I'm happy to translate. There doesn't seem to be any real interest in understanding though.
On Tuesday, September 17, 2013 10:01:11 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: > > On 9/17/2013 6:50 PM, 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. > > > > Chinese would be a lot better.� You could get somebody to translate. :-) > > Brent > -- 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.
