Staple Tees


  1. “There is no way to perceive or think about non-existence. To perceive is to perceive something. That which does not exist cannot be perceived. There is no way to imagine non-existence. To think is to think about something.”

    There is always polarity. Existence must have an opposite in order for itself to exist. I know that sounds rediculous but so does dark matter and anti-matter.

  2. No, existence does not need an opposite for itself to exist.

    What could possibly qualify as an alternative to existence? For it to be an alternative to anything it must first exist. And if it exists, it is part of existence and therefore it cannot be an alternative to existence!

    Unless you mean that for existence to exist one must be able to imagine an alternative. But, you cannot imagine an alternative to existence. There is nothing to imagine or even conceive of. The imagination of non-existence is a contradiction in terms.

    Even if you could imagine it, existence exists regardless of the content of your mind, including your imagination. As evidenced by the fact that the universe existed long before there were beings capable of imagining anything!

    Some things do have an opposite. But the existence of something does not necessarily require the existence of an opposite. Nor does the fact something exists necessitate that its opposite must also exist.

    Existence is not even a physical thing. It is a concept which subsumes everything that exists. It can have no opposite since everything that exists comes under the concept of “existence”.

    Furthermore, not all concepts or physical things have opposites. What is the opposite of a book? Not a book? No. What is the opposite of a person? Not a person? No. To have an opposite means that there exists something with similar qualities that exist on different ends of a scale of measurement or viewpoint. But, this does not apply to some physical objects or concepts and most certainly not to existence.

    The claim that there is always polarity is therefore without any basis and logically invalid.

    1. I think so. We are looking at going back and doing this for the previous episode, where I interview Juanma. And possibly earlier ones.

      But, future episodes will likely include a PDF download of the transcript/scripts. As well as the more typical way to do things, with the content posted directly on the blog entry and over multiple pages.

  3. Valliant & Fahy deserve some kind of honorary doctorate for their brilliant, groundbreaking analysis: destined to be taught in every ancient history course.

    1. It is certainly some remarkable scholarship right there!

      I have met James Valliant in person and he accompanied me and my fiancee to the Getty Villa, which houses many Greek, Roman, and Etruscan antiquities. There he gave us a guided tour and explanation of many of the antiquities housed there.

      From that, it is evident that he knows a lot about ancient history, far beyond what is in the book. Which just goes to further the case for giving him an honorary degree of some kind.

      Unfortunately, I have not had the pleasure of meeting Fahy in person, but, I can only assume his own knowledge is similarly impressive.

      And as you probably know, they have given honorary degrees for far less impressive bodies of work.

  4. Thank you for answering my question. I have been busy and only got to listen to it today. I have some more questions and look forward to hearing your answer.

  5. How much of this was lifted from “Caesar’s Messiah” by Joseph Atwill (2011)? This isn’t ground breaking. Anyone who says that Atwill ignores prior scholarship and has no credibility.

    What would be more interesting is a discussion on the differences between to the two books or how this one supplements the other.

    1. None of it is “lifted” from “Caesar’s Messiah”. The authors have not “lifted” any ideas from Atwill or any other author.

      In fact, the development of the central thesis of “Creating Christ” predates “Caesar’s Messiah” by quite a large margin.

      The latter was indeed published in 2011. However, the authors started their work on this in the 80s, well before that or any of the other books mentioned here were published.

      And as I understand it from talking to James, the important ideas of the book were largely understood by 2011, the time when Atwill wrote his book.

      So, it is rather unlikely that that much could have been lifted by a book that came decades later …

      To the extent that they learned anything from that book, I have no doubt that it is appropriately credited and sourced. In fact, “Creating Christ” refers to the work of Atwill several times. Including specifically referencing “Caeser’s Messiah” on at least one occasion.

      Does Atwill’s book explore some of the same kinds of ideas? Of course. But, it is not true that the authors of “Creating Christ” lifted any of these ideas.

      As for a deep comparison of “Caesar’s Messiah” and “Creating Christ”, well who knows if that will appear on this website. But, I will venture one thing …

      I have not read the former, although I understand the general thesis it presents. I would, however, suggest that “Creating Christ” is far more encompassing a book and presents a broader thesis than “Caesar’s Messiah”.

      I have been informed that Atwill’s book is certainly worth reading and I will definitely read it in the near future.

    2. This from James Valliant, co-author of “Creating Christ”:

      “We are very different. Atwill cites stuff, but rejects it — and we do not. Like most of critical scholarship. Atwill asks his readers to accept many things that we think are dubious, such as the simultaneous composition of the Gospels, dubious dating for the Paule epistles and a whole host of other issues. We take an entirely different approach on many things — but especially, our primary arguments are simply not his.

      I will be appearing on two podcasts with Dr Robert Price, the renowned scholar who so harshly criticized Atwill — and debated him — has been persuaded by our book. Those interviews will highlight the differences, obviously. Check out MythVision and Miguel Conner’s podcasts next months where Price and I will be having a friendly chat about JUST THIS.”

  6. Could you please explain how Quantum time is indeterministic based on the observation:
    Entropy and the Nature of Time with Edwin C. May 5:55

    1. Sorry for taking a while to get back to you, we have been very busy!

      We are going to briefly cover time in episode sixteen of the podcast, where we talk about space and time. This will be out around the 25th of March.

      But, I can somewhat address your question now:

      We do not really think very much about “quantum time”. As far as we are concerned, time is simply a relational concept.

      What do we mean by that? We mean that time is a concept, it is a measurement of change. It is not a dimension or part of the universe. It simply measures change in things.

      We do not agree that Einstein or anyone else has shown that time is a dimension or that is part of the universe or that time is affected by speed. If it is a concept, how could it be, that makes no sense?

      Your video talks about the Arrow of Time. Well, if that concept is to have any validity, surely it refers to causality. Things happen the way they do because things have to act according to their nature.

      Broken glasses do not leap up and reassemble themselves. Gases do not become more orderly and bunch into a small area. Why? Because in both cases it would violate the nature of the broken cup or the gas to act in such a way. But, not because of some mysterious “Arrow of Time” which somehow dictates how they must act.

      Things do not generally happen in the reverse order that we observe, because of the nature of the entities. Unless of course, it is in the nature of the entities to act that way in a given context.

      We do not have to resort to entropy or “Arrows of Time” to explain this kind of thing. Or indeed anything to do with time at all. We just have to know which actions are consistent with the nature of the entities involved.

    1. Thank you!

      There is a lot more we could have said too. And probably a lot more nobody yet knows! Fascinating man and a fascinating subject.

  7. Hey would you mind stating which blog platform you’re
    working with? I’m going to start my own blog in the near future but I’m
    having a tough time selecting between BlogEngine/Wordpress/B2evolution and Drupal.
    The reason I ask is because your layout seems different
    then most blogs and I’m looking for something
    completely unique. P.S Sorry for being off-topic but I had to ask!

  8. Your episode 15 podcast has a title:
    Episode Fourteen – Life 3.0: A Slow Death, Part One

    That should be Episode Fifteen.
    This shows two episodes called Episode Fourteen in a playlist.

    Happy Honeymoon, by the way, you two deserve it.

    1. So far we have been unable to see where it says that. Perhaps it shows up with the wrong title and we have not noticed yet?

      Possible, as I type this response, we have only just arrived back home and have not had a lot of time to check this out. We will check it out after some sleep. Or perhaps it is fixed now?

      Thank you by the way. It was a great and indeed very well deserved honeymoon. 🙂

  9. Well I can’t upload a screenshot, but when I view properties on the downloaded mp3 file MOP-2019-3-22-quora-questions-on-mathematics.mp3
    The title references podcast 14 from 2019-02-22 but the description shows the correct podcast 15 information.

    1. Oh, I see now, thanks! 🙂 Alright, we will look into this today and see about fixing this.

  10. I needed to thank you for this fantastic read!! I definitely
    loved every little bit of it. I have got you book-marked to look at new stuff you

  11. I completely understand Biil Gaede’s frustration with the scientific community and it member’s not applying rationality to their theories.
    Furthermore, I think the rope model explains many of the observations of our physical world very well & better than a combined particle/wave model.
    However, if you are going to invoke rationality and state that light is a rope that mediates gravity then you better explain, rationally, how physical ropes don’t entangle.
    There are many other inconsistencies as well e.g. rotation of solar system vs rotation of galaxy – the 2 merry go rounds behave very differently, the galaxian merry go round is consistent with the rope model whereas our backyard is not.
    I’d like Bill’s model to be correct b/c then I can go to see star wars and finally have a physcial explanation for how Jedi manipulate the “force”. But until some more fundamental questions are answered re: rope model I will continue to search for a better explanation

  12. One possible way in which AI may emerge is the continual replacement of human parts until there is no longer any organic parts left.
    e.g. as of today I can replace most parts of a human, legs, arms, heart, most organs etc..
    On the head I can replace the eyes, ears, nose & some parts of the brain.
    As we understand more of what it is to be human we will be able to replace more of the brain.
    Eventually, the “consciousness” part of the brain will be replaced & on that day we will have an artificial AI or artificial human.
    So like organic evolution I think artificial evolution will occur in steps over a significant time period, but significantly less than that required by organic evolution i.e. 1000s of years not millions
    Note: Given the expansiveness of the universe the only way humans can explore it is to evolve into artificial bodies since cosmic radiation is lethal to organic life & time travel & FTL travel are an impossibility

    1. Interesting thoughts there. I agree with some of this but not so much others.

      I am going to cover this on the next podcast, due next week. So tune into that if you want to hear my thoughts on this interesting and evidently thought-proving comment. 🙂

    1. Hm, I am not sure why it is doing that. I will see what I can do about getting you removed from that.

  13. Fantastic site you have here but I was wanting to know if you knew of any discussion boards that cover the same topics discussed here? I’d really love to be a part of group where I can get suggestions from other knowledgeable people that share the same interest. If you have any recommendations, please let me know. Cheers!

  14. Very nice post. I just stumbled upon your blog and wished to say that I have really
    enjoyed browsing your blog posts. After all I’ll be subscribing to your feed and I hope you write
    again very soon!

    1. Thanks. 🙂 Bad pun it may be, I think it pretty much sums things up. Math does matter, as the article explains, but ultimately it is all about matter.

  15. A good description of the usefulness and limitations of computer models.
    Like Ashna, I used computer models to model the Ionosphere for my M.S. It was terribly important to understand the limitations of the model.
    One area I would expand on is the use of real world data to ‘tune’ models. Too many think this imparts a kind of infallibility to the predictive results. But there is an art and science to doing this.
    My career as an RF engineer relies heavily on tuned propagation models. They have become extremely good at modeling the radio coverage of cellular networks. But they still have their limitations.