James S. Saint wrote:Arminius
wrote:»What about the essence? Does essence also have
affect? Do both the real being and the ideal being have affect? Don't forget:
According to Platon and other philosophers the ideal being is the true, the actual
real being.« **
**
»Essence«
is the concept of a thing, and idealism, thus not physical. The concepts have
their realm of existence and the physical has its realm of existence. We have
been through this before. **
We
have been through this before probably means no one else than you
and I have been through this before.James S. Saint wrote:Arminius
wrote:»James S. Saint wrote:As
long as no one plays with the definitions of the symbols involved, '1+1=2' will
never change. **
Some
physicists (seriously) say 1+1=1.9...~ because of the so-called mass
defect (cp. E=MC²).« **
**
That
is an example of them playing with the definitions. It is untrue that 0.99999...
= 1.0, but that doesn't stop them from believing it and stating it as true on
Wiki. **
And
that is a bad sign, at least then, if it is not explained that it has not very
much to do with mathematics. It has very much to do with confusing the people,
so that it becomes easier to reconvert science to religion.James
S. Saint wrote:I said, »totally impossible«,
meaning that it can't happen ever, such as constructing a square circle. You might
be able to construct something that you call a »square-circle«, but
an actual square-circle is an oxymoron and can never exist. **
The
German mathematician C. L. Ferdinand von Lindemann proved (published in 1882)
that p (pi) is a transcendental number, meaning it
is not a root of any polynomial with rational coefficients.In
1882, Lindemann published the result for which he is best known, the transcendence
of p. .... Before the publication of Lindemann's proof, it was known that if p
was transcendental, then it would be impossible to square the circle by compass
and straightedge. **
p
is irrational, even transcendental. The transformation of the same area of a circle
in a square is impossible. This impossibility was given the designation quadrature
of the circle because no one knew what the reason for that impossibility
was; but 1882 C. L. Ferdinand von Lindemann showed that this problem is in
principle unsolvable.Maia
wrote:As a Pagan I find the following campaign quite
interesting, though I don't necessarily agree with every single point. The basic
proposal is that the state should be run by an order of priestesses. There's a
democratic element too, but subject to veto by the priestesses, and a form of
conscription for everyone under 25.http://sovereignmercia.webs.com/
**
The logical continuation, culmination, and completion of
the so-called revolutions: French revolution, Communism
/ Nationalsocialism, and now the Feminism as hell on earth.In
comparison to that which follows they always start harmlessly:All
these projects end in hell.Artimas
wrote:That is creepy man, and disgusting. **
Yes, of course. Do you want such a creepy and digusting
society, such a creepy and digusting humanity, such a
hell?Artimas
wrote:That video is real? Someone in the comments said
it was an ad or something.. but it looks pretty real to me. No, I already know
how to fix it, but people don't want to. **
That
video is real. You are right.I
guess you don't want more videos, man.Obe
wrote:Wolfgang Pauley used the principle to further
connections to Jung's idea of synchronicity. **
I
guess you mean Wolfgang Pauli.Artimas
wrote:Turtle wrote:»Which
do you want ... you cant have both .... The USA has sold its soul to the devil
... so to speak .... I don't believe in a soul or the devil ....« **
I
want humanity, instead of machine. **
Machines
will probably completely replace all human beings (**|**).
Turtle says money or morals, Artimas says machines
or humanity; so perhaps we can put both statements together to: machines
and money versus morals and humanity. When you read that, what do
you notice?Artimas
wrote:Phyllo wrote:»The
bokascum.se video is a promo for a theater show. Is it real feminism
or satire?« **
That's
what someone on the video said as well, that it was a promo.Not sure,
either way it's bad. Satire/irony are a form of insanity. **
That
is no promo, no satire, no irony. Read Solanas' or other femninistic
books or watch more femninistic videos. Femninism is the
same terrible, horrible totalitarianism that we have been knowing for so long.To
say that were promo, or satire, or irony is
a bad, mad, evil rhetoric in order to define down and to play down the reality
of that terrible, horrible feminism (sexism as racism).Artimas
wrote:These are not jokes, there are serious issues
that should be addressed as such. Regardless of if the video is satire, it's disgusting
and disturbing to even think about. The very idea of it is inhumane.Women
are just as brutal as men. This is not a sex or nationality problem, this is a
human problem. Labels for humans do nothing but cause more confusion. Language
should be redefined, as well as it's usage. **
If
we do not defend ourselves against that evil development their dreams will come
true: all males will be killed.Artimas
wrote:All you have to do is release truth. Truth that
they are extremists, delusional, insane and the like.Truth is similar
to a lion in trapped in a cage, you release the lion. The Lion will defend itself.
**
I
hope your avatar will awaken the threatened humans!
James
S. Saint wrote:I touched on that many years ago in
studying why Pi could not be represented in digital form. All irrational numbers
and calculus are about converting a »natural unknown into an unnatural known«
or »perfectly describing nature«. At that time, I considered creating
a number system based on Pi such that the number »1« represented our
current number »Pi«. All measurements would be in the form of Pi-units.
And although there would be a few advantages of that, I didn't see it as resolving
the more serious problems at hand.I haven't verified that it is impossible
to square a circle and these days, it would probably be a waste of time to try.
But seeing where I am now, I suspect that I should have looked into the squaring
of the circle issue more seriously long ago. These days, I am far, far past being
tired of resolving issues that no one really cares about. If I proved that it
really is possible to square the circle and posted that, nothing would change.
Society is past the point of no return from its musings.But if a particular
number isn't exactly known, such as Pi, no portion or exponent of it can be known.
And since the »squaring of the circle« requires a square with exactly
the square root of Pi as its dimensions, to resolve the issue would probably mean
resolving Pi perfectly, which cannot be done in digital form. Although perhaps
some exponential of Pi can be digitally represented. **
Which
can perhaps be digitally represented? The algebraic irrational
numbers and the transcendental irrational numbers (for example p
[Pi] or e" [Euler's number]) belong - of course
-to the irrational numbers (cp. in the following Illustration):James
S. Saint wrote:I don't understand the question. Which
what? **
Exponential
of Pi.James S. Saint wrote:And giving
the squaring of the circle a little thought this morning, I realize that I can
describe both circles and squares in terms of angles. And if I can get a rational
relationship between those angle measurements, I could "square the circle".
But I haven't gone that far yet. **
You
could »square the circle«?James S. Saint
wrote:I said, »totally impossible«, meaning
that it can't happen ever, such as constructing a square circle. You might be
able to construct something that you call a »square-circle«, but an
actual square-circle is an oxymoron and can never exist. **
Artimas
wrote:Humans have become machines, not just through
creating them, but by suppression of feelings/emotions. Desensitization.
**
Humans
have created machines and suppressed themselves (at least 99% of them), but they
have not become machines!My
response: ** **James
S. Saint wrote:I don't know what exponential. I said
that perhaps there might be one. It would have to be a pretty complicated one,
but I think that I might have found a better approach.And realize that
»squaring the circle« has nothing to do with a »square-circle«.Just
because someone, as brilliant as he was, said that something couldn't be done,
it doesn't mean that it is impossible. But a »square-circle« is impossible
by definition of »square« and »circle« - obviously impossible,
although you could have a »squarish-circle« or a »circlish-square«.
**
If
you will square the circle someday, then those who have the
power to determine or even dictate the relations between humans and their language,
especially its semantics, will probably change the definition of circle
and the definition of square.
But someday never comes, said John Fogerty:-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJ7Rnu8MVYo (Creedence
Clearwater Revival [John Fogerty, Tom Fogerty, Stu Cook, Doug Clifford], Someday
Never Comes, 1972).
Impossible?James
S. Saint wrote:Mathematics has become merely mysticism
for the masses, much like early Hinduism rituals - "seemingly profound",
thus alluring to the masses. **
But
among the scientists, the mathematicians are currently the least corrupted scientists. |