New Discovery

[FlashDangerpants]

In reality, we are carried along on the wings of time or life during every moment of our existence and have no say in this matter whatsoever. We cannot stop ourselves from being born and are compelled to either live out our lives the best we can or commit suicide. Is it possible to disagree with this? However, to prove that what we do of our own free will, of our own desire because we want to do it, is also beyond control, it is necessary to employ mathematical (undeniable) reasoning. Therefore, since it is absolutely impossible for man to be both dead and alive at the same time, and since it is absolutely impossible for a person to desire committing suicide unless dissatisfied with life (regardless of the reason), we are given the ability to demonstrate a revealing and undeniable relation.

Please expand on the claim in this paragraph that mathematical reasoning is required. You are the one who gets it, please explain it.

It is very clear, even a child can get it. It says exactly what it means. Every move we make is away from a spot that has become dissatisfying or uncomfortable in some way, or we wouldn't make any move at all. Movement is life itself otherwise we would be dead. We cannot move against what gives us greater satisfaction when we are confronted with options. Moving in this direction does not always involve contemplation. We move in this direction all day, every day. I just changed position because my arm fell asleep. This movement is part of our everyday life. This observation is more than a tautology, but if you are bent on calling it that, then at least admit that tautologies can be informative and add to our knowledge.

That doesn't answer the question I asked you. It doesn't even acknowledge the question I asked you. Do better.

Steve Patterson's perspective on tautologies challenges the traditional view that they are merely true by definition and do not contribute to knowledge. Patterson argues that tautologies are foundational for critical reasoning and provide a basis for an accurate worldview. He emphasizes that tautologies are not trivial or redundant but rather essential for understanding the structure of propositions and the nature of truth. Patterson's work challenges the notion that tautologies should be dismissed as empty of content, advocating instead for their importance in philosophical discourse.

https://steve-patterson.com/tautologies ... dismissed/

Why did you put that text there? What has it got to do with the question?

Every motion, from the beating heart to the slightest reflex action, from all inner to outer movements of the body, indicates that life is never satisfied or content to remain in one position for always, like an inanimate object, which position shall be termed ‘death.’ I shall now call the present moment of time or life here, for the purpose of clarification, and the next moment coming up there. You are now standing on this present moment of time and space called here, and you are given two alternatives: either live or kill yourself; either move to the next spot called there or remain where you are without moving a hair’s breadth by committing suicide.

Please explain the phrase "life is never satisfied". Is it intended to reify life as some sort of force or something that exists, or is the author merely noticing the banal fact that living things move and the more mobile ones move towards things they desire and so on?

He was establishing a point that life IS movement, and movement always involves dissatisfaction with the present position. It is what propels us forward.

Again, nothing to do with the question. I asked: Please explain the phrase "life is never satisfied". Is it intended to reify life as some sort of force or something that exists, or is the author merely noticing the banal fact that living things move and the more mobile ones move towards things they desire and so on?

“I prefer. . .”

Excuse the interruption, but the very fact that you started to answer me or didn’t commit suicide at that moment makes it obvious that you were not satisfied to stay in one position, which is death or here, and prefer moving off that spot to there, which motion is life. Consequently, the motion of life, which is any motion from here to there, is a movement away from that which dissatisfies; otherwise, had you been satisfied to remain here or where you are, you would never have moved to there.

And here... why are we doing this at all? Why are we defining life, and why are we defining it as this movement? This isn't stuff that we typically need to do, so just doing it out of the blue to support the argument you want to make is called begging the question.

It is not begging the question. It is not circular. He was trying to establish the fact that satisfaction is the only direction life can take. It cannot move against itself by moving in the direction of dissatisfaction, which Atla thought he proved. This is important as it forms the basis of one side of the two-sided equation.

But what is the basis for all of this? The basis please. I am not asking for your delight at the conclusion, I am asking for the basis of the reasoning. Basis. Please. Why are we defining life at all? Why are we defining it as movement? What is mathematical about any of this? Why do we need to do this step? I don't mean why does the argument need the step, I mean why do people who aren't pushing the argument need to do it? The whole thing seem gratuitous.

Since the motion of life constantly moves away from here to there, which is an expression of dissatisfaction with the present position, it must obviously move constantly in the direction of greater satisfaction. It should be obvious that ...

Please explain this move. Are we deliberately anthropomorphising sunflowers that point at the sun, or are we at risk of doing so by accident, or is this talk of satisfaction that is somehow inherent to just movement and life all a bit of a hyperbolic overstatement? You are the only one who knows how to read, so tell us how to read please.

It is not hyperbolic overstatement. It is important to establish that we cannot choose what we like less than what we like more is available. It is not an equal playing field. You cannot choose B if you like A better or vice versa, because anytime there are meaningful differences, you are compelled, by your nature, to pick the one that offers you greater satisfaction, not less. You will see why this important as time goes on, if I stick around.

You are talking about what you want on behalf of your argument. I am not asking that. I am asking what aspect of logic compels us to see things int he way that suits you here? It is again gratuitous. I see no reason to describe an unthinking object as pursuing satisfaction. Why do I need to anthropomorphise a daisy just to help your argument? Why would I do that, or more importantly, why would I be mistaken not to attach human emotional drivers to brainless plants? There is no persuasive power to this argument, it's mystical.

...our desire to live, to move off the spot called here, is determined by a law over which we have no control, because even if we should kill ourselves, we are choosing what gives us greater satisfaction; otherwise, we would not kill ourselves. The truth of the matter is that at any particular moment, the motion of man is not free, for all life obeys this invariable law. He is constantly compelled by his nature to make choices and decisions and to prefer, of whatever options are available during his lifetime, that which he considers better for himself and his set of circumstances.

Yeah, that law isn't really needed though is it? So where is it proven to be the case that it is a real thing rather than just a convoluted way of referring to beliefs and desires which motivate sentient creatures to move, and an anthropomorphic extension of that to flowers?

That may be true but as you try to understand the reason he makes a point of this, you will see its significance.

Significance? That is just a way of telling me that you are relying on this thing for your argument. I might care later, but right now there is the open question of why I am wrong not to buy this argument. It being useful to you later is a shit reason. Give me a good reason please.

Like I said before, I was happy to stipulate to determinism, but I don't see the need to use this flabby and overblown argument in support of it.

It's not flabby and it's not overblown. Your words make me underwhelmed to go on because you're not looking to understand; you're looking to find flaws right at the start. This is going to color all of his words with a faulty slant.

Please don't call this nonsense, okay? Nonsense it is not. I tolerate a lot, but I cannot tolerate when you make false accusations and belittle such an important work whether you think so or not.

Either successfully defend the work, or fail, I have no interest your trivial umbrage or your grandiosity.

Stop giving me an ultimatum. I don't take well to threats. By the way, I am not displaying any form of grandiosity. This idea of yours is all in your sweet little head.

Whiny.

[Age]

Thank you for all the book suggestions.

They weren't reading suggestions. I asked if you are comparing your book to the great works of philosophy such as those of Wittgenstein and Kant? Are you saying that your own book is not on their level?

Yes, this knowledge should be up there with the great works because it has the power to completely revolutionize the trajectory of where we are headed, moving us toward a world of peace and prosperity rather than a world of death and destruction. If this turns out to be true, wouldn't you agree that this work would be deserving of this placement?

If this is so, then why do you not take a thorough investigation into it "yourself"?

[Atla]

And here... why are we doing this at all? Why are we defining life, and why are we defining it as this movement? This isn't stuff that we typically need to do, so just doing it out of the blue to support the argument you want to make is called begging the question.

It is not begging the question. It is not circular. He was trying to establish the fact that satisfaction is the only direction life can take. It cannot move against itself by moving in the direction of dissatisfaction, which Atla thought he proved. This is important as it forms the basis of one side of the two-sided equation.

I did prove it, if you're mentally strong enough, you can choose to suffer for no reason, going against your own satisfaction. It means consciously choosing to move backwards in life, to lose something for no return. It's jut that you and your father can't do it.

Do you understand that this is irrelevant anyway, because people move at least 99.999% of the time in the direction of their greater satisfaction, pretty much no one ever chooses to suffer for no reason? The exception only strengthens the rule. It doesn't matter that you can break God's law as that almost never happens, it has no relevance to the blame trickery that is the main point of the book. No, you don't understand it.

Do you understand that your law doesn't mean determinism and breaking your law doesn't mean free will? No, you don't understand it.

You could just have skipped the whole first chapter (mind you I've read it), and forget the two-sided equation nonsense, and just get to the fucking point: the idea that if we don't blame people, their conscience will stop them from committing crimes. Which is absolutely not true, the new net satisfaction after the successful crime is higher. And let's not bring other factors into this.

It's not that people refuse to read your book, it's that your book's claim is blatantly false. The actual solution can only be in other factors, so you can throw out chapter two as well. The thing with 'determinism' was moot. The thing with blame was moot.

You came here because you wanted to hear this, you're welcome.

[Atla]

I just read this review

His second discovery, being the most testable, proves to be the weakest. Here the author claims that he can perceive an event, in real time, over great distances, without the light from the object having to have first had time to reach our eye. That perception was a process occurring without light reaching the eye and at greater than light speeds.

The most famous of his examples is seeing our newly ignited instantly sun eight minutes before the first rays of its' light can touch the earth.

The claims he lays out here are easily testable, don't match any observation ever made, and defy everything known about light, optics, and physics.

This would be Lessans worst mistake if we didn't get to his third discovery.

The third claim involves proving we are born again through an argument involving pronoun usage. The difference between people saying I or You and a person's inability to say I any more after their death convinced him that one of those other You out there must now be I.

Lol wtf?!

Looks like he was also the master of universal quantum entanglement perception (which is impossible with our brain size, maybe if our brains were 50 orders of magnitude bigger, there might be something to it, although in that case it could take millions of years for our brain regions to communicate conventionally). And he has proven reincarnation using word magic.

[peacegirl]

They weren't reading suggestions. I asked if you are comparing your book to the great works of philosophy such as those of Wittgenstein and Kant? Are you saying that your own book is not on their level?

Yes, this knowledge should be up there with the great works because it has the power to completely revolutionize the trajectory of where we are headed, moving us toward a world of peace and prosperity rather than a world of death and destruction. If this turns out to be true, wouldn't you agree that this work would be deserving of this placement?

If it is deserving of such lofty position, why does it not deserve exposition of the sort those works get?

But it DOES deserve exposition of the sort those works get.

The people who best understand such works write secondary books to discuss these works, they produce lecture series. Nobody refuses to expand on Hume with weak excuses such as "I can't explain it any better than the text itself. It will not do it justice." They get on with it and they do the explaining. So get on with it, and do the explaining if you think this work is at the level that merits such treatment.

All of these lecture series and secondary books come after a thorough understanding of his original writings and philosophy, not before.

To fully understand the fact that conscience — our feeling of guilt — was never allowed to reach the enormous temperature necessary to melt our desire to even take the risk of striking a first blow, it is only necessary to observe what must follow when a crucible is constructed wherein this new law can effectively operate. It was impossible for any previous stage of our development to have understood the deeper factors involved, which were necessary for an adequate solution, just as it was impossible for atomic energy to have been discovered at an earlier time because the deeper relations were not perceived at that stage of development. But at last, we have been granted understanding which reveals a pattern of harmony in the mankind system equal in every way with the mathematical accuracy of the solar system. We are poised for the greatest series of beneficent changes of our entire existence, which must come about as a matter of necessity the very moment this knowledge is understood. Although this book only scratches the surface, it lays the foundation for scientists to take over from here. Knowing that the unquestionable knowledge I am imparting is merely in blueprint form will prevent you from expressing that this work is oversimplified.

Because it would take many encyclopedias combined to delineate all the changes about to occur, it would have been much too long for a book that was written for the express purpose of providing mankind with a general outline. It will be up to future scientists to extend these principles in much greater depth. As we leave this chapter, I hope I have made it clear that just as long as man is able to justify hurting others, he is not striking a first blow. Before I demonstrate how this justification is permanently removed by preventing the insecurities that have permeated our economic system and justify the act of self-preservation by whatever means necessary, I will allow you an opportunity to see exactly what happens in a human relation where this justification is already removed. In the next chapter, l shall reveal how all automobile accidents and carelessness must come to a permanent end. Before we move on, I must clarify a very important point. Christ and Spinoza turned the other cheek and paid the consequences because the justification to hurt them was never removed, but I am going to demonstrate how it is now possible to prevent the first cheek from being struck, which renders obsolete the need to turn the other cheek or retaliate. Although Gandhi won freedom for his people and Reverend King won certain civil rights, they accomplished this at great expense. However, all was necessary because we are moving in the direction of greater satisfaction, over which we have no control because this is God’s law or will. At this point I suggest that you study carefully, once again, Chapter Two, and then discuss it to make certain you understand that if you find any flaw, it exists only in your not understanding the principles, for they are undeniable.

[peacegirl]

Although this is not directly related to what I’m here to share, the points made by this philosopher are well taken.

https://youtu.be/y-hsk0zBBLk?si=AWlTgXjZIviT2rqf

[Atla]

To fully understand the fact that conscience — our feeling of guilt — was never allowed to reach the enormous temperature necessary to melt our desire to even take the risk of striking a first blow

If such a strong conscience would be human nature, not hurting others would have been the norm throughout history. Determinism and blame aren't relevant, they are minor issues. Your father was a wishful thinker with a savior complex, not a scientist of human nature.

Here's an actual fact for you: the average human is tribal, not a pacifist.

Actually we could get better results by programming people to see all 8 billion humans as one big tribe, than with determinism and blame trickery.

[FlashDangerpants]

Yes, this knowledge should be up there with the great works because it has the power to completely revolutionize the trajectory of where we are headed, moving us toward a world of peace and prosperity rather than a world of death and destruction. If this turns out to be true, wouldn't you agree that this work would be deserving of this placement?

If it is deserving of such lofty position, why does it not deserve exposition of the sort those works get?

But it DOES deserve exposition of the sort those works get.

What a shame then that only one person has ever read the book in he way it is supposed to be read, but she is too busy trying to turn it into a money spinner to just take the time to explain how the arguments presented work. That the book will finally die when you do is a testament to your ineffective methods and "can't do" temperament.

The people who best understand such works write secondary books to discuss these works, they produce lecture series. Nobody refuses to expand on Hume with weak excuses such as "I can't explain it any better than the text itself. It will not do it justice." They get on with it and they do the explaining. So get on with it, and do the explaining if you think this work is at the level that merits such treatment.

All of these lecture series and secondary books come after a thorough understanding of his original writings and philosophy, not before.

Well they are never going to happen then are they? You are the only person who understands it, and you are incapable of putting in any effort to help others to.

To fully understand the fact that conscience — our feeling of guilt — was never allowed to reach the enormous temperature necessary to melt our desire to even take the risk of striking a first blow, it is only necessary to observe what must follow when a crucible is constructed wherein this new law can effectively operate. It was impossible for any previous stage of our development to have understood the deeper factors involved, which were necessary for an adequate solution, just as it was impossible for atomic energy to have been discovered at an earlier time because the deeper relations were not perceived at that stage of development. But at last, we have been granted understanding which reveals a pattern of harmony in the mankind system equal in every way with the mathematical accuracy of the solar system. We are poised for the greatest series of beneficent changes of our entire existence, which must come about as a matter of necessity the very moment this knowledge is understood. Although this book only scratches the surface, it lays the foundation for scientists to take over from here. Knowing that the unquestionable knowledge I am imparting is merely in blueprint form will prevent you from expressing that this work is oversimplified.

Because it would take many encyclopedias combined to delineate all the changes about to occur, it would have been much too long for a book that was written for the express purpose of providing mankind with a general outline. It will be up to future scientists to extend these principles in much greater depth. As we leave this chapter, I hope I have made it clear that just as long as man is able to justify hurting others, he is not striking a first blow. Before I demonstrate how this justification is permanently removed by preventing the insecurities that have permeated our economic system and justify the act of self-preservation by whatever means necessary, I will allow you an opportunity to see exactly what happens in a human relation where this justification is already removed. In the next chapter, l shall reveal how all automobile accidents and carelessness must come to a permanent end. Before we move on, I must clarify a very important point. Christ and Spinoza turned the other cheek and paid the consequences because the justification to hurt them was never removed, but I am going to demonstrate how it is now possible to prevent the first cheek from being struck, which renders obsolete the need to turn the other cheek or retaliate. Although Gandhi won freedom for his people and Reverend King won certain civil rights, they accomplished this at great expense. However, all was necessary because we are moving in the direction of greater satisfaction, over which we have no control because this is God’s law or will. At this point I suggest that you study carefully, once again, Chapter Two, and then discuss it to make certain you understand that if you find any flaw, it exists only in your not understanding the principles, for they are undeniable.

There is at least one mistake there. Knowing that the work is in "blueprint form" doesn't at all prevent me from expressing that it is oversimplified. All the questions I asked before remain unaddressed for this precise reason.

Your dad didn't tell you why you should anthropomorphise a sunflower's movement with the sun into a human yearning for satisfaction, you never thought about it, when questioned on the subject you just blame the audience for not agreeing with the unsubstantiated claim in the oversimplified book.

The thing needs fleshing out. Nobody but you can do this work. You are not up to it. Your life's inherited work is a failure. You should do something else while there's still time.

[peacegirl]

I just read this review

This is the biggest bullshit review ever posted on an Amazon platform. This guy never read the book. He never even bought the book. He just didn't like the claims and went behind my back writing the most horrific review that I am still paying for emotionally. Soon enough, this review will go by the wayside when more accurate and positive reviews come forward.

His second discovery, being the most testable, proves to be the weakest. Here the author claims that he can perceive an event, in real time, over great distances, without the light from the object having to have first had time to reach our eye. That perception was a process occurring without light reaching the eye and at greater than light speeds.

The most famous of his examples is seeing our newly ignited instantly sun eight minutes before the first rays of its' light can touch the earth.

The claims he lays out here are easily testable, don't match any observation ever made, and defy everything known about light, optics, and physics.

This would be Lessans worst mistake if we didn't get to his third discovery.

Nooooo, he did not defy everything known about light, optics, and physics. That is an untruth.

The third claim involves proving we are born again through an argument involving pronoun usage. The difference between people saying I or You and a person's inability to say I any more after their death convinced him that one of those other You out there must now be I. wtf?

You are a perfect example of the worst kind of ignorance staging as someone with intelligence. You took from a stupid review and ran with it. You are just as ignorant as the person who wrote this. You belong together.

Looks like he was also the master of universal quantum entanglement perception (which is impossible with our brain size, maybe if our brains were 50 orders of magnitude bigger, there might be something to it, although in that case it could take millions of years for our brain regions to communicate conventionally). And he has proven reincarnation using word magic.

Nope, stop using big words like universal quantum entanglement to dismiss his claims. Moreover, this has nothing to do with the need to create bigger brains in order to create a better world. We don't need a rewrite of Frankenstein, mind you. This guy was so off, and you are willing to believe this person rather than using your own marbles to decide for yourself? This is just passing along someone else's lies rather than your careful analysis. Are you that damn lazy?

[Atla]

I just read this review

This is the biggest bullshit review ever posted on an Amazon platform. This guy never read the book. He never even bought the book. He just didn't like the claims and went behind my back writing the most horrific review that I am still paying for emotionally. Soon enough, this review will go by the wayside when more accurate and positive reviews come forward.

His second discovery, being the most testable, proves to be the weakest. Here the author claims that he can perceive an event, in real time, over great distances, without the light from the object having to have first had time to reach our eye. That perception was a process occurring without light reaching the eye and at greater than light speeds.

The most famous of his examples is seeing our newly ignited instantly sun eight minutes before the first rays of its' light can touch the earth.

The claims he lays out here are easily testable, don't match any observation ever made, and defy everything known about light, optics, and physics.

This would be Lessans worst mistake if we didn't get to his third discovery.

Nooooo, he did not defy everything known about light, optics, and physics. That is an untruth.

The third claim involves proving we are born again through an argument involving pronoun usage. The difference between people saying I or You and a person's inability to say I any more after their death convinced him that one of those other You out there must now be I. wtf?

You are a perfect example of the worst kind of ignorance staging as someone with intelligence. You took from a stupid review and ran with it. You are just as ignorant as the person who wrote this. You belong together.

Looks like he was also the master of universal quantum entanglement perception (which is impossible with our brain size, maybe if our brains were 50 orders of magnitude bigger, there might be something to it, although in that case it could take millions of years for our brain regions to communicate conventionally). And he has proven reincarnation using word magic.

Nope, stop using big words like universal quantum entanglement to dismiss his claims. Moreover, this has nothing to do with the need to create bigger brains in order to create a better world. We don't need a rewrite of Frankenstein, mind you. This guy was so off, and you are willing to believe this person rather than using your own marbles to decide for yourself? This is just passing along someone else's lies rather than your careful analysis. Are you that damn lazy?

Quantum entanglement was the only physical mechanism I could think of that could MAYBE, MAYBE make some very rudimentary and minimal form of instant perception possible. You're saying that's not it, so then the reviewer was correct, your father's claim doesn't match any observation ever made, and defies everything known about light, optics, and physics. That's not science but antiscience.

So we're left with the supernatural or the 100% unknown.

[Atla]

If you feel like it, you can explain his third discovery in your own words about the "I". Seeing how the book is just a bunch of random claims that don't actually build on each other, we can just skip forward to the third one. And I'm quite familiar with the topic about the "I" (beyond both Western and Eastern philosophy) so I can tell you quickly if your father went wrong somewhere.

[peacegirl]

I just read this review

This is the biggest bullshit review ever posted on an Amazon platform. This guy never read the book. He never even bought the book. He just didn't like the claims and went behind my back writing the most horrific review that I am still paying for emotionally. Soon enough, this review will go by the wayside when more accurate and positive reviews come forward.

His second discovery, being the most testable, proves to be the weakest. Here the author claims that he can perceive an event, in real time, over great distances, without the light from the object having to have first had time to reach our eye. That perception was a process occurring without light reaching the eye and at greater than light speeds.

The most famous of his examples is seeing our newly ignited instantly sun eight minutes before the first rays of its' light can touch the earth.

The claims he lays out here are easily testable, don't match any observation ever made, and defy everything known about light, optics, and physics.

This would be Lessans worst mistake if we didn't get to his third discovery.

Nooooo, he did not defy everything known about light, optics, and physics. That is an untruth.

The third claim involves proving we are born again through an argument involving pronoun usage. The difference between people saying I or You and a person's inability to say I any more after their death convinced him that one of those other You out there must now be I. wtf?

You are a perfect example of the worst kind of ignorance staging as someone with intelligence. You took from a stupid review and ran with it. You are just as ignorant as the person who wrote this. You belong together.

Looks like he was also the master of universal quantum entanglement perception (which is impossible with our brain size, maybe if our brains were 50 orders of magnitude bigger, there might be something to it, although in that case it could take millions of years for our brain regions to communicate conventionally). And he has proven reincarnation using word magic.

Nope, stop using big words like universal quantum entanglement to dismiss his claims. Moreover, this has nothing to do with the need to create bigger brains in order to create a better world. We don't need a rewrite of Frankenstein, mind you. This guy was so off, and you are willing to believe this person rather than using your own marbles to decide for yourself? This is just passing along someone else's lies rather than your careful analysis. Are you that damn lazy?

Quantum entanglement was the only physical mechanism I could think of that could MAYBE, MAYBE make some very rudimentary and minimal form of instant perception possible. You're saying that's not it, so then the reviewer was correct, your father's claim doesn't match any observation ever made, and defies everything known about light, optics, and physics. That's not science but antiscience.

So we're left with the supernatural or the 100% unknown.

You're wrong. All of his reasoning was based on observations that were not in violation of physics. Keep trying.

[Atla]

This is the biggest bullshit review ever posted on an Amazon platform. This guy never read the book. He never even bought the book. He just didn't like the claims and went behind my back writing the most horrific review that I am still paying for emotionally. Soon enough, this review will go by the wayside when more accurate and positive reviews come forward.



Nooooo, he did not defy everything known about light, optics, and physics. That is an untruth.



You are a perfect example of the worst kind of ignorance staging as someone with intelligence. You took from a stupid review and ran with it. You are just as ignorant as the person who wrote this. You belong together.



Nope, stop using big words like universal quantum entanglement to dismiss his claims. Moreover, this has nothing to do with the need to create bigger brains in order to create a better world. We don't need a rewrite of Frankenstein, mind you. This guy was so off, and you are willing to believe this person rather than using your own marbles to decide for yourself? This is just passing along someone else's lies rather than your careful analysis. Are you that damn lazy?

Quantum entanglement was the only physical mechanism I could think of that could MAYBE, MAYBE make some very rudimentary and minimal form of instant perception possible. You're saying that's not it, so then the reviewer was correct, your father's claim doesn't match any observation ever made, and defies everything known about light, optics, and physics. That's not science but antiscience.

So we're left with the supernatural or the 100% unknown.

You're wrong. All of his reasoning was based on observations that were not in violation of physics. Keep trying.

So he didn't tell an example where we don't have to wait 8 minutes to see the Sun?

[peacegirl]

If you feel like it, you can explain his third discovery in your own words about the "I". Seeing how the book is just a bunch of random claims that don't actually build on each other, we can just skip forward to the third one. And I'm quite familiar with the topic about the "I" (beyond both Western and Eastern philosophy) so I can tell you quickly if your father went wrong somewhere.

I'm not getting sucked into this. I will copy and paste the first few paragraphs for your viewing pleasure.

Even though the other two discoveries will bring about an entirely new world for the benefit of all mankind, the blueprint of which is demonstrated as I extend the principles into every area of human relation; the discovery which I am about to reveal in this chapter is my favorite. When thoroughly understood it might be yours too. Well, my friends, I have great news! Wouldn’t it make you feel wonderful to know as a matter of undeniable knowledge, equivalent to two plus two equals four, that there is nothing to fear in death not only because it is impossible to regret it, but primarily because (don’t jump to any hasty conclusion) you will always be here.

“But there is an aspect of life that doesn’t seem fair. There are people who have suffered and died to develop this world who will not be around when the fruits of their labor have ripened to maturity. No matter how wonderful this Golden Age will be, how can God be a reality when there is no way perfect justice can prevail? Doesn’t the thought occur to you that it is awfully cruel of God to make the man of the past pay a penalty and be made to suffer in order for the man of the future to reap the harvest of the Golden Age?”

“You will see shortly why perfect justice does prevail. But I don’t want to get ahead of myself. Although the basic principle has been an infallible guide and miraculous catalyst through the labyrinths of human relations, it cannot assist me here; but it did not help other scientists discover atomic energy, nor was it used to reveal itself. However, that of which it is composed, this perception of undeniable relations that escapes the average eye will take us by the hand and demonstrate, in a manner no one will be able to deny, that there is absolutely nothing to fear in death because we will be born again and again and again. This does not mean what you might think it means because the life you live and are conscious of right now has no relation whatsoever to you and your consciousness in another life. Therefore, I am not speaking of reincarnation or a spiritual world of souls or any other theory, but of the flesh, of a mind and body alive and conscious of existence as you are at this moment. Are you smiling? Can’t you see, once again, Eric Johnson refusing to listen because he was so certain man’s will is free, or Nageli not investigating Mendel’s discovery because the very core was regarded as impossible? Didn’t many of you smile when first hearing that man does not have five senses? I expect you to be skeptical but please give me the benefit of the doubt and deny my discovery after you have studied the relations, not before. I would like to share a conversation I had with my friend regarding my final discovery in the hope of making these difficult principles easier to understand.”

“Boy does that word ‘death’ give me the creeps! I can’t stand the thought that one day I’ll be gone from this earth; I won’t see the sun, the moon, and the stars; I won’t enjoy eating, sleeping, making love. What a horrible thought! And above all, I might not even be here when the Golden Age gets officially launched.”

“Your thinking is typical of the majority of mankind.”

“But a lot of religious people don’t think that way. They believe that when they die, they are going to heaven or some such happy hunting ground and, consequently, have no fear of death whatsoever.”

"Yes, I know that. There are all kinds of explanations about the hereafter, this spiritual world of souls, but I am not interested in words, just the flesh. You are in for quite a pleasant surprise but because man’s mind has been so filled with words such as afterlife, soul, spirit, metempsychosis, reincarnation, heaven, etc., which have been used to explain death — although they have absolutely no meaning whatsoever — we were unable to extract the pure unadulterated mathematical relations that existed when these words were removed. Theologians and other philosophers received intuitive incursions that man was truly immortal, but they had no way of communicating or translating their feelings into language that could not be denied simply because they were completely confused with words and beliefs. It will be proven, conclusively, that there is nothing to fear in death, and when all the facts are in you will see that there is justice for those who have gone before us. You will gain a better understanding as you read and reread this chapter."

“This is quite confusing. You just said that I would be born again and again and again, and now you say there will be no connection between me now and me then.”

“I realize that, but before I explain the proof I shall begin by asking you a very important question. Doesn’t it seem strange that of all the millions of years the earth has been in existence (and what is a million years when the words through which you see this relation are clarified) you, of all people, should be born at this time to see the wonders of this world and the inception of the Golden Age? Why weren’t you born back in the days of Socrates, or why did you have to be born at this time instead of a thousand years hence? Think again of this fantastic phenomenon with the earth perhaps billions and billions of years old, here we are alive at this infinitesimal fraction of time.

“I’m conscious now, and I know nothing of a consciousness in another life. I was born now, at this time, because my father met my mother, fell in love, got married and had four children, and I am the third. My grandparents gave birth to my parents, and so on. Furthermore, I have seen many people die and they never return as new babies or in any other form. Therefore, since I, too, must die, why should I be an exception and return? The elderly who have lost many loved ones and know that their own death is near cannot help but think about what Durant referred to as the Great Enemy because you see and cannot deny that when someone gets buried in the ground he never rises again except in your imagination, as did Christ into heaven.”

[peacegirl]

Quantum entanglement was the only physical mechanism I could think of that could MAYBE, MAYBE make some very rudimentary and minimal form of instant perception possible. You're saying that's not it, so then the reviewer was correct, your father's claim doesn't match any observation ever made, and defies everything known about light, optics, and physics. That's not science but antiscience.

So we're left with the supernatural or the 100% unknown.

You're wrong. All of his reasoning was based on observations that were not in violation of physics. Keep trying.

So he didn't tell an example where we don't have to wait 8 minutes to see the Sun?

Scientists have concluded that light bounces off of objects bringing the image (or wavelength) across eons where it finally reaches us. This is what he contested.