Talk:Gene Ray

Contents

1 VfD listing 2 Criticism 3 Misc. 4 Doctor 5 Kosebamse's anti-Cubic crusade 5.1 Overview of testable/observable Cubic hypotheses 6 Removing the Dada Engine paragraph 7 It's hopeless 8 Schizophrenia

VfD listing

• we don't need an article on every lunatic with a website. --Wik 14:16, Nov 24, 2003 (UTC)
  • Delete. Anjouli 14:35, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • I wholeheartedly agree that Wikipedia would be happier without this kind of, erm, knowledge, however[sic] there should be some way to handle the stuff that all the 211.28.xxx.xxx anons keep adding - just reverting will not work, Wik. Kosebamse 14:38, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • I'd say that Gene Ray is a notable lunatic with a website. Keep, unless he's more obscure in pointing-and-laughing circles than I thought. Onebyone 15:04, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Keep. TimeCube.com is one of the more well-known kook websites, and Ray is an interesting figure. What other kooks been[sic] given the opportunity to preside over a large debate at MIT? 80.58.0.107 15:22, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • As much as it makes me want to cry, I have to agree with the above --Raul654 15:43, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • I also agree with the above! Some of Gene Ray's claims are mentioned in the comment by Smerdis of Tlön (below)—if these claims are nonsense, then why are Academic pedants recommending the censorship by deletion of all Wikipedia content pertaining to Time Cube? Gene Ray is an altruistic man who has made an independent discovery and has invested many years of time and effort in order to make this discovery known to the public. Censorship of Time Cube would equate to no less than a travesty of unimaginable magnitude, which would doom all humanity to Hell on Earth. Is Academia so evil as to allow such an abomination to occur?
  • Only a lying professor or an educated stupid scientist would think of deleting an article about the TimeCube and its creator! I had heard of TimeCube before I had ever heard of Wikipedia. Keep. -- Smerdis of Tlön 20:58, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Delete. This nonsense is not worth having on a credible encyclopædia. FearÉIREANN 21:21, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • While his theory isn't credible, information about it may be. I'm against Bradfordism and Reptilian Humanoids and Kranism, but Gene Ray and the Time Cube do have a certain notoriety on the web, and an NPOV explanation of it is useful. Keep. orthogonal 22:38, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • If you think this isn't credible, then what do you delete next? Erich von Däniken? Cyrus Teed? George Adamski? (Yes, I checked, and we do have articles for all three of them). Adamski's theories are a lot more unlikely and kooky than those of this Gene Ray fellow, and yet people seem perfectly content to let the articles on other people slide. Frankly, if I were to read the biggest encyclopedia on Earth that purported to be exhaustive, I'd be more concerned if I didn't find an article on von Däniken (what would seem like a glaring omission) than if they did have an NPOV article on the man. Save deletion for people who are obscure, not whose theories you of all people happen to disagree with. Wiwaxia 06:08, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • (You forgot Velikovsky.) But seriously: Gene Ray may be a complete crank, but he's a moderately well-known crank. Besides which, other Internet cultural phenomena—comparable in significance to, if larger in scope than, Gene Ray's amusing lunacy—have their own articles. Keep, sez I. --Mirv 12:05, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • To add my 2 bytes to the matter, this is badly written, reguardless of topic, and ought to be shot down on that point at least. I mean, what IS this cubic time they speak of? Can we get some more information? If not, delete. -Litefantastic 8:39, 25 Nov 2003 (Eastern Time)
    • That's exactly the problem here - it's just some bogus idea with a lot of PR and absolutely no substance to it, so all you can possibly write about is the PR (see [1] (http://en2.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion&diff=1811202&oldid=1811199) among others) and the nutter behind it. Unfortunately the Gene Ray fans are rather persistent in promoting their kookery on Wikipedia (but even they can't elucidate on the substance of the time cube, only add links and shout censorship). Kosebamse 04:08, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Keep. He's not particularly notable in the "real world", but he is quite notable in internet circles. --Delirium 07:13, Nov 26, 2003 (UTC)
  • Keep. Martin 20:49, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Keep; Wikipedia is not paper. – Olathe 05:35, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Removed from VfD - interesting to a range of Wikipedians. Martin 19:14, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Criticism

Users from the 211.28 range seem to have a desire to remove criticism from this article (see article history, example (http://en2.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Gene_Ray&diff=1832245&oldid=1831270)). I think it's not too far-fetched to believe that it's the same person (Mr. Ray?), also from that range, who likes to inappropriately insert and re-insert links to this and related pages in several articles and who seems to foster a somewhat less-than-mature view of criticism as such (see VfD or my talk page). I think the criticism should remain in the article as long as the 211.28 people don't provide better arguments than just calling it "irrelevant POV". Kosebamse 12:42, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

It may be seen as irrelevant in the context of the Gene Ray article since the criticism is from people other than Dr Ray. I have edited the first statement about "testable hypotheses" to neutralise possible POV, and deleted the second statement "He does however not explain how this relates to any accepted concept of time" because it doesn't make sense. Cubic Time has 3 dimensions like space, Linear Time has 1 dimension. Linear time is the accepted concept, so isn't it self-explanatory how Time Cube differs from it?

No it's not. I am rather certain that nobody except you, 211.28, and Mr. Ray understand what that means. Therefore that explanation needs to be in the article. And as long as nobody presents me a testable hypothesis about your ideas, I maintain that it cannot be disproved, therefore the sentence about disprovability must also remain. Kosebamse 08:37, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

Moved this from the article (was inserted by our persistent Gene Ray fan 211.28): and was also the inventor of several patented devices. He actively promoted the game of Marbles, publishing a book entitled "Mr Marbles: Marbles for Everyone", and planning a world marbles tournament. No evidence for this is presented. 211.28, kindly adhere to the encyclopedic standards of Wikipedia[;] i.e. back your claims with facts. Kosebamse 14:22, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

US patent numbers 4,095,793; 4,095,365; 3,974,591. Search sptimes.com archives for "Gene Ray" and view the article "`Mr. Marbles' isn't playing a game anymore" (also "Protester to risk jail by feeding the birds"), and search for the book name on Google.

These patent numbers are legit and are important to the story, assuming that Ray; Otis Eugene (P.O. Box 40302, St. Petersburg, FL 33743) is the same Gene Ray. Links added to the article. Andrewa 17:53, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes it is the same Gene Ray. Did you read the St. Petersburg Times newspaper articles?

---

What happened to the photo of Dr. Ray here? Crculver 04:36, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It was deleted because of the copyright policy. But I doubt that the copyright holders (the photographer, and another guy who added a background) would have objected to its use. The photo was from the 2002 MIT Time Cube debate. Hopefully there will be more Time Cube debates in the future, with higher seating capacities, better quality video and more photos. There was another debate at MIT scheduled for July 2003, but it was cancelled for unknown reasons several months beforehand.

Misc.

Apropros of nothing, (i) I believe that the short section on Gene's pre-cube days is the driest, funniest set of paragraphs I have ever read and (ii) will Gene ever attain the fame of such eccentrics as Joshua A. Norton, Wesley Willis, or for that matter semi-eccentrics such as Stanley Unwin and Kenneth Williams? Is Gene self-aware? Is there a "notable eccentrics" category on Wikipedia?

Doctor

Should Wikipedia use the Dr. honorific if he hasn't earned it from any established or credible institution? It does not seem consistent with the explantion/definition of [doctor] on Wikipedia. --Paraphelion 22:27, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It depends whether we want Wikipedia to be cutting-edge. It is clear to anyone studying Time Cube that Dr Ray's discovery of the Ineffable 4-Corner Truth renders him worthy of the positions of Greatest Thinker and Wisest Human; he is thus granted the authority to bestow a doctorate upon himself. The only reason not to recognise this doctorate is compliance with the general stupidity that has precluded rapid acceptance of Time Cube.

Well, I myself am not so keen on dumbing down Wikipedia for the stupid and closed-minded people; although some people do seem to be, as evidenced by the censorship of the following material:

In late 2004, and in the midst of a prolific period of Time Cube evaluation marked by his creation of new and inspirational Cubic scriptures, Dr Ray took the Cubic disproof of religious concepts to the next level, by solving the major philosophical question: "Why something rather than nothing?" The answer, as published by him on his Time Cube website, related to the principle of opposites (in this case, static rather than dynamic/cyclical opposites), an important element of Cubic geometry: "Between the opposites, all things are created. As an entity, they exist only as a big zero, seen from space as something and nothing from every possible view."

It appears that the religious zealots want there to be a lack of solution for "Why something rather than nothing?", so that they can use it as a proselytisation/brainwashing tactic. Thus, when the solution is revealed, they cover it up as part of their efforts to prevent awareness of the Cubic Truth, which, as we know, disproves God and exposes religion as an evil Word-scam.

It seems a pity, but in reality, great things don't come easy. We must all fight to break the Word-shackles of religious and Academic-induced 1-corner ignorance, and force teachers to teach Cubicism above evil cubelessness. Humanity's sole hope of salvation lies with 4-corner Cubic knowledge.

Kosebamse's anti-Cubic crusade

Kosebamse, firstly, explain how my comment regarding Cubic implications of Occam's razor was "frivolous" and "betrays the quality of your argumentation".

Secondly, you demand testable predictions. I will firstly point out that most theories have values other than the capacity to predict the outcome of experiments. Had relativity been formulated only after all its implications had been verified, it would still be used widely, but for such practical uses as technology development and simulation. As such, to determine a theory's practical value, we must focus on its real-life ramifications -- testable hypotheses, but not necessarily predictions.

Overview of testable/observable Cubic hypotheses

From the fundamental Cubic principles, we may broadly define manifestations of Cubic geometry evident in reality. Firstly, that everything is cyclical. In the case of large-scale phenomena, such as cyclicality of galaxy death and rebirth, and that of the universe as a whole, our observational capabilities may not suffice; but on smaller scales, cyclicality certainly is measurable.

A second observable influence is the life that has evolved on Earth, representing an interaction between chaos and Time Cube. Cubic properties are evident in lifeforms -- see Cubiform and Pyramidal Lifeforms (http://www.geocities.com/cubicprophecies/nature/cubiform.html), and Cycles, Systems and Complexities in Nature (http://www.geocities.com/cubicprophecies/nature/cyclessystems.html).

Firstly let me state that I am not on a crusade. I have often edited Gene Ray and Time Cube, but I did this because I believe that even topics on the very border of the comprehensible deserve good articles. I don't deny that I have in the past voted to delete them, and that I consider Ray's ideas utter and complete nonsense, but even utter and complete nonsense can be presented in a factual and unbiased way, and that's what I am trying to do here.Kosebamse

- Occam's razor: 1) you write that it is "argued to favour the simple Cubic rules over more convoluted theories, as well as baseless religious beliefs" - If you say it is argued, cite your sources. Where, when, and by whom was this argued?Kosebamse

It has been argued on Gene Ray's official TimeCube websites; as well as on Cubic Awareness Online (http://www.cubicao.tk), in articles including "Religion" and "-1 * -1 = +1 is Stupid and Evil".

In which case it would be appropriate to avoid weaselspeak and say that Ray and his followers argue thusly (if he has any - I have not seen anybody argue in favor of him except you, and I am not convinced that you are not Ray himself. And by the way, would please sign your comments) Kosebamse

I added "proponents of Cubicism".

2) "favour simple ... rules over more convoluted theories" is the exact opposite of what Occam's razor states, namely, that of two equally strong explanations the simpler one is to be preferred Kosebamse

"Strong" presumably refers to logical validity and consistency with the available evidence. Would it not then be entirely possible to make a theory that is excessively convoluted, yet "strong" nonetheless? For instance, I can introduce into a theory the unnecessary element of a God, as well as the assumption that any evidence contradicting the God is just an illusion. Ignoring Occam's razor, this would logically concur with empirical evidence.

One could not use Occam's razor in the situation that a simpler theory has been disproven through other means; but where they are both "strong", as defined above, my statement holds true. I could perhaps add to the statement that the simple Cubic rules are "strong".

The point is not whether your "rules" are simpler or more complicated than others. The point is that Occam's razor is applied to explanations of phenomena. Your "rules" do not explain anything insofar as they use inappropriate concepts. Since time is not a geometric entity, it is nonsensical to describe it as cubic. If you would like to apply Occam's razor to your ideas, you would first have to demonstrate that they explain anything. Kosebamse

Time is proven to be of a Cubic nature. Geometric constructs such as a 4/16 rotation -- proven to exist -- require the 3-dimensional cubic-time for their existence.

You are using "proof" and "proven" in a way that has nothing to do with a generally accepted usage of the term. If you claim to have proven a scientific concept, you have to demonstrate at the very least that it is testable and has resisted attempts at falsification.Kosebamse

You can attempt to falsify the Earth's rotation then, in regard to the 4/16 rotation. We reason from that self-evident empirical fact to prove 4 simultaneous days in 1 rotation. You could also refute the reasoning in order to disprove the 4/16 rotation. See below for testability/observability of Cube-ramifications.

Kindly explain what is "self-evident empirical fact", what is your reasoning and what is your conclusion.Kosebamse

The Earth's rotation is the self-evident empirical fact. The reasoning is that we divide the rotation into 4-corner quadrants (in accordance with thesupremacy of four (http://www.geocities.com/cubicprophecies/theory/4supreme.html)), and rotate it once, which yields 16 spacetime configurations. From this, we deduce 4 simultaneous days. See 4/16 Rotation Principle (http://www.geocities.com/cubicprophecies/theory/rotation416.html).

(If I took a crank, rotated him an infinty of times, that obviously would yield an infinity of nonsense. Trust me, it's proven by the proven principle of the proven supremacy of infinity.) How about demonstrating your explanations instead of repeating ad nauseam that there are such and such principles? Kosebamse

The infinity-concept you have stated is invalid, for infinity logically reduces to a finite Cube-state, as proven in the Rational Belief (http://www.geocities.com/cubicprophecies/theory/rational). The 4/16 rotation principle is explained on the page4/16 Rotation Principle (http://www.geocities.com/cubicprophecies/theory/rotation416.html), so I want you to read that and respond to the proof it sets forth.

3) "baseless religious beliefs" - Occam's razor does per se not make any assumptions about the metaphysical or religious quality of explanations, so applying it does not favor religious beliefs over others. Furthermore, is an expresion like "baseless religious beliefs" compatible with your idea of an unbiased language?Kosebamse

Yes, because should the religious beliefs have a legitimate basis, then it wouldn't be too difficult for their followers to make it known. But in reality, this isn't going to happen, because the beliefs are obviously baseless and untrue.

That's a circular argumentation and does not prove anything beyond your premises.Kosebamse

As explained in the Time Cube article, Time Cube disproves God. What we are discussing here is whether use of "baseless" is justified. I argue that it is justified, as follows:

• Anyone objecting to the claim that the beliefs are baseless, must hold the contrary belief: that the beliefs do have a legitimate basis.
• But if such a basis does exist, then they should be able to state this basis without too much effort.
• Therefore, given that they have not stated a legitimate basis, I conclude that either they are comfortable with the "baseless" claim, or there really is no basis -- in which case the "baseless" claim is true.

We were talking about what Occams razor is used for. As I explained before, it is a method of handling explanations for phenomena. If you don't demonstrate what theory explains what phenomena, you can't claim to put Occmam's razor to use. If you can't demonstrate in what testable way your timecubism disproves God, any use of Occam's razor is an deception. Kosebamse

So it is justified to use "baseless" (if not, please refute my argument). To test that a single human-self can't exist in more than one corner of Earth, try conducting a phone conversation with yourself over a 1000 km distance, simultaneously existing at each end. Get it broadcast on the news if you can do it, and I will count that as evidence.

To test that your 4-corner head has but a 1-corner face, which is oriented in the "forwards" direction, you can try looking directly north, south, east and west simultaneously. Alternatively, you can try walking north, south, east and west simultaneously. Not possible for you as a 1-corner self, although a 4-corner family-rotation -- mother, father, son, daughter -- will be able to manage it.

It is testable fact that the self is but 1-corner; and it is testable that the universe has a 4-corner totality, see below. Since a self-god would have to be but 1-corner, it could not represent the 4-corner totality, therefore not omniscient/omnipotent as claimed. We thus disprove the omnipotent self-word-god.

Your terminology does not seem to make any sense, so kindly explain what you mean. Kosebamse

See 4 is the Supreme Number of the Universe (http://www.geocities.com/cubicprophecies/theory/4supreme.html); this explains the 4-corner-quadrant division. 4-corner is all four of them, and 1-corner is just one. If there is any other terminology you don't understand, please specify it.

"testable that the universe has a 4-corner totality". Would you mind formulating that in terms of generally accepted geometry or physics? Kosebamse

See below, where we are discussing the 4-corner geometry as it applies to Earth's rotation.

I didn't say that Occam's razor favours religious beliefs; rather, it serves to reject unobservable supernatural phenomena, since they are not required to explain reality and are therefore superfluous.

There's a lot about the relation between Occams razor and religion in Occam's razor and no need to discuss it on the Gene Ray article Kosebamse

Yes, but there is no harm in making a brief comment.

It is misleading to use a tool of science outside the limits of its usefulness. Kosebamse

See above; it is within the limits.

It is not. If you talk about science (or what you call science), stick to the point. You are constantly trying to introduce religious ideas while the subject is your alleged explanations of physical phenomena. If you aplly Occam's razor to the idea that time is cubic, the first and foremost result would be that an explanation (timecubism) that does not explain anything better that accepted physics and is more complicated is to be refuted. If you could demonstrate that your ideas explain anything, they would be fit to be scrutinised scientifically, but I have not, neither here nor onthe pages you cite, seen anything resembling an explanation of anything.Kosebamse

However, Time Cube is proven. Without logical proof in support of religious beliefs, they are refuted by the razor of doom. See "Proof" in Talk:Time Cube for the logical/geometric proof, and below for testability.

You are essentially saying that it's proven because you say that it's proven. That's speculative belief, not science. You have still not demonstrated a testable construct in comprehensible terms of physics or geometry. Kosebamse

It's proven because there is proof. For this proof, see "Proof" in Talk:Time Cube, and see below for testability. You also need to respond to the proofs on Cubic Awareness Online (http://www.cubicao.tk).

- Testable predictions. Whatever the benefits of a theory, it is a scientific theory only if it makes testable predictions. Read scientific method for a full explanation. Furthermore, a person who rejects the scientific method itself cannot be considered a scientist because a scientist is someone who accepts that his/her ideas are tested using the scientific method. Simple as that. Kosebamse 10:33, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So then, if relativity had been formulated only after all its predictions had been verified, it would be unscientific. Its scientific value would be decided based on the time at which it was discovered, rather than the its actual content. And furthermore, I imagine that the moment all its predictions have been verified, they will no longer be predictions, and thus Relativity will instantly become unscientific. Every scientist in the world will be forbidden from referring to it; never mind its practical, non-predictive uses, because Jesus said that if you don't worship the arbitrary absolute necessity for predictions he will damn you to hell.

I repeat that you might wish to read scientific method to understand how science works. Your description is quite off the target. If a theory does not make a testable prediction and/or explains phenomena in a testable way, it is not a scientific theory.Kosebamse

If by "explains phenomena in a testable way" you mean that the theory's hypotheses should be based on testable/observable empirical evidence, then you have agreed with me, because while it is necessary for a theory's hypotheses to be testable, it is not necessary for any of them to be predictions. If you want to claim that predictions are necessary, then you should state rational justification rather than mere religious-zealot unsubstantiated-assertions.

If a theory is scientific, it explains phenomena in a testable way and allows predictions to be deduced. There may be a misunderstanding about the use of "predictions" here: prediction is not per se related to future events, but to hypotheses or concepts that are deduced from a theory and are testable. Kosebamse

Then it would be better phrased as "testable hypotheses", since "predictions" generally does refer to a foretelling of future events. There is no justification for placing constraints on the times at which supporting experiments or observations are performed.

So phrase it so.Kosebamse

Certainly a theory requires testable hypotheses, and a means of it gaining credibility is for these hypotheses to be predictions that are subsequently verified. But to say that it must absolutely have predictive hypotheses in order to be accepted, is clearly but nonsensical dogma. I suggest that instead of crusading in support of this dogma just because "everyone believes it" (same with flat-earth a few centuries ago), you try thinking rationally for a change.

Your polemics aside, I maintain that somebody who outright rejects the scientific method (for example by challenging people to disprove his ideas when there is nothing testable in them) cannot be considered a scientist.Kosebamse

I already provided an overview of Cubic testability, which I have now marked as "Overview of testable/observable Cubic hypotheses". You appear to have overlooked this, so I ask that you please now respond to it.

I have not seen anything there that even formally resmbles scientific argumentation. Would you mind citing a single testable concept deduced from timecubism, explaining how it relates to the physical world and demonstrating how it is proven? Kosebamse

I will focus on the first one I listed in "Overview of testable/observable Cubic hypotheses": that everything is cyclical. Let's examine the Earth's rotation. Maybe the Earth is going to stop rotating and the wikipedia server will fly off the edge. No, it keeps rotating. What constraint is regulating this motion? And furthermore, at noon on Tuesday it's in a certain configuration, and at noon on Wednesday the same configuration has been more or less re-attained, despite different configurations having been gone through. Why was that?

Maybe a 1/bajillion coincidence that it keeps doing the same thing for so many years. Alternatively, a 4/16 rotation principle (http://www.geocities.com/cubicprophecies/theory/rotation416.html), as proven on the linked page. But we must take into account all possibilities, so you tell me what you think is a possibility.

I am quite happy with classical physics (as well as common sense) to explain that after a full rotation Earth is in a position similar to that 24 hours before. What is there in such a simple phenomenon that makes you assume complicated and nebulous ideas about time?Kosebamse

Common sense proves 4 simultaneous days, as explained in 4/16 rotation principle (http://www.geocities.com/cubicprophecies/theory/rotation416.html). But you have raised the possibility of classical physics, so let's examine that. By what process does one verify classical physics' explanation for the cyclicality of Earth's movement?

What cyclicality? A rotating object keeps rotating in the absence of friction or other forces that take kinetic energy away from it. After one rotation, the situation is similar to the situation at start. that's as simple as physics can possibly be and I don't see the need to introduce nebulous and complicated principles that don't explain anything and don't prove anything (except [insert favorite weasel words here] the notorious crankiness of their inventor). Kosebamse

Exactly. The situation at the end is similar to what it was at the start. But in linear time, the object experiences a continuous temporal movement away from the start -- no return. You have stated that the rotating object keeps rotating, but not the constraint that causes it to perenially repeat its movement; so I ask again, how does classical physics explain it, and by what process may one verify its explanation?

If there is no constraint on the future, then it must be a 1/bajillion coincidence that the past keeps recurring. The present moves away from the past, and assuming an infinite straight-line of time, nothing forces it to return. But if the future ultimately is the past, then what has happened in the past dictates what will happen in the future. Take this continuous time-circle, divide it into 4, and position it between 2 static opposites to derive the Time Cube geometry.

So, what's going on. Is it classical physics (if so, explain further), or a 1/bajillion coincidence, or is it NATURE'S HARMONIC SIMULTANEOUS 4-DAY TIME CUBE?

See Inertia, specifically the section on "rotatory inertia". If you can't come to grips with such an overwhelmingly simple concept, all discussion is futile. Happy proclamating, Kosebamse 05:21, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I know that classical physics represents it with the concept of inertia. But what actually causes the inertia? Above, I show that infinite rectilinear time requires a 1/bajillion coincidence for inertia, such as Earth's perennial rotation, to occur. Otherwise, it would have to be a time-circle, which leads us to the unrefuted Cubic geometry. I will expect a refutation of my argument if you are going to claim infinite rectilinear time on any basis stronger than a 1/bajillion chance.

If you want you challenge the foundations of Newtonian physics, you need better arguments than these. I won't argue with you any further, see below. Kosebamse 08:26, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Incorrect; the arguments are sound, and neither you nor anyone else has refuted them. I am not challenging Newtonian physics, but merely showing that it exists within the parameters of Cubic time, rather than the false evil 1-corner linear-time.

Removing the Dada Engine paragraph

• 02:23, 13 Mar 2005 Kosebamse (reinstate Dada Engine. Why was this deleted?)
• ...
• 13:08, 4 Mar 2005 RJL20 (The Time Cube text generator at elsewhere.org is a markov chain script, not a dada engine creation.)

I removed that section because it's not true. The Dada Engine is cool, and it could be used to write a Time Cube generator, but as far as I know, it hasn't been. The Time Cube generator you linked to is a perl script which uses a markov chain built by parsing Gene Ray's own sites. It doesn't use the Dada Engine. RJL20 23:52, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's hopeless

I would like to note that I'll stop arguing with our esteemed friend 211.28.xxx.xxx. As the discussion above amply demonstrates, the form of his arguments resembles rational discourse (although his style of discussion is highly evasive), but the substance of his ideas is vacuous. I am at a loss as to what motivates him. Either he's a total crackpot, or a polite and highly effective troll, or he pursues some dadaistic attempt at ridiculing Wikipedia/academia/whatnot (-if I had to pick one, I'd vote crackpot). Anyway, I am giving it up now. It is extremely unpleasant and sad to see that the proverbial Internet zealot with infinite time at hand should prevail here, but I am bored and fed up with this. If anybody has the patience to deal with 211.28, good luck. Kosebamse 08:26, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Kosebamse, what motivates me is most likely the same ideal that motivated Galileo -- that of rational Truth prevailing over Academic and religious single-corner Word-lies and brainwashing. You are incorrect in deeming Time Cube vacuous, as I have shown it to be quite substantiated in terms of logic, rationality, and empirical observability. I guess the round-earth heliocentric theory would have been similarly considered vacuous several centuries ago.

And no, I don't have infinite time, rather I have the power above God with which Cubic wisdom has energised me. It would be good if you could similarly overcome with rational thought all Academic religious brainwashing and indoctrination that has been imposed upon you, and seek the Ineffable Cubic Truth of the Universe.

I am putting a note on Wikipedia:Requests for comment so that others may look into these disputes. Kosebamse 05:28, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Schizophrenia

The Schizophrenia article lists him as schizophrenic, but this article seems to have no mention of it. Is this true, confirmed, or simply suspected? -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 00:59, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

On his Time Cube (http://www.timecube.com/) webpage he states that "My wisdom so antiquates known knowledge, that a psychiatrist examining my behavior, eccentric by his academic single corner knowledge, knows no course other than to judge me schizoprenic." So in view of traditional science (the "educated stupid" in his view), which I presume is the view of the Schizophrenia article, he is probably schizophrenic (at least if we are to believe him). Woseph 10:44, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)