sigurdV Posted July 1, 2011 Report Share Posted July 1, 2011 Hi!...waiting for religious visitors, Zombies and Philosophers, Mental entities...Ultimate Questioners entering my frame :blink: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sigurdV Posted January 12, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 12, 2012 An Object is not best presentable as a string... Let us at least use two: 1 x2 "x"Suppose "x" is me then an interpretartion of ""x"" is a representation of myself Likewise if the one is Reality then the other is a picture of it :unsure:Or just anything and its negation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dduckwessel Posted January 30, 2012 Report Share Posted January 30, 2012 Suppose "x" is me then an interpretartion of ""x"" is a representation of myself enter "y" - "y" is not "x" - so it's not an interpretation of "x" (self) but an interpretation of "y"! Likewise if the one is Reality then the other is a picture of it :unsure:Or just anything and its negation. only true if you suppose that one is a mirror of the other - but what if it's not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sigurdV Posted January 30, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 30, 2012 enter "y" - "y" is not "x" - so it's not an interpretation of "x" (self) but an interpretation of "y"! only true if you suppose that one is a mirror of the other - but what if it's not? Hi! :blink: You woke me up... wheres the glasses when i need them... Hmmm A question! ...This wolf will gnaw it some! Im afraid you will have to wait a while for my answer. Where did i hide that bottle of wine? Cheers! This thread was nothing but my waste basket, what remained was an invitation for serious thinkers to arrrive :) What the formula u took an interest in meant to me? I was thinking on foundation of things (life logic and physics)... foundations in general and "The Foundation" in particular...Deciding that monolitic approaches has had its day!One can point towards string theory where point particles get replaced by strings. At the bottom of everything then there is two things, related with each other in what way? I wont try finding any deepest level at first , just finding levelswhere the approach seems natural. 1 All and nothing = everything2 (hmmm... taking it easy) Why not introduce ourselves? I see myself as the only pantheist I ever metSo whats your position on theological matters? Ive seen you before somewhere and that i dont remember any circumstances probably means youre a balanced person...I sincerely hope you will return :) PS Perhaps you noted that i didnt defend what i wrote before? I tried to remember why i wrote instead of interpreting it directly... Im waiting for interpretators arriving en masse.. he he. Theologicians only do that huh?No experimental spirit there i suspect :D But this wolf likes to find out how them theologicans can "interprete" :blink: sentences without first understanding them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sigurdV Posted February 3, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 enter "y" - "y" is not "x" - so it's not an interpretation of "x" (self) but an interpretation of "y"! only true if you suppose that one is a mirror of the other - but what if it's not? I suppose this matter needs clarification: this "putting quote marks on things" perhaps should be abandoned for better notation. """"""""""y"is?"""""""""Gah! "What if its not?" An extremely witty remark! Slowly, indeed ,is an interpretation forming in some dark corner of my mind... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sigurdV Posted February 3, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 enter "y" - "y" is not "x" Just testing: Dont you mean " enter "y" - y is not "x""? Or: " enter "y" - y is not-"x""? The idea of abandoning formulae (Temporarily), and instead discuss what we intend to put in them and use them for, sounds better and better to me :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knothead Posted February 3, 2012 Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 I have recently found myself using terms like God, Life, and Nature interchangeably sometimes. I don't think that God minds too much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
belovelife Posted February 3, 2012 Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 i'll be "Z" B) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sigurdV Posted February 3, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 I have recently found myself using terms like God, Life, and Nature interchangeably sometimes. I don't think that God minds too much. Nor will you ever be proven wrong in doing so!There is that famous theorem by Cantor: Whatever quality you claim an absolute absolute to possess, theres a relative absolute also having the property... Perhaps I sound as the Oracle of Delphi? I should explain my explanation? Oh...well... "God" was originally introduced as the "cause" of Reality... (At a time when our mental maps included everything from Trolls to Elves.) Then Cantors principle says: Whatever we truthfully can say about God (being an AA) can also be truthfully said about Reality (being an RA)! (So if a lie about god is claimed... I debug by checking it against reality.) I guess I claim that "The Frame of All Frames" is an AA... And that the set of AAs is the set of objects satisfying the statement that 1+1=1. But that is only my personal opinion,youre entitled to stick to your own: 1+1=2, no matter what objects you count... Duh! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sigurdV Posted February 3, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 I am h a p p y now... I think that,f i n a l l y, my poor thoughts are given some a t t e n t i o n by not so shallow thinkers :) I think my capacity for staying thunderstruck exceeds the norm. I spent some thirty years trying to interprete correctly the formula/statement: "This aint so!" = The Liar. A Dragon to be Slayed! For details, see: The Final Solution of The Liar. Standing there,in the ruins of my armour,my shoe on the beasts head,my sword in its eye... I realize Im Mortally Wounded,but I dont care :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dduckwessel Posted February 3, 2012 Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 What the formula u took an interest in meant to me? I was thinking on foundation of things (life logic and physics)... foundations in general and "The Foundation" in particular...Deciding that monolitic approaches has had its day! Perhaps I misunderstood you! You said: "Suppose "x" is me then an interpretartion of ""x"" is a representation of myself" I suppose that any of us can only truly interpret ourselves! As we humans tend to be a bit narcissistic at times I introduced y simply to give another perspective. This is my equation (and I don't even know if it's a viable one): x = x + y = x2/y At the bottom of everything then there is two things, related with each other in what way? again, my equation, is it possible? Why not introduce ourselves? I see myself as the only pantheist I ever metSo whats your position on theological matters? Hmmm...I'm not sure where I fit...a bit of a Pantheist as I love and appreciate all of nature [tho I don't necessarily like the cat and mouse thing (I love my cat but i hate it when she eats the cute little mouse...or bird)...i see that particular aspect of nature as "something gone wrong" but somehow it's right too :blink: !]. Ive seen you before somewhere and that i dont remember any circumstances probably means youre a balanced person...I sincerely hope you will return :) what is your formula for a balanced person? just curious :) ! But this wolf likes to find out how them theologicans can "interprete" :blink: sentences without first understanding them. there again i think that it can degenerate into a narcissistic view unless we introduce y! :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sigurdV Posted February 3, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 1 Perhaps I misunderstood you! You said: "Suppose "x" is me then an interpretartion of ""x"" is a representation of myself" 2 I suppose that any of us can only truly interpret ourselves! As we humans tend to be a bit narcissistic at times I introduced y simply to give another perspective. This is my equation (and I don't even know if it's a viable one): x = x + y = x2/y again, my equation, is it possible? 3 Hmmm...I'm not sure where I fit...a bit of a Pantheist as I love and appreciate all of nature [tho I don't necessarily like the cat and mouse thing (I love my cat but i hate it when she eats the cute little mouse...or bird)...i see that particular aspect of nature as "something gone wrong" but somehow it's right too :blink: !]. 4 what is your formula for a balanced person? just curious :) ! there again i think that it can degenerate into a narcissistic view unless we introduce y! :) 4 One might get the impression that im formula oriented... Not so!Im intuitive...after intuition points the way to x i very, and i mean very, painstakingly use standard map making equipment to map the road to x... Sometimes i get a formula, say , x+x=x. Standard interpretation gives but two roots 0 and 1/0, and my intuition says: Theres more to this! Use non standard equipment! And so it goes on... So, I have no formula for "balanced" minds , its a pure intuitive concept. 3 IF im religious THEN im a pantheist,and since religion is a disease that has conquered earth, then im religious, and therefore im a pantheist... I can live with that.(We should try not killing our food,on the other hand, we should kill them who cant elsehow be stopped from killing us... munching on a hamburger.) 1 I think you understood what i said, my problem (as of the moment) is to understand what i actually said...(Including concequences) 2 So perhaps you can understand why im still reluctant to clarify...but I like your introduction of ...eh... y and "y". Perhaps i didnt fully realise im not the only inhabitant of reality.Perhaps you catched on and tried to see what the case looks like if x and y communicates? (Then youre far ahead.) y I assure you, you are welcome in here to think out loud sigurdV Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sigurdV Posted February 3, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 This thread has as topic "The frame of all frames" It was conceived of while I checked definitions in the theory of relativity... (I got stuck on a circular definition given in the introductory frame.) In the theory a specialised sense of "frame" is used and craigD was kind enough to do a research ... The concept is ANCIENT!!!! It precedes set and number ???? It is the beginning of maths and logic ???? So when was it coined? I bet it was in the original language of mankind! As of now only a few words has been deduced... I believe i c a n be proven wrong somewhere above, but i dont expect to be :) So how did it originally look? How about "rm"? (Meaning shelter?) Just guessing :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.