Thank you Galuel for your direct response.
I understand everything you are saying with 100% clarity. You have done a fine job at conveying your points. Your English really is way better than my French!
However, I also see with 100% clarity, that there are no actual new ideas being proffered here. Just different rationalizations for the same "false paradox" that I've discussed many times. It is what is commonly known as "an epic fail".
My vision is a space-time one, which is not easy to see if you didn't study Relativity, so it's often necessary to translate it in each individual global paradigm.
This was a little condescending so let me just say, "spare me." Let's just say my colleagues actually fly in space. I'm not exactly clueless about the concept of four dimensions.
It's just one way between lots of possibilities to understand what is Universal Dividend. You can also see it as :
This and its associated list make it clear that what you are doing is merely an exercise in persuasion. You don't care the reason people accept what you want. It is only important to you that they accept what you want.
So we have a false implication. You are asserting that your premise is true. However, you will accept anything (true or false) as justifying (implying) your assertion. That means logically the relationship between the two (the implication) is necessarily incorrect.
So in effect your argument can be summarized as saying: (my premises is true)(does not imply)(anything I'll say to persuade you)
T !--> X There is simply no point in me having that discussion with you. It's arbitrary rationalization.
----
The mathematics behind your premise has existed in space and time for longer than I have. It has always been false. It doesn't matter if you change the rationalization.
I take X% of Y from everyone in a group based upon the quantity of Y they hold. I give each person Sum(X*Y)/N. Where N is the number of people in the group.
Do you think this is a new concept? It had been tried over and over again. It is a repeated EPIC FAIL. Not theoretically, empirically. I won't quote examples. You are European. You know more examples of this failing than I do.
----
It really doesn't matter what rationalization you use to imply something false. It is logically irrelevant. X --> F means nothing, just like T !--> X above.
The following "mathematical proof" comes to mine.
A roulette strategy was touted that went:
1) Bet on Red or Black
2a) If you win, you've doubled your money.
2b) If you lose, increase your next bet so the amount you'll win will cover your previous loses.
3) Therefore, you can never lose at roulette.
Of course, all Frenchmen think that is a silly strategy because they invented roulette. So they will no longer listen to your silliness.
So you tell them, there is this American game. It is so stupid it doesn't even have red or black. Just a bunch of cards. It's called blackjack, but what the silly American's don't know is there is an obvious strategy to beat blackjack, it goes like this!
1) Bet
2a) If you win, you've doubled your money.
2b) If you lose, increase your next bet so the amount you'll win will cover your previous loses.
3) Therefore, you can never lose at blackjack.
SEE!!! I told you!!! No Red or Black at all!!! It's a sure thing!