Re: Craig's Maths

```On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 04:48:12AM -0700, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
> On Monday, September 16, 2013 9:22:36 PM UTC-4, Russell Standish wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 10:34:42AM -0700, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > <
> > http://multisenserealism.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/identity3.jpg?w=595>
> > >
> > >
> > > <
> > http://multisenserealism.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/identity3.jpg?w=595>
> > >
> > > Here’s a crazy little number that I like to call the Non-Well-Founded
> > > Identity Principle. It woke my boiling brain up a few times last night,
> > so
> > > I present it now in its raw state of lunacy.
> > >
> > > The idea here is “For All A, A equals the integral between A and (the
> > > integral between A and not A)”.
> >
> > How are we to interpret this? You don't state what A is, but to have
> > an integration limit of A implies it is an element of a Lebesgue
> > measurable set. Yet the expression not-A implies that A is a set. Are
> > you doing integration over sets of sets? What is your Lebesgue measure
> > in this case?
> >
>
>
> In this case, A is the A of the Property of Identity, so that it can be
> anything at all - set, group, number, hairstyle, memory of an ant - any
> phenomenon which can be experienced in any way, directly or indirectly. I
> am speculating on the nature of ontology itself, that to 'be' is to diverge
> from the totality of being in this nested, integrated+semi-integrated way.
>
> The Lebesgue measure is self-similarity. I am the integral of (my own
> nature) and (the integral of (my own nature)(all differences between my
> nature and the totality of nature excluding myself)). If we used a number,
> then it would be "a number = the integral of (that number) and (the
> integral of (that number) and (all Real numbers except that number).
>
> I'm challenging the assumption that cardinality can exist in isolation.
> Every number, expression, or identity is dependent on its relation with all
> other identities, because I am assuming an unbroken context of whole truth
> as the single truth in that (sole, primordial) context. I'm proposing a
> threshold of universal identity which borrows 'it-ness' from it-self in a
> particular way.
>
> Craig
> ```
```
I'm sorry Craig, but none of that makes any kind of sense at all. You
might as well be speaking Chinese.

--

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof Russell Standish                  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics      hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales          http://www.hpcoders.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email