On Tuesday, September 17, 2013 9:50:02 PM UTC-4, Russell Standish wrote: > > 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. > > So strange. It seems pretty straightforward to me - given the subject matter, of course.
-- > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) > Principal, High Performance Coders > Visiting Professor of Mathematics [email protected]<javascript:> > 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 to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
