| Revision as of 19:05, 30 May 2004 editBryan Derksen (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users95,333 edits Questioning removal of a section by an anonymous user← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:40, 30 May 2004 edit undo12.214.45.9 (talk) My disagreement with Bryan Derksen and my reasoning for removing the section.Next edit → | ||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
| ==Section removed== | ==Section removed== | ||
| This entire section was removed by an anonymous user, with the explanation "The time cube theory uses the cube as an analogy to help describe ideas. Stretching the analogy is not a good way to refute the theory." I'm no Time Cube expert, but it seems to me that Gene stretches the analogy ''himself'', which would make this a perfectly valid subject of criticism. Comments, anyone? ] 19:05, 30 May 2004 (UTC) | was removed by an anonymous user, with the explanation "The time cube theory uses the cube as an analogy to help describe ideas. Stretching the analogy is not a good way to refute the theory." I'm no Time Cube expert, but it seems to me that Gene stretches the analogy ''himself'', which would make this a perfectly valid subject of criticism. Comments, anyone? ] 19:05, 30 May 2004 (UTC) | ||
| : I think the time cube is nonsense, but "stretching an analogy too far" means drawing false conclusions by assuming that the perfectly describes something else. If Gene Ray is using the analogy to draw new conclusions, it's possible that this happened. It's also possible that he made conclusions without reasoning about an actual cube. Neither you or I know which of these happened. | |||
| ===Problems with the Time Cube symbolism=== | |||
| : It's probable that he feels there are no remotely adequate words to describe the concept he has (I think that this is the reason he calls words evil). If this is the case, he might use an analogy to try to get his general idea across. | |||
| The ''Time Cube'' theory is based on the claimed supremacy of the number '''four''', but the connection between ] and the ] is weak. | |||
| : If "cubelike" is a fairly adequate word, you would be justified in saying that he stretches the word (not the analogy) a bit too much. If he feels there are no words that are even close, he would be justified in picking the word that makes the best analogy and stretching the word to make it fit what he's trying to say. Giving new definitions to old words when mainstream science makes a discovery is an accepted practice. | |||
| The figure most often used to represent the number four is the ], a ] figure. If a ] is required to represent the number four, the most obvious candidate is the ]. | |||
| : Now, on to the removed section itself. The criticism of "quadrant" because it uses a nonstandard definition was deleted first. There is no suitable replacement and Gene Ray gives a clear definition of it, so it should cause no confusion. The use of the term, by itself, certainly doesn't cause any logical errors. | |||
| There is a strong and obvious connection between four and the square, and another obvious connection between the square and the cube. But despite this there is no particularly strong relationship between four and the cube. The most that can be said is that the faces of the cube each have four equal sides and angles. | |||
| : The criticism of "cube" was because Gene Ray focuses on the four sides of the cube and ignores the top and bottom. This is perfectly reasonable if the concept deals only with a four-sided, cubelike object. The top and bottom would be irrelevant to the theory, regardless of the fact that the top and bottom are symmetrical with each of the sides. '''''Ignoring irrelevant attributes of an analog is preferred because it focuses on the things that are actually similar and important to understanding and it ignores things that are dissimilar or unimportant'''''. Bringing them up is foolish and a ]. | |||
| In arithmetic, four is a ], but it is '''not''' a ]. | |||
| : Bringing up the fact that four is a square number, rather than a cube number, is also a red herring. If the thing under discussion is better understood by analogy to a three-dimensional shape (like a cube with the top and bottom missing), then using a square to represent it is stupid. A cube with two sides missing is much closer to a cube than a square and no amount of saying "but four is a square number" will change that. | |||
| This weakness shows up in two main ways. | |||
| : ] 23:40, 30 May 2004 (UTC) | |||
| Firstly, and most important, one of the ] of the cube is ignored. The sides are considered as unrelated to the top and bottom. But, an essential property of the cube is that the top and bottom are ] to the sides. To treat them specially means that what is described is not a cube in essence, but rather a right rectangular ] with a square base, a type of figure of which the cube is a special case. In this way the relatively strong connection between ] and the cube is replaced by an artificial connection to four. | |||
| Secondly, the term ] is strangely defined in this theory. Normally this term applies to a ] figure, a quarter of a ]. Where it is used to speak of a solid figure, it most commonly means a quarter of a ]. A ] may be divided into eight such quadrants; In this theory however, it is divided into four. In this way, the relatively strong connection between ] and the cube is replaced by another artificial connection to four. | |||
| The whole thing, in fact, is incoherent and is mostly unintelligible--it is not possible to comprehend what ] is trying to say to us at all. | |||
| Many people view Ray to be simply insane. As a refutation, he asserts on the Time Cube website, "My wisdom so antiquates known knowledge, that a ] examining my behavior, eccentric by his academic single corner knowledge, knows no course other than to judge me ]." | |||
Revision as of 23:40, 30 May 2004
See Talk:Time Cube/Delete for a past discussion on whether this article should have been deleted.
All the anti-Cubic arguments in the "Time Cube" article are actually wrong and can be easily refuted. However, rather than correct the article myself, I will simply invite any free thinkers who are interested in learning the Truth to debate Time Cube on the Time Cube forum. No closed-minded Academian pedants, please.
UPDATE: The forum is out of commission. However I may discuss Time Cube on user talk pages, like I did with Andrewa.
Archived debate: Andrewa vs. TIME CUBE
Section removed
This entire section was removed by an anonymous user, with the explanation "The time cube theory uses the cube as an analogy to help describe ideas. Stretching the analogy is not a good way to refute the theory." I'm no Time Cube expert, but it seems to me that Gene stretches the analogy himself, which would make this a perfectly valid subject of criticism. Comments, anyone? Bryan 19:05, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
- I think the time cube is nonsense, but "stretching an analogy too far" means drawing false conclusions by assuming that the analog perfectly describes something else. If Gene Ray is using the analogy to draw new conclusions, it's possible that this happened. It's also possible that he made conclusions without reasoning about an actual cube. Neither you or I know which of these happened.
- It's probable that he feels there are no remotely adequate words to describe the concept he has (I think that this is the reason he calls words evil). If this is the case, he might use an analogy to try to get his general idea across.
- If "cubelike" is a fairly adequate word, you would be justified in saying that he stretches the word (not the analogy) a bit too much. If he feels there are no words that are even close, he would be justified in picking the word that makes the best analogy and stretching the word to make it fit what he's trying to say. Giving new definitions to old words when mainstream science makes a discovery is an accepted practice.
- Now, on to the removed section itself. The criticism of "quadrant" because it uses a nonstandard definition was deleted first. There is no suitable replacement and Gene Ray gives a clear definition of it, so it should cause no confusion. The use of the term, by itself, certainly doesn't cause any logical errors.
- The criticism of "cube" was because Gene Ray focuses on the four sides of the cube and ignores the top and bottom. This is perfectly reasonable if the concept deals only with a four-sided, cubelike object. The top and bottom would be irrelevant to the theory, regardless of the fact that the top and bottom are symmetrical with each of the sides. Ignoring irrelevant attributes of an analog is preferred because it focuses on the things that are actually similar and important to understanding and it ignores things that are dissimilar or unimportant. Bringing them up is foolish and a red herring.
- Bringing up the fact that four is a square number, rather than a cube number, is also a red herring. If the thing under discussion is better understood by analogy to a three-dimensional shape (like a cube with the top and bottom missing), then using a square to represent it is stupid. A cube with two sides missing is much closer to a cube than a square and no amount of saying "but four is a square number" will change that.