Perpetual Motion Press Dilemma

More important for someone (amongst anyone) to build it, than to get press...

--------->

More important to get press than for one specific individual to build it (unless there's only one)...

-------->

More important for one specific individual to build it than to broadcast your average White House Press Conference...

-------->

The existence of your average White House Press Conference is much more important than going to nuclear war...


By this argument, there's something very real about perpetual motion!

Or do you not see clearly?

Terrapinian Advice

(Terrapin is my erstwhile pseudonym, which I have been slowly rejecting)

"It's best if we can have feelings with our thoughts, and not become a band of what-nots" ---ET

"Oh, for thoughts to not be the same, when they return again: to remember the form and forget to learn what does not teach: to be the eye of the storm" ---ET

Message from the Hobby-Inventor:

People are sort of busy, but what about an investigation of my over-unity concepts,

Including:

1.a. An Object that Rolls Upwards

(including 1.b. A diagram for the simplest possible working perpetual motion machine)

and

2. Proof of Over-Unity

?

Temporary Rating

DPT is currently #15 for Kindle / Philosophy / Reference

Currently 140,193rd in Kindle Store overall (for now).

There is a link to that text HERE. I think it belongs in bookstores.

(Once I found two different books that had the same rating, so I don't know if these statistics are really trustworthy).

Tantalyzing Coincidences In My History of Perpetual Motion Theorizing

1. 
   
2. Re-posted from Twitter. http://www.twitter.com/nathancoppedge
3. 
   
4. 
   

   Nov. 11, 2014: Veteran's Day. Nov. 10, 2013: Successful over-unity experiment 

   Expand
   

   •  Reply 
   •  Delete 
   •  Favorite 
5. #perpetualmotionholidays #perpetualmotionmachines
6. Nathan Coppedge ‏@nathancoppedge  19m

   Oct. 31st, 834 B.C: The First Halloween celebrated. Oct. 30, 2006: The Tilt Motor invented #perpetualmotionholidays #perpetualmotionmachines

   Expand
   

   •  Reply 
   •  Delete 
   •  Favorite 
7. Nathan Coppedge ‏@nathancoppedge  23m

   July 4, 2012 Higgs discovered. July 3rd, 2014 The master angle discovered #perpetualmotionholidays #perpetualmotionmachines

Perpetual Motion Genius' Guide to Philosophy

BOOK DESCRIPTION

Previously the author of similar 'Guides' on poetry, young adulthood, and child development, here the author addresses a topic dear to his heart: philosophy. Those unfamiliar with the topic are likely to find many reasons either for or against it in this entertaining and reasonably deep guide to the subject. From the author of the Dimensional Philosopher's Toolkit, and also inventor of numerous over-unity concepts.

It is available on Amazon HERE.

I don't have a Guggenheim Fellowship after all

But I got a phone call while I was at Starbucks, which made the impression that someone was speaking on behalf of the Guggenheim Foundation.

What I heard --- but I suffer from auditory hallucinations --- was that I was being offered a Guggenheim Fellowship.

I said 'no...I can't hear you' because I couldn't hear what they were saying.

So now I don't know if I'll ever hear from them again. It was a no-callback number.

The other option is it was an ad for Laser Vision surgery. Oh well.

Update: At least two Guggenheim foundations claim it wasn't them. But maybe it was a screening call by Lavazza, which is one of their supporters... I may not ever know.

Diagram Showing A Possible Proof of the Escher Machine

August 2014 Inventor Quotes

"If I'm ancient, there might be better things already" ---Nathan Coppedge

"The two songs correspond to the two simplest machines, for no coincidence" ---Nathan Coppedge

"When I think of science, I try to develop a logical method. When I find no logic, I find no science" ---Nathan Coppedge

Metaphysical Style / The Twerk has been sold!

2026-09-05: Only exposure for Hyper-Cubism disappears






My fabled Picasso Style piece has been sold to a Mr. Lehr in the U.K.

This is my long-belated first sale at Etsy.com.

The piece is titled "Metaphysical Style / The Twerk."

Including person-to-person sales, this is approximately my second sale over $300. A number of others have sold in the $100 - 200 range.

My previous sale was two framed drawings to Anthony and Crystal of CT. The couple stopped in my exhibit at Woodland Cafe which took place Sept. - Nov. in 2012.

I have also been selling a few copies of my very interesting art book, which is available for purchase here: Nathan Coppedge's Hyper-Cubism: Post-Cubist Drawings and Paintings.

Here is a link to my online gallery:

ETSY.COM/SHOP/HYPERCUBISM

Probably Me

I saw a pink PE Troll in the sky,
Petroll because of the oily texture
of the sky...
[Oh her chin,
and oh her very long hair!]
and I thought:
That stands for physical energy troll...
And it probably means:
Someone's being dishonest about physical energy...
Which means someone else is right about some contrary principle...
And, It's probably me...  Someone's right about energy! It's probably me! Probably me!

I may have been cited as the first

to use the phrase #theoryladen

on Twitter:

https://twitter.com/AngelofScience/status/498651902612373504

Another piece in the style of Picasso

St. Paul's Cathedral / Picasso Style #2
Hyper-Cubism by Nathan Coppedge
Available for purchase HERE.

My Escher Machine shows up in Wikipedia multimedia

Here is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&search=escher%20machine&fulltext=Search&profile=images


Earlier, I had submitted the file to Wikimedia Commons:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=escher+machine&title=Special%3ASearch&go=Go&uselang=en

Maybe someday an article will even be written about me. Possible.

As I see it, I deserve press for more than one reason. Not that I'm famous yet, but I deserve fame.

I don't have any videos with a million views yet, but one of them is over 2000 now (on Academic Room), and I have another that's over 1000 (on YouTube).

Perhaps considering the importance of my work popularity should follow from official coverage, rather than trendiness. But then again, the two things are so often the same.

Statements on the Square of Opposition

Recently I discovered a link to a device very similar to the Semiotic Square. I immediately became interested in disproving the logical device's purported logical validity.

Here is what I wrote in criticism (note especially the second paragraph):

[At Left: The Square of Opposition, which I intend to criticize, and Below: the Categorical Deduction diagram that I mean to defend].

[In reference to the Square of Opposition,] The graphical design alone is one of the simplest symbols in philosophy, logic, symbolics, and semiotics: it simply means 'modifying something', and in my view it is a rather incomplete notion of coherence. For example, if we have the categories they grant of 'None', 'All', 'Some', and 'Some not', we could add 'ambiguously some', 'ambiguously all' 'arbitrarily some' 'arbitrarily all' etc. This shows a clear pattern of incoherence in the formula, since in my view, although arbitrariness and ambiguity might apply to all cases, they are themselves in some sense, opposites. In other words, how do we know that 'some' are not 'all' by qualification, let alone whether ambiguous cases are arbitrated on the level of 'everything' versus on the level of 'nothing'? There is a deep need to find exclusion, a tool the square of opposition does not use well. Where is the logic? It is a little unfair, but I think the answer is categorical deduction, using opposites.


On the other hand [still referring to the Square of Opposition as opposed to Categorical Deduction], I can see how the diagram is inspired to create an exclusive set, it's just that it takes a kind of spiral pattern which does not easily return to its point of origin. Performing a categorical deduction on the set, we would conclude that 'Something is not nothing where everything is something' OR 'Something is not something where everything is nothing'. I'm afraid these statements do not hold up, because 1. In the first statement, it is the wrong kind of conservatism. We shouldn't need to prove everything is true to prove SOME things are true. 2. In the second case, instead of being conservative, it is the wrong type of generalization. There is no necessary connection between irrationalist statements of contradiction and the abnegation of all properties. Indeed, irrational properties may exist, under the right semantic conditions. So, the square of opposition rests on two fallacies, namely A. generic assumptions and B. A specific form of the fallacy of Affirming the Consequent. Added to this is the reality that I've virtually invented the complexity of the diagram in order to analyze it. Remember, the categorical deduction diagrams are different, even if they seem more simple, they usually involve more substantive data (i.e. opposite words), and a more coherent---perhaps the only simple and coherent----logical method.

Alternate method: Re-arranging the Square of Opposition to fit the standard of categorical deduction arguably yields the order (All, None, Not Some, Some), because the alternate order (All, None, Some, Not Some) yields trivial cases (1. Everything is nothing that is not something, and 2. Everything that is not something is not something,) , and the alternate order (All, Some, Not Some, None) does not complete a cycle, and amounts to quantification (what I call the quantification fallacy, a case in which data cannot return to itself or self-reflect, due in this case to beginning with everything and ending with nothing). Accepting the chosen order, the categorical deduction is different, but I suspect it is equally problematic due to the flawed choices. 1. Everything is nothing when something is not something, and 2. Everything is something when something is not something. Instead of being trivial, this example is purely relativistic, and in a coherent context, that doesn't hold up. The categorical deduction is neither relative, nor trivial, nor problematic, and so it must be the method that is preferred.

----Nathan Coppedge

Originally comments on Facebook.com/dimensionism

In response to the SEP: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/square/