On 08 May 2012, at 20:09, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 07.05.2012 21:49 meekerdb said the following:
On 5/7/2012 12:09 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 07.05.2012 19:52 John Clark said the following:
On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi<use...@rudnyi.ru>
wrote:
> To me the logic of trinity is perverse in the same extent as
quantum
mechanics.
Perverse it may be but it's not my business to judge what quantum
mechanics
does in private when nobody is looking, that's up to quantum
mechanics and
the electron, but the point is that love it or hate it the logic of
quantum
mechanics works, it makes correct predictions on how the world
works
and if
you don't like it complain to the universe not me. But the logic
of the
trinity does nothing and is just brain dead dumb.
John K Clark
You are wrong. With the trinity logic you can find for example an
answer why human language allows us to describe events that has
happened long before the life has been created.
A remarkable discovery. The ancient Egyptians and Babylonians (and
the
present day Muslims) were unable to describe events before life on
Earth
(but maybe there was life elsewhere?). Or maybe you just refer to ex
falso quodlibet, so by logic 1=3 implies anything at all.
Brent
For the development of science, it is necessary to have a believe
that equations discovered by a human mind could be used for the
whole history of Universe. At that time, this belief came from
trinity.
The logic of trinity is more complex, it concerns that words can
explain Nature. I will report on this more, when I will work out
Collingwood's An Essay on Metaphysics. Roughly speaking "In the
Beginning was the Word". The trinity, by the way, is not the
invention of Christianity, it comes from ancient times.
Yes. It is common to basically all Greek theologies, and is prominent
in Plotinus. But it appears also in India, and in very old mythologies
(babylonian? Egyptians, Sumerians, ... I should do research on this).
And it appears quickly when a Löbian machine looks inward, under the
form of the discovery of the different logic for truth (the outer
god), provability (the intellect, the third person) and "true
provability" (the first person, the inner god, the universal soul).
Now, to say 1 = 3, can only be a poetical metaphor. It is not a
counter-example to the arithmetical laws. I hope this is obvious for
everybody. 0 would have to successors.
Bruno
You have mentioned that you have another explanation why neuron nets
not only obey the physical laws but they also can comprehend the
physical laws. Could you please sketch it?
Evgenii
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.