# Re: Craig's Maths

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