 | The Liar Paradox My thoughts on the Liar Paradox. Can you think of any subject that satisfies a false claim that EXISTS? I can't therefore all false claims only exist in language. Here is the liar paradox and some variants: I am lying to you right now. This statement is false. This statement is unprovable in the axiomatic system S. I believe most come down to A = Not A which can't be the case so the solution is that the liar paradox is a true statement that makes a false claim about itself or "It is false that this statement is false". |
 | HERE IS THE TRUTH GNOSIS 101 PART VII "LEECHES" -"LIPAN CONJURING" & "RIGHT IN TWO" & "IONS" GNOSIS VII (VIDEO TEXT) RIGHT IN TWO LIPAN APACHE ARE SOUTHERN ATHABACAN (APACHEAN) WHO ARE ABORIGINAL TO PRESENT DAY TEXAS. THE LIPANS ARE FIRST MENTIONED IN SPANISH RECORD IN 1718 WHEN THEY ATTACKED SAN ANTONIO. IT SEEMS THE LIPANS BECAME ESTABLISHED IN TEXAS IN THE LATTER HALF OF THE 17th CENTURY. THE SPANISH AND LIPAN WERE IN FREQUENT CONFLICT AS SPAIN TRIED TO INVADE AND COLONIZE THE TEXAS TERRITORY. THE SPANISH TRIED TO THWART THE LEPAN THROUGH ALCOHOL, PROVOKING CONFLICT BETWEEN LIPAN AND MESCALERO, MAKING THEM ECONOMICALLY DEPENDENT ON SPANISH GOODS, AND THROUGH MISSIONARIES. IT IS NOT SURE IF THE LIPANS ACTUALLY LIVED ON THE MISSIONS, BUT BY 1767 ALL THE LIPAN DESERTED THEM. IN THE SAME YEAR, MARQUES DE RUBI STARTED A POLICY OF LIPAN EXTERMINATION, SINCE IN 1764 A SMALLPOX EPIDEMIC HAD DECIMATED THE TRIBE. IN MATHEMATICS, CALABI-YAU MANIFOLDS ARE COMPACT KAHLER MANIFOLDS/IN MATH, KAHLER MANIFOLD IS A MANIFOLD/A MANIFOLD IS AN ABSTRACT MATHEMATICAL SPACE./ EVERY POINT HAS A NEIGHBORHOOD WHICH RESEMBLES EUCLIDIAN SPACE./EUCLID, GREEK MATHEMATICIAN AROUND 300 B.C./ KNOWN FOR HIS STUDY OF RELATIONSHIPS AMONG DISTANCES AND ANGLES./FIRST IN PLANE (AN IDEALIZED FLAT SURFACE) AND THEN IN SPACE. AN EXAMPLE OF SUCH A RELATIONSHIP.../IS THAT THE SUM OF THE ANGLES IS ALWAYS 180 DEGREES./TODAY THESE RELATIONSHIPS ARE KNOWN AS 2 AND 3 DIMENSIONAL EUCLIDIAN GEOMETRY./EUCLID OF ALEXANDRIA TEST "ELEMENTS" IS THE EARLIEST KNOWN SYSTEMATIC DISCUSSION OF GEOMETRY./THE "ELEMENTS" BEGIN WITH PLANE GEOMETRY TAUGHT IN SECONDARY SCHOOL AS THE FIRST AXIOMATIC SYSTEM./AN AXIOMATIC SYSTEM IS ANY SET OF "AXIOMS" (AXIOM~ TRADITIONAL LOGIC, AN AXIOM OR A POSTULATE.../A PROPOSITION THAT IS PROVED OR DEMONSTRATED BUT EITHER CONSIDERED TO BE EITHER SELF-EVIDENT, OR SUBJECT TO NECESSARY DECISION./THEREFORE ITS TRUTH IS TAKEN FOR GRANTED, AND SERVES AS A STARTING POINT TO DEDUCING AND INFERRING OTHER THEORY DEPENDENT TRUTH./TRUTH~MEANING EXTENDS FROM HONESTY, GOOD FAITH, AND SINCERITY IN GENERAL./TO AGREEMENT WITH FACT AND REALITY IN PARTICULAR./DEPICTION OF TIME SAVING TRUTH FROM FALSEHOOD AND ENVY./DEPICTION OF TRUTH, HOLDING A MIRROR AND SERPENT./THE "ELEMENTS" WAS ONE OF THE FIRST EXAMPLES OF "FORMAL PROOF"./IN MATHEMATICS, A PROOF IS A CONVINCING DEMONSTRATION THAT SOME MECHANICAL STATEMENT IS NECESSARILY TRUE,/WITHIN THE EXCEPTED STANDARDS OF A FIELD.../A PROOF IS A LOGICALLY DEDUCED ARGUEMENT, NOT AN IMPERICAL ONE./THAT IS, THE TRUTH MUST DEMONSTRATE THAT A PROPOSTION IS TRUE IN ALL CASES OF WHICH IT APPLIES, WITHOUT A SINGLE EXCEPTION./VISUAL PROOF THE (3, 4, 5) TRIANGLE AS IN THE CHOU PEI SUAN CHING 500 - 200 B.C./AN UNPROVEN PROPOSTITION BELIEVED OR STRONGLY SUSPECTED IS CONJECTURE./ IN MATHEMATICS, CONJECTURE IS A MATHEMATICAL STATEMENT THAT APPEARS RESOURCEFUL./BUT HAS NOT PROVEN TO BE TRUE UNDER MATHEMATICAL LOGIC./ONCE CONJECTURE IS PROVEN, IT IS ELEVATED TO THE STATUS OF THEREOM, AND MAY BE USED AFTERWARDS WITHOUT RISK/IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF OTHER FORMAL MATHEMATICAL PROOFS. TOOL "RIGHT IN TWO" ANGELS ON THE SIDELINE, PUZZLED AND AMUSED. WHY DID FATHER GIVE THESE HUMANS FREE WILL? NOW THEY'RE ALL CONFUSED. DON'T THESE TALKING MONKEYS KNOW THAT EDEN HAS ENOUGH TO GO AROUND? PLENTY IN THIS HOLY GARDEN, SILLY MONKEYS, WHERE THERE'S ONE BOUND TO DIVIDE IT. RIGHT IN TWO. ANGELS ON THE SIDELINE, BAFFLED AND CONFUSED. FATHER BLESSED THEM ALL WITH REASON. AND THIS IS WHAT THEY CHOOSE. AND THIS IS WHAT THEY CHOOSE... MONKEY KILLING MONKEY KILLING MONKEY, OVER PIECES OF THE GROUND. SILLY MONKEYS GIVE THEM THUMBS, THEY FORGE A BLADE. AND WHERE THERE'S ONE THEY'RE BOUND TO DIVIDE IT, RIGHT IN TWO. RIGHT IN TWO. MONKEY KILLING MONKEY KILLING MONKEY, OVER PIECES OF THE GROUND. SILLY MONKEYS GIVE THEM THUMBS, AND THEY FORGE A CLUB. AND BEAT THEIR BROTHER, DOWN. HOW THEY SURVIVE SO MISGUIDED IS A MYSTERY. REPUGNANT IS A CREATURE WHO WOULD SQUANDER THE ABILITY TO LIFT AN EYE TO HEAVEN CONSCIOUS OF HIS FLEETING TIME HERE. CUT IT ALL RIGHT IN TWO (X4) FIGHT OVER THE CLOUDS, OVER WIND, OVER SKY FIGHT OVER LIFE, OVER BLOOD, OVER PRAYER, OVERHEAD AND LIGHT FIGHT OVER LOVE, OVER SUN, OVER ANOTHER, FIGHT... ANGELS ON THE SIDELINE AGAIN. BENCHED ALONG WITH PATIENCE AND REASON. ANGELS ON THE SIDELINE AGAIN WONDERING WHEN THIS TUG OF WAR WILL END. CUT IT ALL RIGHT IN TWO (X3) RIGHT IN TWO! RIGHT IN TWO... |
 | Convincing on Threat Re: The Necessity of Normativity Hard to fit it in 10 minutes... Many of my thoughts on the subject are missing in this video. I made a mistake: it is not Aristotle who relied on physical threat to argue for noncontradiction but Avicenna: "Anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction should be beaten and burned until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as not to be burned." I agree with Azrienoch's claim that "[w]e cannot coherently debate without agreement on the system", but I extend it on how can I convince someone to accept my system. I think it all reduces to threat, intrinsinct or extrinsinct; inherent or arbitrary; endoctrinment, emotions, physical thread, or social threat. If I have a belief, why would I abandon or change it? Nothing but thread can do it. Is thread a norm? I'd say norms are threat: hypothetical imperatives are appeal to consequences and categorical imperatives appeal to emotions or are based on axioms that can only be convinced upon someone with thread. The only two exceptions I _still_ have not found a way to reduce to threat but that can be used to impose a belief are truth serum and hypnosis, but even if I cannot find a way, these means are no major counterexample to my claim. Axioms that can be dropped: Excluded Middle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivism_%28mathematics%29 Infinity of natural numbers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultrafinitism Noncontradiction: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraconsistent_logic |
 | SHELDON TURNER Screenwriting Lesson Sheldon Turner is the prototype for the smart, brash, ambitious young screenwriter - only he's also got a law degree from NYU and has had his fiction published in the New Yorker. Turner recently broke through with his script for the 2005 remake of The Longest Yard, starring Chris Rock and Adam Sandler, and he has half a dozen other scripts in development. He's got insane discipline, writes longhand, and boycotts email. He figured out how to work the system, and he's got more witty axioms for how to play the Hollywood game than a Tropicana craps dealer at 3 am. But you'll just have to hear Turner talk to get it - what being the biggest guy in the room can do for you, how to read an audience, what to say in pitch meetings, and why you should let everyone know that you think Lost in Translation sucks. |
 | Computing X Acting: An Spinozian Equivalence? This is about a letter I wrote to the passionate mathematician Odilon Otavio Luciano do IME - Intituto de Matemática e Estatística da Universidade de São Paulo. Turing's Halting Approach to Godel`s Incompleteness of Axiomatic Systems. Cantor, Boltzmann, Godel and Turing, all of them had a nervous breakdown and put an end to their lives. They halted the system so to speak! Suppose the universe-machine, the universe-computer within a pure mathematical analysis, and along with it the real universe we live in which starts with a singularity or a quantum fluctuation or a fantastic symmetry break, or, still, an unaprehensible omniactivity that Lemaitre equated to God's Creation Act. It doesn't really matter: It is action all the same! This brings about Spinoza's ultimate principle of equivalence: "The reason why it acts is the same it exists" An evolutionary principle, isn't it? So what's the acceleration of the expansion of the universe? (Tudo isso vai... prá onde tudo isso vem....) I specualate if this acceleration is not connected to the return to the fundamental state wherefrom this universe emerged. But then another even more enticing question emerges: Suppose the universe is some kind of computing instance - a special Turing Machine - then the question: Does it halt? If The Spirit is so much unaprehensible, and since we feel This Spirit within us, doesn't it mean that life is an extension to the singularity state wherefrom the universe emerges? "Man walks on the border of the abyss" (Henry Miller) |
 | from article by Christian Kerr in "The Australian" newspaper Kerr quotes from a document from Carr's office. "Establish a new Knowledge Connections program within the Enterprise Connect Program, to work with Industry Innovation Councils in facilitating new connections and clusters crucial to the competitive advantage of firms in knowledge-based economies." COMMENT. This is ok if we see it as a form of Pidgin English. Much worse languages have been used in the past, for describing automation. But how much will it cost to implement such designs? How will they be validated? Why does a government care about "The competitive advantage of firms"? The most obvious answer is that this means that the country's firms can compete competitively with firms from other countries, if resources are available that the Carr paper proposes, i.e. connections and clusters. (a bit of brainstorming here): But why does Carr's paper buy the implied claim that competition is good? Whys is it good to compete, if rational analysis should turn out to show that more money or more goodness can be made by working cooperatively rather than competitively. Indeed, the CSIRO was once, presumably, cooperative, as were universities. Now, isn't it the case that departments at universities (and perhaps at CSIRO ??) are set up to compete with each other. What evidence is there that this approach gives better results than cooperation? Perhaps the truth is ignored because it conflicts with the axiom of the neoliberal that competition is good. In fact, there may be no conflict. We may have an axiom that cooperation is good. We could also have axioms that say that conflict is good. This does not mean that we have a conflicting set of axioms. They may need to be applied under different conditions. What we need to is to set up a system which can run our axioms to implement a simulated world. Perhaps we can obtain the same "real world" results with more than one particular set of axioms. Comment. I need a machine to run the axioms. But this will also include "interpreting" the axioms in some way. Because of this flexibility, we could presumably rig the results so that we interpret the axioms in such a way that they give results we favour. To avoid this, we need to have a machine to interpret the axioms, where we can somehow convince ourselves that the machine has not been secretly rigged. This suggests to me a method of working. We can have perhaps a very simple model, which we can run in diverse possible worlds. By looking at the results we might believe we have data which allow us to make predictions. If we can make a prediction come true, then we may be operating a finite state S-R model which correctly models this part of the world. |
 | Screenwriter SHELDON TURNER: Tricks of the Trade Sheldon Turner is the prototype for the smart, brash, ambitious young screenwriter - only he's also got a law degree from NYU and has had his fiction published in the New Yorker. Turner recently broke through with his script for the 2005 remake of The Longest Yard, starring Chris Rock and Adam Sandler, and he has half a dozen other scripts in development. He's got insane discipline, writes longhand, and boycotts email. He figured out how to work the system, and he's got more witty axioms for how to play the Hollywood game than a Tropicana craps dealer at 3 am. But you'll just have to hear Turner talk to get it - what being the biggest guy in the room can do for you, how to read an audience, what to say in pitch meetings, and why you should let everyone know that you think Lost in Translation sucks. This video is an excerpt from the full interview, available on DVD at TheDialogueSeries.com . |
 | 3/4 Isaiah 53 Meter Hypothesis #4 Prophecy Accounts Time Original wmv download link: http://blip.tv/file/get/Brainout-34Isaiah53MeterHypothesis4563.wmv Chapter Meter visually summarized, stress on pairing, threading balance in meter to God's 490-year accounting: to predict the EXACT timeline for 2nd Temple's rebuilding & destruction via use of meter. You need to know this, to understand Gospel warning references to Temple destruction (i.e., in Mark 13, Heb2, 10:30ff), and why God is so axiomatic, terse, in Daniel 9:24-27. Webpage and jpg Links: 1. Hypothesis 4 jpg file: http://www.geocities.com/brainout1/Isa53Hypo4Dotted3.JPG . 2. Timeline Spreadsheet from Adam through 2007: http://www.geocities.com/brainout1/GeneYrs.xls . Cell A2 has a popup note summarizing how God grants time. Suggest you view worksheet wide-screen, but half-deep. Use Excel's "View" then "Custom View" to access Time subsections (i.e., "David", "1st Temple", etc). Use Freeze Titles on cell B14 for best results. 3. Also in Cell A2 is the Word doc covering actual history showing how God orchestrates time using His Rules in the Bible, to preserve mankind; its #9 is most important to this video. Click on Cell A2 in the worksheet to download the doc, or click here: http://www.geocities.com/brainout1/TenWaysThisTimelineDiffers.doc . Suggest you read it in full screen Print Preview, Two Pages. You can easily scroll from one page to the next with your mouse. Its last two pages reproduce the cell A2 summary note of the spreadsheet. The doc also covers mistakes scholars & pastors still make which prevent them from seeing Bible's dating system. Other material you might need to review to understand the video: 4. Mirroring.htm: http://www.geocities.com/brainout1/Mirroring.htm . Here, all time accounting units are explained (i.e., 1 year, 7 years, 40 years, etc.) but focus is to show the Justice Accounting Doctrine of Time itself. There is an in-depth tracing of each person granted time from Adam through Christ, with Bible verses on how numbers in the spreadsheet were derived. "Mirroring" is a redemptive 'reimbursement' of Time well spent. Time lost is debited, but regained if certain conditions are met (i.e., Daniel 9). 5. PassPlot.htm, Lord's Birth & Death dates, chronology of Jewish Calendar to see God's Macro Orchestration of Time & Passion Week: http://www.geocities.com/brainout1/PassPlot.htm . His Birth & Death dates were predicted exactly, but you must know God's Time Accounting system to find them in Bible. God 'balances' Israel's own calendar, in designing those dates. |
 | 4/4 Isaiah 53 Meter Hypothesis #4 Prophecy Accounts Time Original wmv download link: http://blip.tv/file/get/Brainout-44Isaiah53MeterHypothesis4535.wmv Focuses on future 2nd Temple's building & destruction & hence Trib, how 490-28 syllables stress the Timeline of both -- while 1st Temple yet stands. Chapter Results are again summarized, along with additional items re the Tribulation in the pairing, threading meter, since Israel would be 7 years behind -- that's why David lived those extra seven years, to cover the time via the 1000-year Time Grant God used to bookend His Decree in Daniel 9:25-27. You need to know this, to understand Gospel warning references to Temple destruction (i.e., in Mark 13, Heb2, 10:30ff), and why God is so axiomatic, terse, in Daniel 9:24-27. Webpage and jpg Links: 1. Hypothesis 4 smaller version of jpg file: http://www.geocities.com/brainout1/Isa53Hypo4Dotted3.JPG . 2. Timeline Spreadsheet from Adam through 2007: http://www.geocities.com/brainout1/GeneYrs.xls . Cell A2 has a popup note summarizing how God grants time. Suggest you view worksheet wide-screen, but half-deep. Use Excel's "View" then "Custom View" to access Time subsections (i.e., "David", "1st Temple", etc). Use Freeze Titles on cell B14 for best results. 3. Also in Cell A2 is the Word doc covering actual history showing how God orchestrates time using His Rules in the Bible, to preserve mankind; its #9 is most important to this video. Click on Cell A2 in the worksheet to download the doc, or click here: http://www.geocities.com/brainout1/TenWaysThisTimelineDiffers.doc . Suggest you read it in full screen Print Preview, Two Pages. You can easily scroll from one page to the next with your mouse. Its last two pages reproduce the cell A2 summary note of the spreadsheet. The doc also covers mistakes scholars & pastors still make which prevent them from seeing Bible's dating system. Other material you might need to review to understand the video: 4. Mirroring.htm: http://www.geocities.com/brainout1/Mirroring.htm . Here, all time accounting units are explained (i.e., 1 year, 7 years, 40 years, etc.) but focus is to show the Justice Accounting Doctrine of Time itself. There is an in-depth tracing of each person granted time from Adam through Christ, with Bible verses on how numbers in the spreadsheet were derived. "Mirroring" is a redemptive 'reimbursement' of Time well spent. Time lost is debited, but regained if certain conditions are met (i.e., Daniel 9). 5. PassPlot.htm, Lord's Birth & Death dates, chronology of Jewish Calendar to see God's Macro Orchestration of Time & Passion Week: http://www.geocities.com/brainout1/PassPlot.htm . His Birth & Death dates were predicted exactly, but you must know God's Time Accounting system to find them in Bible. God 'balances' Israel's own calendar, to design those dates. |
 | Prototype robot AI O/S -- animation This is vid of my simple stickbot -- with modified hind legs ;- -- performing some simple tasks. The idea behind the exercise is to illustrate the adaptability of even simple "clever" s/w. The robot runs a problem solver-based "operating system" that can sometimes find a sequence of operations to perform the current goal. It has built-in procrastination (i.e. if the goal is too far away, push it and try for an intermediate goal for now), generalisation (if it looks similar to something I've done before, it is) and differentiation (if X worked in situation A but not in B, then the difference between A and B becomes a precondition for doing X in future). Solving simple tasks is a co-operative effort. If the robot fails to do X, the human operator can also select a simpler task that will lead to X, and get the robot to do that first. This is also known as "learning" of a simple form. Apart from adding the 2 dof "feet" to the stickbot, the only change needed to the simulated robot s/w were additional axioms to handle standing on the hind legs and standing on 1 foot. In the original stickbot there was a rule "you can lift leg X if the other 3 are on the ground and rhe robot centre of mass is sufficiently inside the triangle thus formed". In this "footbot" that axiom was generalised to "you can lift X if the robot centre of mass is inside at least 3 other widely-spaced points (even if the points are the corners of 1 foot)". |
العربية
中国
Français
Deutsch
Ελληνική
हिन्दी
Italiano
日本語
Português
Русский
Español![Last Minute Travel Deals: Make Sure You\](images/articles/thumbs/klastminutethumb.jpg "Last Minute Travel Deals: Make Sure You\")
![Walking in Waikiki: The Sauce-erer\](images/articles/thumbs/waikikidrinkumbrellathumb.jpg "Walking in Waikiki: The Sauce-erer\")
![Fall & Autumn US Staycation Holidays that Won\](images/articles/thumbs/staycationsthumb.jpg "Fall & Autumn US Staycation Holidays that Won\")
