RE: On side note - Timecube: Quite a curiosity

["Bernie Doeser" <bernie@doeser.org>]

To reply to this message or start a new topic please email: BUPS-DIS@bups.org


My my. Of course any text can have value to a philosopher. It can be
analysed, deconstructed and critiqued, but this could take a very long time
in this instance. It might however be a useful exercise for any philosophy
student who needed something easy to start learning criticism on.

Some (many, most?) philosophical texts appear baffling/mystical at the
outset, so seeing a baffling, mystical text can lead one to surmise it is
genuine philosophy. This text does use some common techniques - an appeal to
authority (make sure you list your academic qualifications ...), a challenge
to prove me wrong (I quite liked Russell's challenge to prove that a teapot
wasn't orbiting the sun in order to disprove the foundations of the
"orbiting teapot religion"), a mangling of language verging on "Humpty
Dumptyism". However I find the use of offensive language, multiple coloured
fonts, large texts and exclamation marks to be rather unique in this
context. I wonder if it is simply emotional, or a genuine strategy to double
bluff the serious reader into seriously considering the content. The news
that the theory has an army of disciples does not contribute to proving it's
value.

Another Russell saying was that philosophy occupied the area between
religion and science - where there is no empirical evidence, but also where
one does not rely on faith. Of course one can argue that the size of such an
area is zero .....My judgement would be that TimeCube is religion rather
than philosophy. It certainly isn't science - simply apply Poppers
disprovability test, and I don't recognise it as philosophy.

Peter Cave, an OU tutor and sometime philosophy writer tells a joke about a
university that is given a sum of money to set up a new department. In the
meeting to discuss which subject the new department is to teach the argument
goes thus

- set up a Chemistry department, it would be prestigious, and the country
needs more chemists
- no, set up a Maths department it is much cheaper. Instead of all those
laboratories and equipment you simply need a chair, a desk some paper,
pencils and a waste basket.
- No,no. If we set up a Philosophy department we can save on the waste
basket.

I guess it is difficult for any philosopher to consign any theory to the
bin, but I suggest we have a strong contender here.

Bernie Doeser
Sandiway, Cheshire, UK.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-bups-dis@purplepancake.com
[mailto:owner-bups-dis@purplepancake.com]On Behalf Of Edward Grefenstette
Sent: 25 January 2006 14:26
To: BUPS-DIS@bups.org
Subject: On side note - Timecube: Quite a curiosity

To reply to this message or start a new topic please email:
BUPS-DIS@bups.org


A fellow physicist mailed me a link yesterday, directing me to this
website called TimeCube, which is a 12,000 word essay/rant across two
pages by a certain Gene Ray (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_Ray),
"describing" this "timecube theory" which purports that there are 4
simultaneous days going on every 24 hours, that time is cubed, that
most human knowledge is wrong, etc etc etc.

The actual website: http://www.timecube.com/
An online community supporting Ray's theory: http://www.cubicao.tk/

Gene Ray is obviously insane as a vast majority of the content of his
website relates to delusions of grandeur and the description of the
errors the academic community makes (often referring to a vast
conspiracy theory to keep the timecube away from society), but the
effort put into the website makes worth a look, out of curiosity.

What does anyone make of this?


Browse or search the BUPS-DIS archives, or unsubscribe from the mailing list
at: http://www.bups.org/mailinglist.shtml




Browse or search the BUPS-DIS archives, or unsubscribe from the mailing list at: http://www.bups.org/mailinglist.shtml