"I read the 'allusion' to me and my theory, but I'm still unsure as to exactly what 'can of worms' you've opened. Unless it's the lack of falsifiability of my theory, which I admit, but is purely down to the fact that it's an inherited lack of falsifiability that is inherent in all string theories due to the sizes of the proposed entities and the fact that the extra dimensions are, by definition, not accessible from these dimensions. Could you elaborate on the can of worms so that I can add any input, please?"-Pat
Ah, I'm glad you picked up on that intentional mis-spell, thought I could bait you with it. LOL! Yes it is quite a can of worms!All of it's implications intact of course.It would be great if you could participate in the disscussion on gravity but I will most certainly continue with it here. Much thanks for your contribution my friend. Sicerely, Douglas On May 7, 12:21 pm, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > On 7 May, 16:51, DarkwaterBlight <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Pat, I have a question! Are you a member @gravity.com. I have opened > > up a can of worms there and I think you would be interested in > > participating as it involves your life's work. Here's the > > link;http://www.gravity.com/Science/7660/numbers-are-male#32319 > > Cheers, mate. I'm not a member of 'Gravity', although I due submit to > its force on a daily basis. ;-) > > I read the 'allusion' to me and my theory, but I'm still unsure as to > exactly what 'can of worms' you've opened. Unless it's the lack of > falsifiability of my theory, which I admit, but is purely down to the > fact that it's an inherited lack of falsifiability that is inherent in > all string theories due to the sizes of the proposed entities and the > fact that the extra dimensions are, by definition, not accessible from > these dimensions. Could you elaborate on the can of worms so that I > can add any input, please? > > {pause for a moment's thought} > > If the 'can of worms' is the concept of gender associated with > numbers, then, I'm afraid I would disagree. Numbers are abstracts > that have no inherent gender and are all, in my opinion, derivable > from the concept of '1'. For example, God's Oneness. God, being One, > reflected on His being. That self-reflection created two: the one > looking and the one being looked at. Then God reflected on that and > there were three: the one looking, the one being looked at and the one > looking at those two. Then God saw those three and there were four > and so on ad infinitum. This simple process of self-reflection by the > One, who is conscious, can (and DID) result in an infinite series that > serves as the basis of our 'set of integers'. > Of course, that has nothing to do with the others' statements that, in > some human languages, numbers have gender. Or that, in some human > languages, the gender of an adjectival number must agree with the > gender of the noun it is associated with (e.g., the phrase "one man" > demands that both 'one and 'man' both be masculine, whereas the phrase > "one woman" demands that both 'one' and 'woman' be feminine). This is > just a part of human language and says more about human nature and the > development of language than it says about the nature of numbers. > If you like, you can paste this as my contribution to the argument. > But I would personally disagree that abstract numbers have any gender > in and of themselves. If our language reflects they do, then that is > more to do with language and our expression of numbers than the true > nature of numbers, as, in my opinion (stated above), numbers are a > result of God's own recognition of Himself in a sequence of self- > reflection. > > Cheers, > > Pat > > > > > On May 7, 11:09 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 7 May, 15:53, RP <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > God is the mind which concieves the universe , He is the mind which > > > > runs it, and He is the mind which destroys it. He does not see in the > > > > manner in which we see each other and He does not act in the manner in > > > > which we act. His awareness and action is transcendental in nature. In > > > > our vanity we may pretend to comprehend Him, but we do not see or > > > > accept the fact that our intelligence is not infinite but only a few > > > > grades above that of animals. We have to just look at animals to > > > > realise that , after all our understanding also is finite. We are > > > > learning and growing day by day , but we are far from being Supreme. > > > > Well, He does see as we do, but He also sees in a way we do not. When > > > you look at something, in reality, it is Him that is seeing (and > > > hearing and every other sensation any of us sense). And His ability > > > to multiprocess all our awarenesses (and the awareness of all living > > > things!) is a part of what defines His transcendant abilities. But > > > there are more (unseen) places than just this 4-D universe and His > > > wareness includes all that, as well. You're also right about our > > > level of consciousness being not that much above other animals. It is > > > our conceit that leads us to believe we are far greater than they > > > are. But we're not. God can think like a tree (and, in fact thinks > > > like each tree, as each tree's awareness is, in fact, His), yet no > > > animal can. I'm not sure that God's understanding is infinite, but it > > > is comprehensive, that is, it covers everything, though there may be a > > > limit, that limit is far beyond our comprehension.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
