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> > > Hereï¿½s 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 ï¿½For All A, A equals the integral between A and (the > integral between A and not A)ï¿½. > > 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.ï¿½ 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to email@example.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.