make such a discovery.

[LadyShea]

Lessans asserted that everyone would be guaranteed to stay at their existing wage or at some predetermined minimum. However it was not clear where the money would come from to accomplish this universal minimum wage.

And really why have a system involving money at all?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you believe people have free will, then you get to keep your blame and punishment, but if you believe that man has no free will (because his actions are caused by antecedent events), then you do not get to keep your blame and punishment because he had no choice.

I have asked this question before, and got no response from you. So, here it is again.

On what basis do you claim that blame cannot be assigned, or punishment administered, if man's will is not free?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Here is another point that was not clearly spelled out in the 'Golden Age'. Lessans asserted that everyone would be guaranteed to stay at their existing wage or at some predetermined minimum. However it was not clear where the money would come from to accomplish this universal minimum wage. If it were to come from the government, then that government could simply print more money or issue more credit and inflation would soon wipe out that minimum. Lessans asserted that everyone would continue to be paid but didn't specify who was going to pay them.

It's that same old problem of having no mechanism, just like the case of efferent vision. Damn those pesky details!

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And really why have a system involving money at all?

Eureka! I just made a really brilliant discovery. This discovery has the power to end all war, crime, hunger and injustice. What we have to do is dispense with money altogether and just give everyone what they need while they go about contributing to the welfare of society to the best of their individual abilities. I even came up with a really pithy slogan for this.

To each according to his need and from each according to his ability.

That is just such an obviously perfect solution. I can't understand why no one has ever thought of it before. I suppose that it is just the case that human development had not, prior to this moment, reached the point where it was possible for this discovery to be revealed.

Come on guys, let's get going on this. This could really happen!

[LadyShea]

Brilliant Angakuk! What could possibly go wrong? Nobody could find greater satisfaction in abusing such a system for personal gain since they have everything they need!

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And really why have a system involving money at all?

That is something you should take up with peacegirl, I was only addressing the point Lessans made in the book. I believe Lessans implyed that the system would be based on money but it was not clearly stated, as many other ideas of his were not clearly stated.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Brilliant Angakuk! What could possibly go wrong? Nobody could find greater satisfaction in abusing such a system for personal gain since they have everything they need!

It's foolproof I tell you, foolproof, undeniably, mathematically and scientifically foolproof!

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Bumping the heinous crap that is Lessans ideas about love and relationships. In the entire chapter, Lessans never once mentions companionship, shared interests, personality, humor, goals and dreams, or anything else denoting people relating to each other with their minds as well as their bodies.

You've gotta love how he did away with premarital sex, though. There will be no premarital sex in Lessantopia because -- presto change-o eenie meanie chili beanie -- "marriage" now means "sex." No sex is "premarital" because sex is automatically marriage! To the extent it was a problem before, problem solved!

Remember how earlier in the thread someone (rigorist, maybe) quipped about Lessans fapping to creepy porn? Yeah, well ...

Originally Posted by Seymouron Less-thans

Take a look at this picture. It is of a girl who has an aquiline nose, buck teeth, a receding hair line, heavy bow legs, sagging breasts, a projected rear end, a hair lip, and she lisps and stutters.

So the whole human vision train wreck, complete with efferent sight and projecting words onto screens of undeniable substance, appears to have been born from an unrequited desire to boink a circus freak. There really is no telling just how deep this rabbit hole of lulz goes!

It's probably just as well that Lessans didn't spend much time on anything but sex in that chapter. Whenever he ventured outside his mental comfort zone, shit like this happened:

Originally Posted by Misogynist Dumbass

Gift giving has always been a special problem in marital relationships (which children eventually imitate) because the woman has always equated a gift with love. The quality, price, and effort that went into buying the gift were standards the woman used to measure a man’s love.

All y'all married ladies is just a buncha money-grubbing whores.

You stay classy there, Seymour.

Originally Posted by thedoc

Here is another point that was not clearly spelled out in the 'Golden Age'. Lessans asserted that everyone would be guaranteed to stay at their existing wage or at some predetermined minimum. However it was not clear where the money would come from to accomplish this universal minimum wage. If it were to come from the government, then that government could simply print more money or issue more credit and inflation would soon wipe out that minimum. Lessans asserted that everyone would continue to be paid but didn't specify who was going to pay them.

It's very simple, thedoc:

1. Pass test on the two-sided equation.
2. Sign contract.
3. ???
4. Profit!

It's funny in large part because it highlights so starkly the First World white boy status of the whole enterprise. You won't see very many dirt poor brown folk spending 8 hours a day for 15 years pondering determinism and laying out their musings in multiple dumbfuck books. The Sacred Text is the product of someone with way too much leisure time on his hands.

So, yeah. There won't be any governments in the Golden Age, but there will be money. Why? Because there was money in Lessans' experience and the notion of a moneyless society was just too offensive to his delicate middle class lily-white sensibilities. Private industry will continue to provide, just as it always has, for much the same reasons.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

It's foolproof I tell you, foolproof, undeniably, mathematically and scientifically foolproof!

I think you should gather a bunch of people together and go off and start your own little trial state and let us know how it works out, you could even call it Jonestown. You might even find an unocupied location in Guyana to try it.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

The Sacred Text is the product of someone with way too much leisure time on his hands.

Yes, too much time, and not enough of anything else.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by thedoc

I think you should gather a bunch of people together and go off and start your own little trial state and let us know how it works out, you could even call it Jonestown. You might even find an unocupied location in Guyana to try it.

You mock me at your peril. At your peril, sir.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No, it's unfortunately the dynamic of open forums in general. You can't get away from it because people are psychologically influenced by the majority, or the person who is the loudest or the meanest, which has very little to do with the actual content.

It's bullshit for you to tell me I'm talking bullshit. For you to say that the free will/determinism issue can never be determined because the subject matter is immaterial, IS A BIG PILE OF BULLSHIT.

No there wouldn't be and it might end today. Your constant accusation that he is wrong when you don't understand the first thing about this knowledge, is the empitome of ignorant. I'm showing you why this is not a modal fallacy, why this is not a tautology, why this is an undeniable observation which is not contradictory like compatabilism is, and why this natural law has the power to prevent what manmade laws could never accomplish, and what do you do, you handwave it away. All you do is keep telling me you don't see how this can prevent war and crime when you have no idea what this knowledge is about. Why not be patient instead of making these accusations prematurely? This is very frustrating for me. You are failing in your investigation because you are not taking the time to learn what this is about; you are just blurting out your negative opinion because you are skeptical. It's okay to be skeptical, as Lessans said, but it's not okay to make presumptive assumptions that this work is flawed.

This is not weaseling bullshit, okay? If you want to continue talking to me you will need an attitude adjustment, and if you think that this knowledge is fake because the new world isn't here yet and therefore must be a measley assertion, you better reevaluate the way in which you are determining what is true and what is false.

epistemology: The branch of philosophy that studies the nature of knowledge, its presuppositions and foundations, and its extent and validity.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL did you not see the winking smilie or did you not know it was put there purposefully to send you into a shit fit like this? You're funny

I missed the wink. I'm glad you were joking.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not asking just you, I'm asking everybody to hold off and wait, but don't forget his claim as time goes on. I do want to move on to a much more important topic which will provide a way out of a miserable existence for a large portion of the population.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You can't decide what interests the people you are discussing with. You do not get to direct the conversation here.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's not about "not getting". It's about sharing the most important discovery of our times. I can't force you to be interested in something that you think has no value because you think it's just philosophy with no right or wrong answers.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Exactly my point. You can't force others to have the discussion you want to have, no matter how much you stamp your feet, or beg, or weasel.

I don't have to beg. I can give my reasons why his first discovery is more pressing in the hope that people will an interest. If not, I will leave because I don't want to waste anymore time on the eyes, especially when there needs to be more empirical testing with Lessans' claim taken into account.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You can direct the discussion on your own website, or blog, or lecture series, or companion guide to the book or whatever...but not on a discussion forum on the Internet.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can ask people to please take a break from the discussion on the eyes.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yes and they are unlikely to comply with that request.

If they don't comply then they can talk to each other, but I will talk about his first discovery even though you think it's less important because it's just someone's opinion.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If people thought for one second that this knowledge could actually prevent war, crime, and poverty, they wouldn't hesitate to listen, but they think it's a big joke which has to do with how I'm being treated in here. It can't help but rub off on those who are lurking.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It's a big joke because neither Lessans nor you have offered any rational, well supported reason, whatsoever, to believe Lessans ideas could actually prevent war, crime, and poverty.

It's too late for this forum, but next time try to make compelling arguments, answer questions adequately, and refrain from histrionics and blatant weaseling.

That may or may not help people get over the inadequacies in the book itself, but it might garner you more preferable treatment.

How do you know it's too late for this forum? Have you asked everyone here? Do you have a basis for that claim? Where is your statistical analysis that backs this up? You're slacking LadyShea. And for you to say these arguments are not compelling is ridiculous given that you don't even know what the actual discovery is. What is it LadyShea? Do you even know? As far as my histrionics, I've done pretty well considering the frustration of people telling me he has nothing valuable, and being called horrible names and being insulted day after day for almost two years. I think it's a miracle that I'm still here.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm showing you why this is not a modal fallacy, why this is not a tautology, why this is an undeniable observation which is not contradictory like compatabilism is, and why this natural law has the power to prevent what manmade laws could not.

Asserting is not "showing", you've never "shown" any of these things. Link me to any demonstration rather than you just making statements?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is not weaseling bullshit, okay?

I have pointed out every weasel and explained why it was a weasel. That you spew weaseling bullshit is heavily exampled throughout the thread and apparent for anyone who reads it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you want to continue talking to me you will need an attitude adjustment

LOL, you want me to talk to you differently, but as you've continued to respond to me no matter my attitude, then you've demonstrated that I don't need to do anything.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

and if you think that this knowledge is fake because the new world isn't here yet so that this must be just a measley assertion, you better reevaluate the way in which you are determining what is true and what is false.

I determine what is true and false based on the available evidence. If there is no direct evidence due to being theoretical, then I evaluate supporting arguments to see if the claim is well grounded. This is the very best way to determine the truth.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How do you know it's too late for this forum? Have you asked everyone here? Do you have a basis for that claim?

"Everyone" here has already spoken for themselves, and has been dealing with your weaseling via avoidance, histrionics, lies, and assertions for almost 2 years.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Where is your statistical analysis that backs this up?

The posts in this thread. koan is the most recent.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

you have no idea what you're talking about when you say that the free will/determinism issue can never be proven one way or the other because it's immaterial

Please offer any test that could prove whether free will exists or doesn't exist.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm showing you why this is not a modal fallacy, why this is not a tautology, why this is an undeniable observation which is not contradictory like compatabilism is, and why this natural law has the power to prevent what manmade laws could not.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Asserting is not "showing", you've never "shown" any of these things. Link me to any demonstration rather than you just making statements?

I am not working any harder than you LadyShea. You have done nothing to understand the discovery, so for me to cowtow to one person (i.e., YOU) on this forum is counterproductive because it's a waste of valuable energy.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is not weaseling bullshit, okay?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I have pointed out every weasel and explained why it was a weasel. That you spew weaseling bullshit is heavily exampled throughout the thread and apparent for anyone who reads it.

People will see that you are trying to corner me and make it appear like a weasel. I told you that more empirical studies have to be done. You have a certain mindset that refuses to give Lessans a chance, therefore anything that I say will be dismissed outright. It will be proof in your eyes (i.e., there is no proof according to you so I am condemned before I start), that I'm a weasel. It's totally unfair and I hope people see that.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you want to continue talking to me you will need an attitude adjustment

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL, you want me to talk to you differently, but as you've continued to respond to me no matter my attitude, then you've demonstrated that I don't need to do anything.

That's true. Don't press your luck if you want to be a part of this discussion. I don't care if you are involved or not, but I do care how people perceive your responses. Your refutation is a NOT a true negation of these principles and I want people to know that this is based on a lack of true understanding.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

and if you think that this knowledge is fake because the new world isn't here yet so that this must be just a measley assertion, you better reevaluate the way in which you are determining what is true and what is false.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I determine what is true and false based on the available evidence. If there is no direct evidence due to being theoretical, then I evaluate supporting arguments to see if the claim is well grounded. This is the very best way to determine the truth.

There you go, back to your comfort zone. I will not discuss this book with you any further until you open your mind to a different way of thinking. You have to be more open-minded, which is shocking to me because you are supposed to be a free thinker. You are not any such thing. If you can't open your mind, we're done LadyShea because I'm not going to talk to you about photons that haven't arrived, or modal fallacies that are non-existent.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How do you know it's too late for this forum? Have you asked everyone here? Do you have a basis for that claim?

Originally Posted by Ladyshea

"Everyone" here has already spoken for themselves, and has been dealing with your weaseling via avoidance, histrionics, lies, and assertions for almost 2 years.

Okay, now you're trying to save face. You just can't handle that you don't have all the answers so now you are coming back with attacks that have no true rationale other than LadyShea said it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Where is your statistical analysis that backs this up?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The posts in this thread. koan is the most recent.

Koan? How dare you compare my two year stay with someone who happened to stumble on this thread. She knows nothing whatsoever. That means you are trying to defend your position without any substance at all. Talk about a weasler? You take the cake LadyShea.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

you have no idea what you're talking about when you say that the free will/determinism issue can never be proven one way or the other because it's immaterial

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Please offer any test that could prove whether free will exists or doesn't exist.

I did, and I will talk to Spacemonkey. You are completely egocentric which gives me no hope talking to you. You are not going to bring this thread down because of bias or plain old skepticism. I hope you can handle it when this knowledge is proved true, and you are left at the back door with only your ego to deal with.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

You mock me at your peril. At your peril, sir.

I am well equiped with lightning rods and a tinfiol hat, so do your worst, after all I've survived this thread for more than a year now.

And do it soon, My batteries need charged.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

They are related to the reality of how people understand and communicate about the concepts and terms in question. They are useful because there is no other way to convey the concepts except by using words.

Math doesn't need definitions. One of something is one of something in all languages and across all cultures. You can demonstrate the concept of 1+1 without using any language at all or using different words and symbols to represent the numbers.

Exactly. If the underlying proposition is correct, the definition will reflect that accuracy.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You cannot explain the concepts of free will, determinism, or greater satisfaction without using common definitions. So while you are of course free to reject a definition, that doesn't mean anyone else will agree with your idiosyncratic usage of terms...and may in turn reject your definition.

Of course you can use a common definition. It's a universal law. Universal laws can be explained no matter what part of the world you live in.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No, it is not assumed. It is directly observed. You can see it for yourself. Simply shine a flashlight off a mirror in a darkened room. You will see the light that is not absorbed bounce off the mirror and hit the wall. Put some red colored paint or cellophane on the mirror, and you will see that the mirror now absorbs the non-red light from your torch while the non-absorbed red light from the flashlight bounces off and hits the wall. And worse, you have absolutely no explanation for where the non-absorbed light goes if it doesn't bounce off and travel away.

You should know by now what you mean, but unfortunately you don't. Because the only pattern or information involved on our account is something you agree with. The only things you keep denying (other than the light-speed delay, whose alleged absence you cannot explain) are things that the afferent account does not claim.

I am not denying the properties of absorption and non-absorption. But to say that non-absorbed photons travel forever and ever no matter how old the universe is --- and that if we were in just the right place for light to strike our eyes, we would see an ancient event such as Columbus discovering America, is a false observation and one that needs careful reevaluation. Please do not answer this post, or you will say that I am ignoring you.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I will not be done until I am done. I can keep posting on this topic-here and elsewhere- all I want. So no, you cannot say when or if I am done.

You can do whatever you want LadyShea, na na na na na. You won this round of playground politics. Are you happy now?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

As for context, I asked you multiple times to supply the alleged context that would change the meaning of Lessans very clear words on the subject of falling in love with genitals. Care to revisit that disgusting passage?

Never will I take the time to explain anything to you. You'll have to get it on your own.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

A compulsion means you are compelled to do what you do. It is no different than being caused to do what you do. So please don't play these word games with me in order to make yourself appear right.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am stipulating what I mean by the term compulsion. You don't get to insist that I use the term according to your preferred usage. Compatibilism says that the absence of non-causal compulsion is all that is required to make us morally responsible beings that can be justly praised or blamed for our actions.

I get to use a term in the way it is normally defined Spacemonkey. I don't insist you do anything at all. Do what you want, and define terms any way that you want, but you won't get any closer to the truth. Non-causal compulsion is an oxymoron.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not ignoring how it's defined but it's not a useful definition unless you want to accept a contradiction.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You are ignoring how I have defined the term, and you are not showing me any contradiction.

If you cannot accept or even consider that these two words are contradictory, then I'm not going to continue. It would be suicidal because I could prove to you scientifically that a non-causal compulsion is total gibberish, but you will still tell me I'm wrong. It's like trying to convince someone that he is not a worm in human form when his entire life has been dedicated to the belief that he is a worm in human form. I'm not going to use my energy to fight a losing battle with you.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Acting in accordance with one's choices without compulsion means will is free, according to the very definition. Why don't you get this? It's like you didn't even hear me and then you go on to tell me that I haven't showed you the flaw.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What about acting in accordance with one's choices without any compulsion other than causation? Because that is how I just defined compatibilist freedom for you. Yet you reply as if you haven't even read my words.

Don't you see that you can't act in accordance with your choices without compulsion. Compulsion takes the form of "greater satisfaction". We have no choice BUT to choose that which moves away from dissatisfaction, or we wouldn't move because we would be satisfied. That is an astute observation, but you will fight me tooth and nail and tell me that it's not because you want to be right at all costs. This observation forms the foundational premise upon which the rest of his discovery is based, but we will never get to his discovery. Can you believe we never even got to Chapter Two where his discovery is revealed? Every choice that is made is under a compulsion (whether large or small) to choose that which is most preferable among the alternatives that are available to us.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Compulsion does not have to be a strong impulse. Compulsion means to be compelled to do something whether it's a strong impulse or a weak impulse. Causal determination as a compulsion is accurate because being compelled is being caused. You're just twisting words to make it appear as if the two terms are not identical.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Speaking of causal determination as compulsion is not accurate, because I have stipulated that this is not the sense in which I am using the word. Weak or strong, the point is that causation does not imply any such psychological impulse towards an unwanted choice or action.

You have understood nothing whatsoever. I'm really taken aback. There is definitely a psychological impulse to choose that which offers greater satisfaction, not that which offers less satisfaction. You need to go back to page one if you have any chance of understanding this discovery. When you say "unwanted", that can only occur if the choices available are even less wanted (i.e., the lesser of two evils). Do you even understand what that concepts means at all?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

As I said before, the freedom to choose without compulsion is the same thing as saying without causal necessity. You are using the word "compulsion" with the wrong reference.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I get to choose how I use my words.

I don't care about your choice of words. I care about what those words convey and if they are accurate. You don't get to decide if a word relationship is accurate.

This discovery will be presented in a step by step fashion that brooks no
opposition and your awareness of this matter will preclude the
possibility of someone adducing his rank, title, affiliation, or the long
tenure of an accepted belief as a standard from which he thinks he
qualifies to disagree with knowledge that contains within itself
undeniable proof of its veracity.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I get to decide for myself which definition of compulsion I am using.

I could care less what definition of compulsion you are using, but when it doesn't apply because you've picked the wrong definition as it applies to this debate, I have every right to point it out to you and for you to make the necessary corrections.

Originally Posted by "And I was NOT using a definition which is equivalent to or inclusive of causal determination. But it really doesn't matter, because even if you insist on treating causation as a form of compulsion, I have defined compatibilist freedom as requiring only freedom from all coercion and compulsion [i

other than[/i] causal determination. And you have yet to identify any flaw or contradiction in this position.

There is no such thing as compatibilist freedom, as if this is different from the standard usage of the word. You cannot give your sacred belief a free pass because you don't want it to be wrong. If compatibilist freedom requires only freedom from coercion, you still are left with the standard definition of free will. If compatibilist freedom requires freedom from compulsion, you also still left with the standard definition of free will because "compulsion" means "compelled". If one is compelled, he does not have a free choice.

The definition of free will states that good or evil can be chosen
without compulsion or necessity despite the obvious fact that there is
a tremendous amount of compulsion. The word choice itself indicates
there are preferable differences, otherwise, there would be no choice in
the matter at all as with A and A.

The reason you are confused is
because the word ‘choice’ is very misleading for it assumes that man
has two or more possibilities, but in reality this is a delusion because
the direction of life, always moving towards greater satisfaction,
compels a person to prefer of differences what he considers better for
himself, and when two or more alternatives are presented, he is
compelled, by his very nature, to prefer not that one which he
considers worse, but what gives every indication of being better for the
particular set of circumstances involved.

Choosing, or the comparison
of differences, is an integral part of man’s nature, but to reiterate this
important point...he is compelled to prefer of alternatives the one he
considers better for himself and though he chooses various things all
through the course of his life, he is never given any choice at all.
Although the definition of free will states that man can choose good
or evil without compulsion or necessity, how is it possible for the will
of man to be free when choice is under a tremendous amount of
compulsion to choose the most preferable alternative each and every
moment of time?

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not denying the properties of absorption and non-absorption.

Great! So you accept that light does indeed get reflected if its not absorbed? Because that's the opposite of what you just claimed.

Why do you continually lie like this?

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

A mathematical model may start out as a simplification, but when it's complete it is precise LadyShea. We can't build bridges with an approximation.

Actually, all mathematical models are approximations. That's pretty-much the entire point of the model. The more detailed is the model, the more precise and accurate it can be in its predictions. But some degree of simplification (and thus imprecision and inaccuracy) is inevitable. [A word of advice: "precise" and "accurate" do not mean the same thing.]

If you actually think that it's desirable or even possible to mathematically account for all factors when designing a bridge, well then, I have a bridge to sell you. It's a lovely bridge over the Tacoma Narrows Strait.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And really why have a system involving money at all?

Because money is used for services rendered. It is a form of exchange and has a certain amount of purchasing power. Money (in the form of paper) is on its way out, which Lessans foresaw.

Purchasing power (sometimes retroactively called adjusted for inflation) is the amount of goods or services that can be purchased with a unit of currency. For example, if you had taken one dollar to a store in the 1950s, you would have been able to buy a greater number of items than you would today, indicating that you would have had a greater purchasing power in the 1950s. Currency can be either a commodity money, like gold or silver, or fiat currency, or free-floating market-valued currency like US dollars. As Adam Smith noted, having money gives one the ability to "command" others' labor, so purchasing power to some extent is power over other people, to the extent that they are willing to trade their labor or goods for money or currency.

If one's monetary income stays the same, but the price level increases, the purchasing power of that income falls. Inflation does not always imply falling purchasing power of one's money income since it may rise faster than the price level. A higher real income means a higher purchasing power since real income refers to the income adjusted for inflation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purchasing_power

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Actually, all mathematical models are approximations. That's pretty-much the entire point of the model. The more detailed is the model, the more precise and accurate it can be in its predictions. But some degree of simplification (and thus imprecision and inaccuracy) is inevitable. [A word of advice: "precise" and "accurate" do not mean the same thing.]

If you actually think that it's desirable or even possible to mathematically account for all factors when designing a bridge, well then, I have a bridge to sell you. It's a lovely bridge over the Tacoma Narrows Strait.

The blueprint Lessans gave to mankind is simplified but it serves its purpose. Like I said, in the future the extension of these principles will become more detailed, but this knowledge is accurate and points us in the right direction. If someone tells me the London Bridge is falling down, thanks to you I might believe him!