| Amine Moulay Ramdane <aminer68@gmail.com>: Jun 04 02:55PM -0700 Hello, More philosophy about mathematics.. I am a white arab and i think i am smart since i have also invented many scalable algorithms and algorithms.. I think that mathematics theory is based on logic in mathematics, so it follows logical consistency, but notice that it follows logical consistency by following human common sense and logic by using operators and there allowed rules or instructions of addiction and substraction and multiplication and less than and greater than etc. so then notice that since they follow this logical path so then the important rule of: (p implies q) is equivalent to ((not p) or q), is still valid in mathematics theory, and this rule is logically inferred from the truth table of the logical implication and that permits also to logically infer and validate the logical proofs such as: (p -> q) is equivalent to ((not(q) -> not(p)) or (not(p) -> 0) is equivalent to p Note that p and q are logical variables. And note that -> means logical implication: More philosophy about correlation and logical implication.. I think that correlation in mathematics and statistics is like the general concept that permits to model causality, since i think that we can search with correlation for all the factors that are the cause and find causality. I think it is the same for logical implication, logical implication is like a general concept and logical implication is more general than causality. And i think that real numbers in mathematics are like a general concept that permits to model the reality. More precision about logic and being rigorous in mathematics.. So you have to be smart, since i am saying below that the following logical implication of [3] is false since you have to analyze it systemically, since i am speaking about the independent system of [3] that is measured by common sense and logic of reality: [3] I take my umbrella -> The sky is not raining More philosophy about being rigorous in mathematics.. I think i am a philosopher that is smart, and i am inventing my following thoughts of my philosophy from my brain, so i said the following(read it below): "I think logic in mathematics is really interesting and there is something happening in logic in mathematics that looks like the real numbers in mathematics, so i think by logically inferring the general rule of: (p implies q) is equivalent to ((not p) or q), is like making the general "concept" that applies to all the "particular" cases, so it also applies to causality since this general rule is like a general concept that permits to "model" all the cases in the truth table of the logical implication, so i think this way of doing by generalizing and making like a general concept is really powerful, this is why i think that real numbers in mathematics are like a concept that was made to model all the cases of the reality(read my below thoughts about it)" So i will be more rigorous so that you understand: So notice the following truth table of the logical implication: p q p -> q 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 Note that p and q are logical variables. So i think that the truth table is setting all the cases that can happen in the reality, i give you an example: If we take the following two propositions: "I take my umbrella" "The sky is raining" So i think that the above truth table of the logical implication is like also putting and setting in the truth table all the cases that can happen in reality including the particular case of "causation", since we need the general rule that is logically inferred to work on all the cases in reality, but notice that we are also using our human common sense and human logic, since we can generate all the following cases from the truth table by using the above two propositions: Note that -> means logical implication: [1] I don't take my umbrella -> the sky is not raining [2] I don't take my umbrella -> The sky is raining [3] I take my umbrella -> The sky is not raining [4] I take my umbrella -> The sky is raining So now by using our human common sense and human logic we can notice that the case [3] above is not logical in reality, since if the sky is not raining the common sense and human logic inferred from reality says that we have not to take the umbrella , so this is why in the truth table it is false, since as you already know that with the general rule logically inferred from the truth table we have to "measure" and "verify" the consistency of the system in the reality, it is how it is used, and when the other cases of the truth table are thus measured with common sense and human logic we notice that they are true, thus all the cases of truth table permits us to logically infer the general rule of: (p implies q) is equivalent to ((not p) or q), and it permits us to logically model the cases of the reality including the particular case of causation and to verify the consistency and/or to optimize, so as you are noticing that with the truth table and the general rule logically inferred from the truth table we are like making a general concept, it is like the real numbers in mathematics that are like the general concept, read my below thoughts about it: More philosophy about logic in philosophy and mathematics.. I think i am a philosopher that is smart, and i will continu to invent ideas from my brain, so I think logic in mathematics is really interesting and there is something happening in logic in mathematics that looks like the real numbers in mathematics, since i think that from the general truth table of all the cases of the logical implication we are getting a general law or general formula that is: (p implies q) is equivalent to ((not p) or q) And p and q are logical variables. And here is the truth table of the logical implication: p q p -> q 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 So i think by logically inferring the general rule of: (p implies q) is equivalent to ((not p) or q), is like making the general "concept" that applies to all the "particular" cases, so it also applies to causality since this general rule is like a general concept that permits to "model" all the cases in the truth table of the logical implication, so i think this way of doing by generalizing and making like a general concept is really powerful, this is why i think that real numbers in mathematics are like a concept that was made to model all the cases of the reality(read my below thoughts about it), so now we are understanding more that logic in mathematics permits to verify the logical consistency, so it is good for "reliability", and it also permits to optimize since for example one logical proof can be more "practical" or "faster" than another logical proof. More of my philosophy about the human free will and more.. I think i am a philosopher that is smart, so if we ask the following philosophical question: Is there any free will ? I think humans have no free will, since they have the strong tendency with there smartness to act by being more and more perfection since they have to adapt and to survive and they want to be great perfection so that to solve most of humans problems and it is the goal of morality to be this "perfection" at best, so i think that since humans have this strong tendency so i think it is like there is no free will. Note that the English dictionary defines "perfection" as: "the act or process of perfecting" Read here: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perfection And i invite you to read my thoughts of my philosophy here: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/YZSYxV41-qI Also i invite you to read more of my thoughts of my philosophy here: https://groups.google.com/g/comp.programming.threads/c/OjDTCDiawJw Also i invite you to read more of my thoughts of my philosophy here: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/ftf3lx5Rzxo More philosophy about the real numbers in mathematics.. I will ask the following philosophical question: Can we know more about real numbers in mathematics? Notice that real numbers in mathematics is like a general "concept" that permits to generally represent quantities or such, so you are then noticing that this general concept has an independent life from the reality, since notice that we can find some parts of the real numbers in mathematics that are not real in reality but they are general and they ensure that real numbers in mathematics work in all the cases in reality, but notice that the real numbers in mathematics are also inferred from reality, it is like a concept that is also inferred from the reality, so when we say "1", i think that the "1" in real numbers is inferred from the reality, but we can find other real numbers that are not real and that generalize. It is like the concept of a "cat" or "dog", if we look carefully at those concepts you will notice that they are both the reality and not the reality, since a concept of a dog is an abstraction that is not the reality, but it is also a generalization that is the reality, so we are abstracting the concept so that to generalize. More philosophy about relativity of time and relativity.. I think that i am a philosopher that is smart, and i think that there Einstein special relativity that determines that time is relative, but i say that the zero in the axis of real numbers in mathematics that represents a meaning is also "relative", i mean we can say that we have zero "of" a thing, so you are then noticing that the axis of real numbers is like a general "concept", i mean it is like a general concept that permits to represent like a quantity or such, but since as i made you understand (read my thoughts below) that the law of causation doesn't apply to some things such as the wide space of the universe, so we can not say there is "zero" thing, since for example things such as the wide space of our universe or multiverse have always existed, read my thoughts below of philosophy so that to understand it. More philosophy about time and space and matter and our universe.. I think i am a philosopher that is smart and now i will ask a philosophical question of: From where come time and space and matter of our universe and why our universe is fine-tuned for consciousness? First you can read the following about science: "The laws of thermodynamics say they always existed. Matter is created by energy. All matter consists of energy. This energy is electromagnetic. Light is electromagnetic energy when it decays it creates a background radiation to the universe. Energy cannot be created from nothing or destroyed to nothing, it mutates into another form. Without time there would be infinite space and without space there would be infinite time. Spacetime is a fabric with dimensions and is part of the physical universe. Space and time are inseparable. Everything that exists inside of it is part of it. Time has always existed with space the proportions are all that have changed. Science is trying to explain when the proportions changed." And read the following that says that there is a Multiverse from where has formed our fine-tuned universe: Our Improbable Existence Is No Evidence for a Multiverse https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/LGP8A8s6N9c So i think that there is something really important to notice, since i think that for example the wide "space" of our universe or the multiverse has always existed, so we can then say that there is no cause that has created the wide "space" of our universe or multiverse, so then we can then say that we can not give a meaning by the law of causation in such case, since the law of "causation" doesn't apply to some things such as the wide space of the universe, so then we can logically infer that there is some things such as God or the wide space of the universe that have no cause that has created them, so then we can logically infer that we humans have the tendency to think things by using the law of causation, but i think it is a big logical mistake, because there is things such as the wide space of the universe that have no cause. And here is the logical proof that God exist: Read the following of outer body experiences and you will notice that the soul from God exists: More proof of the existence of God.. You will say that God doesn't exist, but read the following(read especially the outer body experience of the 57-year old man below, it is the proof that the soul from God exists): "A University of Southampton study has revealed that people could still experience consciousness for up to three minutes after the heart stops beating. The study interviewed 2,060 patients from Austria, USA and the UK who have all suffered a cardiac arrest. The Express reports that 40% could recall some form of awareness after being pronounced clinically dead. One 57-year old man seemed to confirm an outer body experience by recalling everything that was going on around him with eerie accuracy while he was technically dead." Read more here: https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/516195/university-southampton-study-science-life-death-hell-heaven And read the following: Does God exists ? You will say that God doesn't exist, but read the following(read especially about the following study where two per cent exhibited full awareness with explicit recall of "seeing" and "hearing" events – or out-of-body ) Read more here: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/life-after-death-largest-ever-study-provides-evidence-that-out-of-body-and-near-death-experiences-9780195.html Yet more philosophy about the essence of God.. As you have just noticed, i have just explained that the nature of God is that he is greatly arrogant(read my thoughts below), so he likes from us to tell him that he is the greatest and the most beautiful and such, so in my new monotheistic religion we have to "glorify" God and it means to give glory to Him, so look in the following muslim video how muslim white people are glorifying God: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3xjz4nxzGQ&list=RDBXBdyJitlRk&index=10 More philosophy about the nature of God.. I invite you to read the definition of being arrogant, here it is: "Who is an arrogant person? Arrogance can be defined as the personality trait whereby a person has an obnoxiously elevated sense of self-worth. An arrogant person is the one who acts as if they're superior, more worthy, and more important than others. Therefore, they tend to disrespect and put others down. At the same time, they want admiration and respect from others. They want to be appreciated for the great things they've done and for their special qualities and abilities." And in my new monotheistic religion, God is "greatly" arrogant, it is his "nature", this is why he can be indifferent to suffering of poor animals and he can be indifferent to suffering of humans etc. and this is why God likes from us to tell him that he is the greatest and the most beautiful and such and this is why we have to believe in God and fear him and ask him for help. More of my philosophy about from where comes monotheistic religions.. I think many of the talking and writing of Qur'an and Bible are from humans, i mean that God has not 100% guided prophet Muhammad or Jesus Christ, so i think that God has let prophet Muhammad writes and talks as a human in many of the parts of the Qur'an with his human defects, and God has also let Jesus Christ talks as a human not as a God with his human defects, I mean God had programmed prophet Muhammad and Jesus Christ and he had let them talks and writes in the Bible and Qur'an as humans with there human defects, so God is the greatest, this is why we can notice that Jesus Christ has made |
| Amine Moulay Ramdane <aminer68@gmail.com>: Jun 04 01:10PM -0700 Hello, More philosophy about correlation and logical implication.. I am a white arab and i think i am smart since i have also invented many scalable algorithms and algorithms.. I think that correlation in mathematics and statistics is like the general concept that permits to model causality, since i think that we can search with correlation for all the factors that are the cause and find causality. I think it i s the same for logical implication, logical implication is like a general concept and logical implication is more general than causality. And i think that real numbers in mathematics are like a general concept that permits to model the reality. More precision about logic and being rigorous in mathematics.. So you have to be smart, since i am saying below that the following logical implication of [3] is false since you have to analyze it systemically, since i am speaking about the independent system of [3] that is measured by common sense and logic of reality: [3] I take my umbrella -> The sky is not raining More philosophy about being rigorous in mathematics.. I think i am a philosopher that is smart, and i am inventing my following thoughts of my philosophy from my brain, so i said the following(read it below): "I think logic in mathematics is really interesting and there is something happening in logic in mathematics that looks like the real numbers in mathematics, so i think by logically inferring the general rule of: (p implies q) is equivalent to ((not p) or q), is like making the general "concept" that applies to all the "particular" cases, so it also applies to causality since this general rule is like a general concept that permits to "model" all the cases in the truth table of the logical implication, so i think this way of doing by generalizing and making like a general concept is really powerful, this is why i think that real numbers in mathematics are like a concept that was made to model all the cases of the reality(read my below thoughts about it)" So i will be more rigorous so that you understand: So notice the following truth table of the logical implication: p q p -> q 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 Note that p and q are logical variables. So i think that the truth table is setting all the cases that can hasppen in the reality, i give you an example: If we take the following two propositions: "I take my umbrella" "The sky is raining" So i think that the above truth table of the logical implication is like also putting and setting in the truth table all the cases that can happen in reality including the particular case of "causation", since we need the general rule that is logically inferred to work on all the cases in reality, but notice that we are also using our human common sense and human logic, since we can generate all the following cases from the truth table by using the above two propositions: Note that -> means logical implication: [1] I don't take my umbrella -> the sky is not raining [2] I don't take my umbrella -> The sky is raining [3] I take my umbrella -> The sky is not raining [4] I take my umbrella -> The sky is raining So now by using our human common sense and human logic we can notice that the case [3] above is not logical in reality, since if the sky is not raining the common sense and human logic inferred from reality says that we have not to take the umbrella , so this is why in the truth table it is false, since as you already know that with the general rule logically inferred from the truth table we have to "measure" and "verify" the consistency of the system in the reality, it is how it is used, and when the other cases of the truth table are thus measured with common sense and human logic we notice that they are true, thus all the cases of truth table permits us to logically infer the general rule of: (p implies q) is equivalent to ((not p) or q), and it permits us to logically model the cases of the reality including the particular case of causation and to verify the consistency and/or to optimize, so as you are noticing that with the truth table and the general rule logically inferred from the truth table we are like making a general concept, it is like the real numbers in mathematics that are like the general concept, read my below thoughts about it: More philosophy about logic in philosophy and mathematics.. I think i am a philosopher that is smart, and i will continu to invent ideas from my brain, so I think logic in mathematics is really interesting and there is something happening in logic in mathematics that looks like the real numbers in mathematics, since i think that from the general truth table of all the cases of the logical implication we are getting a general law or general formula that is: (p implies q) is equivalent to ((not p) or q) And p and q are logical variables. And here is the truth table of the logical implication: p q p -> q 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 So i think by logically inferring the general rule of: (p implies q) is equivalent to ((not p) or q), is like making the general "concept" that applies to all the "particular" cases, so it also applies to causality since this general rule is like a general concept that permits to "model" all the cases in the truth table of the logical implication, so i think this way of doing by generalizing and making like a general concept is really powerful, this is why i think that real numbers in mathematics are like a concept that was made to model all the cases of the reality(read my below thoughts about it), so now we are understanding more that logic in mathematics permits to verify the logical consistency, so it is good for "reliability", and it also permits to optimize since for example one logical proof can be more "practical" or "faster" than another logical proof. More of my philosophy about the human free will and more.. I think i am a philosopher that is smart, so if we ask the following philosophical question: Is there any free will ? I think humans have no free will, since they have the strong tendency with there smartness to act by being more and more perfection since they have to adapt and to survive and they want to be great perfection so that to solve most of humans problems and it is the goal of morality to be this "perfection" at best, so i think that since humans have this strong tendency so i think it is like there is no free will. Note that the English dictionary defines "perfection" as: "the act or process of perfecting" Read here: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perfection And i invite you to read my thoughts of my philosophy here: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/YZSYxV41-qI Also i invite you to read more of my thoughts of my philosophy here: https://groups.google.com/g/comp.programming.threads/c/OjDTCDiawJw Also i invite you to read more of my thoughts of my philosophy here: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/ftf3lx5Rzxo More philosophy about the real numbers in mathematics.. I will ask the following philosophical question: Can we know more about real numbers in mathematics? Notice that real numbers in mathematics is like a general "concept" that permits to generally represent quantities or such, so you are then noticing that this general concept has an independent life from the reality, since notice that we can find some parts of the real numbers in mathematics that are not real in reality but they are general and they ensure that real numbers in mathematics work in all the cases in reality, but notice that the real numbers in mathematics are also inferred from reality, it is like a concept that is also inferred from the reality, so when we say "1", i think that the "1" in real numbers is inferred from the reality, but we can find other real numbers that are not real and that generalize. It is like the concept of a "cat" or "dog", if we look carefully at those concepts you will notice that they are both the reality and not the reality, since a concept of a dog is an abstraction that is not the reality, but it is also a generalization that is the reality, so we are abstracting the concept so that to generalize. More philosophy about relativity of time and relativity.. I think that i am a philosopher that is smart, and i think that there Einstein special relativity that determines that time is relative, but i say that the zero in the axis of real numbers in mathematics that represents a meaning is also "relative", i mean we can say that we have zero "of" a thing, so you are then noticing that the axis of real numbers is like a general "concept", i mean it is like a general concept that permits to represent like a quantity or such, but since as i made you understand (read my thoughts below) that the law of causation doesn't apply to some things such as the wide space of the universe, so we can not say there is "zero" thing, since for example things such as the wide space of our universe or multiverse have always existed, read my thoughts below of philosophy so that to understand it. More philosophy about time and space and matter and our universe.. I think i am a philosopher that is smart and now i will ask a philosophical question of: From where come time and space and matter of our universe and why our universe is fine-tuned for consciousness? First you can read the following about science: "The laws of thermodynamics say they always existed. Matter is created by energy. All matter consists of energy. This energy is electromagnetic. Light is electromagnetic energy when it decays it creates a background radiation to the universe. Energy cannot be created from nothing or destroyed to nothing, it mutates into another form. Without time there would be infinite space and without space there would be infinite time. Spacetime is a fabric with dimensions and is part of the physical universe. Space and time are inseparable. Everything that exists inside of it is part of it. Time has always existed with space the proportions are all that have changed. Science is trying to explain when the proportions changed." And read the following that says that there is a Multiverse from where has formed our fine-tuned universe: Our Improbable Existence Is No Evidence for a Multiverse https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/LGP8A8s6N9c So i think that there is something really important to notice, since i think that for example the wide "space" of our universe or the multiverse has always existed, so we can then say that there is no cause that has created the wide "space" of our universe or multiverse, so then we can then say that we can not give a meaning by the law of causation in such case, since the law of "causation" doesn't apply to some things such as the wide space of the universe, so then we can logically infer that there is some things such as God or the wide space of the universe that have no cause that has created them, so then we can logically infer that we humans have the tendency to think things by using the law of causation, but i think it is a big logical mistake, because there is things such as the wide space of the universe that have no cause. And here is the logical proof that God exist: Read the following of outer body experiences and you will notice that the soul from God exists: More proof of the existence of God.. You will say that God doesn't exist, but read the following(read especially the outer body experience of the 57-year old man below, it is the proof that the soul from God exists): "A University of Southampton study has revealed that people could still experience consciousness for up to three minutes after the heart stops beating. The study interviewed 2,060 patients from Austria, USA and the UK who have all suffered a cardiac arrest. The Express reports that 40% could recall some form of awareness after being pronounced clinically dead. One 57-year old man seemed to confirm an outer body experience by recalling everything that was going on around him with eerie accuracy while he was technically dead." Read more here: https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/516195/university-southampton-study-science-life-death-hell-heaven And read the following: Does God exists ? You will say that God doesn't exist, but read the following(read especially about the following study where two per cent exhibited full awareness with explicit recall of "seeing" and "hearing" events – or out-of-body ) Read more here: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/life-after-death-largest-ever-study-provides-evidence-that-out-of-body-and-near-death-experiences-9780195.html Yet more philosophy about the essence of God.. As you have just noticed, i have just explained that the nature of God is that he is greatly arrogant(read my thoughts below), so he likes from us to tell him that he is the greatest and the most beautiful and such, so in my new monotheistic religion we have to "glorify" God and it means to give glory to Him, so look in the following muslim video how muslim white people are glorifying God: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3xjz4nxzGQ&list=RDBXBdyJitlRk&index=10 More philosophy about the nature of God.. I invite you to read the definition of being arrogant, here it is: "Who is an arrogant person? Arrogance can be defined as the personality trait whereby a person has an obnoxiously elevated sense of self-worth. An arrogant person is the one who acts as if they're superior, more worthy, and more important than others. Therefore, they tend to disrespect and put others down. At the same time, they want admiration and respect from others. They want to be appreciated for the great things they've done and for their special qualities and abilities." And in my new monotheistic religion, God is "greatly" arrogant, it is his "nature", this is why he can be indifferent to suffering of poor animals and he can be indifferent to suffering of humans etc. and this is why God likes from us to tell him that he is the greatest and the most beautiful and such and this is why we have to believe in God and fear him and ask him for help. More of my philosophy about from where comes monotheistic religions.. I think many of the talking and writing of Qur'an and Bible are from humans, i mean that God has not 100% guided prophet Muhammad or Jesus Christ, so i think that God has let prophet Muhammad writes and talks as a human in many of the parts of the Qur'an with his human defects, and God has also let Jesus Christ talks as a human not as a God with his human defects, I mean God had programmed prophet Muhammad and Jesus Christ and he had let them talks and writes in the Bible and Qur'an as humans with there human defects, so God is the greatest, this is why we can notice that Jesus Christ has made mistakes that look like mental health disorders, and i think it is part of the curse from God and i think that the scientific errors and errors and extremism in the Bible and Qur'an also come from the curse from God, and the facts also prove that the most important thing for God is that we believe in him and we fear him and we ask him for help, it is is the basis of my monotheistic religion, and read more in the following web link about my new monotheistic religion so that to understand(it is my preliminary thoughts and i will organize them much more efficiently and make of them a pdf and html book): https://groups.google.com/g/soc.culture.quebec/c/eaEbfSmu4is More of my philosophy about the muslim persian philosopher Al-Ghazali.. https://groups.google.com/g/soc.culture.quebec/c/eaEbfSmu4is I invite you to look at this interesting video about the persian muslim |
| Amine Moulay Ramdane <aminer68@gmail.com>: Jun 04 01:14PM -0700 Hello, More philosophy about correlation and logical implication.. I am a white arab and i think i am smart since i have also invented many scalable algorithms and algorithms.. I think that correlation in mathematics and statistics is like the general concept that permits to model causality, since i think that we can search with correlation for all the factors that are the cause and find causality. I think it is the same for logical implication, logical implication is like a general concept and logical implication is more general than causality. And i think that real numbers in mathematics are like a general concept that permits to model the reality. More precision about logic and being rigorous in mathematics.. So you have to be smart, since i am saying below that the following logical implication of [3] is false since you have to analyze it systemically, since i am speaking about the independent system of [3] that is measured by common sense and logic of reality: [3] I take my umbrella -> The sky is not raining More philosophy about being rigorous in mathematics.. I think i am a philosopher that is smart, and i am inventing my following thoughts of my philosophy from my brain, so i said the following(read it below): "I think logic in mathematics is really interesting and there is something happening in logic in mathematics that looks like the real numbers in mathematics, so i think by logically inferring the general rule of: (p implies q) is equivalent to ((not p) or q), is like making the general "concept" that applies to all the "particular" cases, so it also applies to causality since this general rule is like a general concept that permits to "model" all the cases in the truth table of the logical implication, so i think this way of doing by generalizing and making like a general concept is really powerful, this is why i think that real numbers in mathematics are like a concept that was made to model all the cases of the reality(read my below thoughts about it)" So i will be more rigorous so that you understand: So notice the following truth table of the logical implication: p q p -> q 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 Note that p and q are logical variables. So i think that the truth table is setting all the cases that can hasppen in the reality, i give you an example: If we take the following two propositions: "I take my umbrella" "The sky is raining" So i think that the above truth table of the logical implication is like also putting and setting in the truth table all the cases that can happen in reality including the particular case of "causation", since we need the general rule that is logically inferred to work on all the cases in reality, but notice that we are also using our human common sense and human logic, since we can generate all the following cases from the truth table by using the above two propositions: Note that -> means logical implication: [1] I don't take my umbrella -> the sky is not raining [2] I don't take my umbrella -> The sky is raining [3] I take my umbrella -> The sky is not raining [4] I take my umbrella -> The sky is raining So now by using our human common sense and human logic we can notice that the case [3] above is not logical in reality, since if the sky is not raining the common sense and human logic inferred from reality says that we have not to take the umbrella , so this is why in the truth table it is false, since as you already know that with the general rule logically inferred from the truth table we have to "measure" and "verify" the consistency of the system in the reality, it is how it is used, and when the other cases of the truth table are thus measured with common sense and human logic we notice that they are true, thus all the cases of truth table permits us to logically infer the general rule of: (p implies q) is equivalent to ((not p) or q), and it permits us to logically model the cases of the reality including the particular case of causation and to verify the consistency and/or to optimize, so as you are noticing that with the truth table and the general rule logically inferred from the truth table we are like making a general concept, it is like the real numbers in mathematics that are like the general concept, read my below thoughts about it: More philosophy about logic in philosophy and mathematics.. I think i am a philosopher that is smart, and i will continu to invent ideas from my brain, so I think logic in mathematics is really interesting and there is something happening in logic in mathematics that looks like the real numbers in mathematics, since i think that from the general truth table of all the cases of the logical implication we are getting a general law or general formula that is: (p implies q) is equivalent to ((not p) or q) And p and q are logical variables. And here is the truth table of the logical implication: p q p -> q 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 So i think by logically inferring the general rule of: (p implies q) is equivalent to ((not p) or q), is like making the general "concept" that applies to all the "particular" cases, so it also applies to causality since this general rule is like a general concept that permits to "model" all the cases in the truth table of the logical implication, so i think this way of doing by generalizing and making like a general concept is really powerful, this is why i think that real numbers in mathematics are like a concept that was made to model all the cases of the reality(read my below thoughts about it), so now we are understanding more that logic in mathematics permits to verify the logical consistency, so it is good for "reliability", and it also permits to optimize since for example one logical proof can be more "practical" or "faster" than another logical proof. More of my philosophy about the human free will and more.. I think i am a philosopher that is smart, so if we ask the following philosophical question: Is there any free will ? I think humans have no free will, since they have the strong tendency with there smartness to act by being more and more perfection since they have to adapt and to survive and they want to be great perfection so that to solve most of humans problems and it is the goal of morality to be this "perfection" at best, so i think that since humans have this strong tendency so i think it is like there is no free will. Note that the English dictionary defines "perfection" as: "the act or process of perfecting" Read here: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perfection And i invite you to read my thoughts of my philosophy here: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/YZSYxV41-qI Also i invite you to read more of my thoughts of my philosophy here: https://groups.google.com/g/comp.programming.threads/c/OjDTCDiawJw Also i invite you to read more of my thoughts of my philosophy here: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/ftf3lx5Rzxo More philosophy about the real numbers in mathematics.. I will ask the following philosophical question: Can we know more about real numbers in mathematics? Notice that real numbers in mathematics is like a general "concept" that permits to generally represent quantities or such, so you are then noticing that this general concept has an independent life from the reality, since notice that we can find some parts of the real numbers in mathematics that are not real in reality but they are general and they ensure that real numbers in mathematics work in all the cases in reality, but notice that the real numbers in mathematics are also inferred from reality, it is like a concept that is also inferred from the reality, so when we say "1", i think that the "1" in real numbers is inferred from the reality, but we can find other real numbers that are not real and that generalize. It is like the concept of a "cat" or "dog", if we look carefully at those concepts you will notice that they are both the reality and not the reality, since a concept of a dog is an abstraction that is not the reality, but it is also a generalization that is the reality, so we are abstracting the concept so that to generalize. More philosophy about relativity of time and relativity.. I think that i am a philosopher that is smart, and i think that there Einstein special relativity that determines that time is relative, but i say that the zero in the axis of real numbers in mathematics that represents a meaning is also "relative", i mean we can say that we have zero "of" a thing, so you are then noticing that the axis of real numbers is like a general "concept", i mean it is like a general concept that permits to represent like a quantity or such, but since as i made you understand (read my thoughts below) that the law of causation doesn't apply to some things such as the wide space of the universe, so we can not say there is "zero" thing, since for example things such as the wide space of our universe or multiverse have always existed, read my thoughts below of philosophy so that to understand it. More philosophy about time and space and matter and our universe.. I think i am a philosopher that is smart and now i will ask a philosophical question of: From where come time and space and matter of our universe and why our universe is fine-tuned for consciousness? First you can read the following about science: "The laws of thermodynamics say they always existed. Matter is created by energy. All matter consists of energy. This energy is electromagnetic. Light is electromagnetic energy when it decays it creates a background radiation to the universe. Energy cannot be created from nothing or destroyed to nothing, it mutates into another form. Without time there would be infinite space and without space there would be infinite time. Spacetime is a fabric with dimensions and is part of the physical universe. Space and time are inseparable. Everything that exists inside of it is part of it. Time has always existed with space the proportions are all that have changed. Science is trying to explain when the proportions changed." And read the following that says that there is a Multiverse from where has formed our fine-tuned universe: Our Improbable Existence Is No Evidence for a Multiverse https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/LGP8A8s6N9c So i think that there is something really important to notice, since i think that for example the wide "space" of our universe or the multiverse has always existed, so we can then say that there is no cause that has created the wide "space" of our universe or multiverse, so then we can then say that we can not give a meaning by the law of causation in such case, since the law of "causation" doesn't apply to some things such as the wide space of the universe, so then we can logically infer that there is some things such as God or the wide space of the universe that have no cause that has created them, so then we can logically infer that we humans have the tendency to think things by using the law of causation, but i think it is a big logical mistake, because there is things such as the wide space of the universe that have no cause. And here is the logical proof that God exist: Read the following of outer body experiences and you will notice that the soul from God exists: More proof of the existence of God.. You will say that God doesn't exist, but read the following(read especially the outer body experience of the 57-year old man below, it is the proof that the soul from God exists): "A University of Southampton study has revealed that people could still experience consciousness for up to three minutes after the heart stops beating. The study interviewed 2,060 patients from Austria, USA and the UK who have all suffered a cardiac arrest. The Express reports that 40% could recall some form of awareness after being pronounced clinically dead. One 57-year old man seemed to confirm an outer body experience by recalling everything that was going on around him with eerie accuracy while he was technically dead." Read more here: https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/516195/university-southampton-study-science-life-death-hell-heaven And read the following: Does God exists ? You will say that God doesn't exist, but read the following(read especially about the following study where two per cent exhibited full awareness with explicit recall of "seeing" and "hearing" events – or out-of-body ) Read more here: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/life-after-death-largest-ever-study-provides-evidence-that-out-of-body-and-near-death-experiences-9780195.html Yet more philosophy about the essence of God.. As you have just noticed, i have just explained that the nature of God is that he is greatly arrogant(read my thoughts below), so he likes from us to tell him that he is the greatest and the most beautiful and such, so in my new monotheistic religion we have to "glorify" God and it means to give glory to Him, so look in the following muslim video how muslim white people are glorifying God: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3xjz4nxzGQ&list=RDBXBdyJitlRk&index=10 More philosophy about the nature of God.. I invite you to read the definition of being arrogant, here it is: "Who is an arrogant person? Arrogance can be defined as the personality trait whereby a person has an obnoxiously elevated sense of self-worth. An arrogant person is the one who acts as if they're superior, more worthy, and more important than others. Therefore, they tend to disrespect and put others down. At the same time, they want admiration and respect from others. They want to be appreciated for the great things they've done and for their special qualities and abilities." And in my new monotheistic religion, God is "greatly" arrogant, it is his "nature", this is why he can be indifferent to suffering of poor animals and he can be indifferent to suffering of humans etc. and this is why God likes from us to tell him that he is the greatest and the most beautiful and such and this is why we have to believe in God and fear him and ask him for help. More of my philosophy about from where comes monotheistic religions.. I think many of the talking and writing of Qur'an and Bible are from humans, i mean that God has not 100% guided prophet Muhammad or Jesus Christ, so i think that God has let prophet Muhammad writes and talks as a human in many of the parts of the Qur'an with his human defects, and God has also let Jesus Christ talks as a human not as a God with his human defects, I mean God had programmed prophet Muhammad and Jesus Christ and he had let them talks and writes in the Bible and Qur'an as humans with there human defects, so God is the greatest, this is why we can notice that Jesus Christ has made mistakes that look like mental health disorders, and i think it is part of the curse from God and i think that the scientific errors and errors and extremism in the Bible and Qur'an also come from the curse from God, and the facts also prove that the most important thing for God is that we believe in him and we fear him and we ask him for help, it is is the basis of my monotheistic religion, and read more in the following web link about my new monotheistic religion so that to understand(it is my preliminary thoughts and i will organize them much more efficiently and make of them a pdf and html book): https://groups.google.com/g/soc.culture.quebec/c/eaEbfSmu4is More of my philosophy about the muslim persian philosopher Al-Ghazali.. https://groups.google.com/g/soc.culture.quebec/c/eaEbfSmu4is I invite you to look at this interesting video about the persian muslim |
| Amine Moulay Ramdane <aminer68@gmail.com>: Jun 04 12:17PM -0700 Hello, More precision about logic and being rigorous in mathematics.. I am a white arab and i think i am smart since i have also invented many scalable algorithms and algorithms.. So you have to be smart, since i am saying that the following logical implication of [3] is false since you have to analyze it systemically, since i am speaking about the independent system of [3] that is measured by common sense and logic of reality: [3] I take my umbrella -> The sky is not raining More philosophy about being rigorous in mathematics.. I think i am a philosopher that is smart, and i am inventing my following thoughts of my philosophy from my brain, so i said the following(read it below): "I think logic in mathematics is really interesting and there is something happening in logic in mathematics that looks like the real numbers in mathematics, so i think by logically inferring the general rule of: (p implies q) is equivalent to ((not p) or q), is like making the general "concept" that applies to all the "particular" cases, so it also applies to causality since this general rule is like a general concept that permits to "model" all the cases in the truth table of the logical implication, so i think this way of doing by generalizing and making like a general concept is really powerful, this is why i think that real numbers in mathematics are like a concept that was made to model all the cases of the reality(read my below thoughts about it)" So i will be more rigorous so that you understand: So notice the following truth table of the logical implication: p q p -> q 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 Note that p and q are logical variables. So i think that the truth table is setting all the cases that can hasppen in the reality, i give you an example: If we take the following two propositions: "I take my umbrella" "The sky is raining" So i think that the above truth table of the logical implication is like also putting and setting in the truth table all the cases that can happen in reality including the particular case of "causation", since we need the general rule that is logically inferred to work on all the cases in reality, but notice that we are also using our human common sense and human logic, since we can generate all the following cases from the truth table by using the above two propositions: Note that -> means logical implication: [1] I don't take my umbrella -> the sky is not raining [2] I don't take my umbrella -> The sky is raining [3] I take my umbrella -> The sky is not raining [4] I take my umbrella -> The sky is raining So now by using our human common sense and human logic we can notice that the case [3] above is not logical in reality, since if the sky is not raining the common sense and human logic inferred from reality says that we have not to take the umbrella , so this is why in the truth table it is false, since as you already know that with the general rule logically inferred from the truth table we have to "measure" and "verify" the consistency of the system in the reality, it is how it is used, and when the other cases of the truth table are thus measured with common sense and human logic we notice that they are true, thus all the cases of truth table permits us to logically infer the general rule of: (p implies q) is equivalent to ((not p) or q), and it permits us to logically model the cases of the reality including the particular case of causation and to verify the consistency and/or to optimize, so as you are noticing that with the truth table and the general rule logically inferred from the truth table we are like making a general concept, it is like the real numbers in mathematics that are like the general concept, read my below thoughts about it: More philosophy about logic in philosophy and mathematics.. I think i am a philosopher that is smart, and i will continu to invent ideas from my brain, so I think logic in mathematics is really interesting and there is something happening in logic in mathematics that looks like the real numbers in mathematics, since i think that from the general truth table of all the cases of the logical implication we are getting a general law or general formula that is: (p implies q) is equivalent to ((not p) or q) And p and q are logical variables. And here is the truth table of the logical implication: p q p -> q 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 So i think by logically inferring the general rule of: (p implies q) is equivalent to ((not p) or q), is like making the general "concept" that applies to all the "particular" cases, so it also applies to causality since this general rule is like a general concept that permits to "model" all the cases in the truth table of the logical implication, so i think this way of doing by generalizing and making like a general concept is really powerful, this is why i think that real numbers in mathematics are like a concept that was made to model all the cases of the reality(read my below thoughts about it), so now we are understanding more that logic in mathematics permits to verify the logical consistency, so it is good for "reliability", and it also permits to optimize since for example one logical proof can be more "practical" or "faster" than another logical proof. More of my philosophy about the human free will and more.. I think i am a philosopher that is smart, so if we ask the following philosophical question: Is there any free will ? I think humans have no free will, since they have the strong tendency with there smartness to act by being more and more perfection since they have to adapt and to survive and they want to be great perfection so that to solve most of humans problems and it is the goal of morality to be this "perfection" at best, so i think that since humans have this strong tendency so i think it is like there is no free will. Note that the English dictionary defines "perfection" as: "the act or process of perfecting" Read here: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perfection And i invite you to read my thoughts of my philosophy here: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/YZSYxV41-qI Also i invite you to read more of my thoughts of my philosophy here: https://groups.google.com/g/comp.programming.threads/c/OjDTCDiawJw Also i invite you to read more of my thoughts of my philosophy here: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/ftf3lx5Rzxo More philosophy about the real numbers in mathematics.. I will ask the following philosophical question: Can we know more about real numbers in mathematics? Notice that real numbers in mathematics is like a general "concept" that permits to generally represent quantities or such, so you are then noticing that this general concept has an independent life from the reality, since notice that we can find some parts of the real numbers in mathematics that are not real in reality but they are general and they ensure that real numbers in mathematics work in all the cases in reality, but notice that the real numbers in mathematics are also inferred from reality, it is like a concept that is also inferred from the reality, so when we say "1", i think that the "1" in real numbers is inferred from the reality, but we can find other real numbers that are not real and that generalize. It is like the concept of a "cat" or "dog", if we look carefully at those concepts you will notice that they are both the reality and not the reality, since a concept of a dog is an abstraction that is not the reality, but it is also a generalization that is the reality, so we are abstracting the concept so that to generalize. More philosophy about relativity of time and relativity.. I think that i am a philosopher that is smart, and i think that there Einstein special relativity that determines that time is relative, but i say that the zero in the axis of real numbers in mathematics that represents a meaning is also "relative", i mean we can say that we have zero "of" a thing, so you are then noticing that the axis of real numbers is like a general "concept", i mean it is like a general concept that permits to represent like a quantity or such, but since as i made you understand (read my thoughts below) that the law of causation doesn't apply to some things such as the wide space of the universe, so we can not say there is "zero" thing, since for example things such as the wide space of our universe or multiverse have always existed, read my thoughts below of philosophy so that to understand it. More philosophy about time and space and matter and our universe.. I think i am a philosopher that is smart and now i will ask a philosophical question of: From where come time and space and matter of our universe and why our universe is fine-tuned for consciousness? First you can read the following about science: "The laws of thermodynamics say they always existed. Matter is created by energy. All matter consists of energy. This energy is electromagnetic. Light is electromagnetic energy when it decays it creates a background radiation to the universe. Energy cannot be created from nothing or destroyed to nothing, it mutates into another form. Without time there would be infinite space and without space there would be infinite time. Spacetime is a fabric with dimensions and is part of the physical universe. Space and time are inseparable. Everything that exists inside of it is part of it. Time has always existed with space the proportions are all that have changed. Science is trying to explain when the proportions changed." And read the following that says that there is a Multiverse from where has formed our fine-tuned universe: Our Improbable Existence Is No Evidence for a Multiverse https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/LGP8A8s6N9c So i think that there is something really important to notice, since i think that for example the wide "space" of our universe or the multiverse has always existed, so we can then say that there is no cause that has created the wide "space" of our universe or multiverse, so then we can then say that we can not give a meaning by the law of causation in such case, since the law of "causation" doesn't apply to some things such as the wide space of the universe, so then we can logically infer that there is some things such as God or the wide space of the universe that have no cause that has created them, so then we can logically infer that we humans have the tendency to think things by using the law of causation, but i think it is a big logical mistake, because there is things such as the wide space of the universe that have no cause. And here is the logical proof that God exist: Read the following of outer body experiences and you will notice that the soul from God exists: More proof of the existence of God.. You will say that God doesn't exist, but read the following(read especially the outer body experience of the 57-year old man below, it is the proof that the soul from God exists): "A University of Southampton study has revealed that people could still experience consciousness for up to three minutes after the heart stops beating. The study interviewed 2,060 patients from Austria, USA and the UK who have all suffered a cardiac arrest. The Express reports that 40% could recall some form of awareness after being pronounced clinically dead. One 57-year old man seemed to confirm an outer body experience by recalling everything that was going on around him with eerie accuracy while he was technically dead." Read more here: https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/516195/university-southampton-study-science-life-death-hell-heaven And read the following: Does God exists ? You will say that God doesn't exist, but read the following(read especially about the following study where two per cent exhibited full awareness with explicit recall of "seeing" and "hearing" events – or out-of-body ) Read more here: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/life-after-death-largest-ever-study-provides-evidence-that-out-of-body-and-near-death-experiences-9780195.html Yet more philosophy about the essence of God.. As you have just noticed, i have just explained that the nature of God is that he is greatly arrogant(read my thoughts below), so he likes from us to tell him that he is the greatest and the most beautiful and such, so in my new monotheistic religion we have to "glorify" God and it means to give glory to Him, so look in the following muslim video how muslim white people are glorifying God: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3xjz4nxzGQ&list=RDBXBdyJitlRk&index=10 More philosophy about the nature of God.. I invite you to read the definition of being arrogant, here it is: "Who is an arrogant person? Arrogance can be defined as the personality trait whereby a person has an obnoxiously elevated sense of self-worth. An arrogant person is the one who acts as if they're superior, more worthy, and more important than others. Therefore, they tend to disrespect and put others down. At the same time, they want admiration and respect from others. They want to be appreciated for the great things they've done and for their special qualities and abilities." And in my new monotheistic religion, God is "greatly" arrogant, it is his "nature", this is why he can be indifferent to suffering of poor animals and he can be indifferent to suffering of humans etc. and this is why God likes from us to tell him that he is the greatest and the most beautiful and such and this is why we have to believe in God and fear him and ask him for help. More of my philosophy about from where comes monotheistic religions.. I think many of the talking and writing of Qur'an and Bible are from humans, i mean that God has not 100% guided prophet Muhammad or Jesus Christ, so i think that God has let prophet Muhammad writes and talks as a human in many of the parts of the Qur'an with his human defects, and God has also let Jesus Christ talks as a human not as a God with his human defects, I mean God had programmed prophet Muhammad and Jesus Christ and he had let them talks and writes in the Bible and Qur'an as humans with there human defects, so God is the greatest, this is why we can notice that Jesus Christ has made mistakes that look like mental health disorders, and i think it is part of the curse from God and i think that the scientific errors and errors and extremism in the Bible and Qur'an also come from the curse from God, and the facts also prove that the most important thing for God is that we believe in him and we fear him and we ask him for help, it is is the basis of my monotheistic religion, and read more in the following web link about my new monotheistic religion so that to understand(it is my preliminary thoughts and i will organize them much more efficiently and make of them a pdf and html book): https://groups.google.com/g/soc.culture.quebec/c/eaEbfSmu4is More of my philosophy about the muslim persian philosopher Al-Ghazali.. https://groups.google.com/g/soc.culture.quebec/c/eaEbfSmu4is I invite you to look at this interesting video about the persian muslim philosopher Al-Ghazali: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZL-ZxXQ6HCU I am a philosopher and i say that those muslim phisosophers are really smart, since i think that the persian philosopher Al-Ghazali was an orthodox muslim but the Arab philosopher Ibn ʿArabi was not an orthodox muslim, but i am smart and i understand the muslim orthodoxy of the persian philosopher Al-Ghazali that has shaped his philosophy that you look at it in the above video, i think that you have to look at the context of past time of the persian philosopher Al-Ghazali, i |
| Amine Moulay Ramdane <aminer68@gmail.com>: Jun 04 12:04PM -0700 Hello.. More philosophy about being rigorous in mathematics.. I am a white arab and i think i am smart since i have also invented many scalable algorithms and algorithms.. I think i am a philosopher that is smart, and i am inventing my following thoughts of my philosophy from my brain, so i said the following(read it below): "I think logic in mathematics is really interesting and there is something happening in logic in mathematics that looks like the real numbers in mathematics, so i think by logically inferring the general rule of: (p implies q) is equivalent to ((not p) or q), is like making the general "concept" that applies to all the "particular" cases, so it also applies to causality since this general rule is like a general concept that permits to "model" all the cases in the truth table of the logical implication, so i think this way of doing by generalizing and making like a general concept is really powerful, this is why i think that real numbers in mathematics are like a concept that was made to model all the cases of the reality(read my below thoughts about it)" So i will be more rigorous so that you understand: So notice the following truth table of the logical implication: p q p -> q 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 Note that p and q are logical variables. So i think that the truth table is setting all the cases that can hasppen in the reality, i give you an example: If we take the following two propositions: "I take my umbrella" "The sky is raining" So i think that the above truth table of the logical implication is like also putting and setting in the truth table all the cases that can happen in reality including the particular case of "causation", since we need the general rule that is logically inferred to work on all the cases in reality, but notice that we are also using our human common sense and human logic, since we can generate all the following cases from the truth table by using the above two propositions: Note that -> means logical implication: [1] I don't take my umbrella -> the sky is not raining [2] I don't take my umbrella -> The sky is raining [3] I take my umbrella -> The sky is not raining [4] I take my umbrella -> The sky is raining So now by using our human common sense and human logic we can notice that the case [3] above is not logical in reality, since if the sky is not raining the common sense and human logic inferred from reality says that we have not to take the umbrella , so this is why in the truth table it is false, since as you already know that with the general rule logically inferred from the truth table we have to "measure" and "verify" the consistency of the system in the reality, it is how it is used, and when the other cases of the truth table are thus measured with common sense and human logic we notice that they are true, thus all the cases of truth table permits us to logically infer the general rule of: (p implies q) is equivalent to ((not p) or q), and it permits us to logically model the cases of the reality including the particular case of causation and to verify the consistency and/or to optimize, so as you are noticing that with the truth table and the general rule logically inferred from the truth table we are like making a general concept, it is like the real numbers in mathematics that are like the general concept, read my below thoughts about it: More philosophy about logic in philosophy and mathematics.. I think i am a philosopher that is smart, and i will continu to invent ideas from my brain, so I think logic in mathematics is really interesting and there is something happening in logic in mathematics that looks like the real numbers in mathematics, since i think that from the general truth table of all the cases of the logical implication we are getting a general law or general formula that is: (p implies q) is equivalent to ((not p) or q) And p and q are logical variables. And here is the truth table of the logical implication: p q p -> q 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 So i think by logically inferring the general rule of: (p implies q) is equivalent to ((not p) or q), is like making the general "concept" that applies to all the "particular" cases, so it also applies to causality since this general rule is like a general concept that permits to "model" all the cases in the truth table of the logical implication, so i think this way of doing by generalizing and making like a general concept is really powerful, this is why i think that real numbers in mathematics are like a concept that was made to model all the cases of the reality(read my below thoughts about it), so now we are understanding more that logic in mathematics permits to verify the logical consistency, so it is good for "reliability", and it also permits to optimize since for example one logical proof can be more "practical" or "faster" than another logical proof. More of my philosophy about the human free will and more.. I think i am a philosopher that is smart, so if we ask the following philosophical question: Is there any free will ? I think humans have no free will, since they have the strong tendency with there smartness to act by being more and more perfection since they have to adapt and to survive and they want to be great perfection so that to solve most of humans problems and it is the goal of morality to be this "perfection" at best, so i think that since humans have this strong tendency so i think it is like there is no free will. Note that the English dictionary defines "perfection" as: "the act or process of perfecting" Read here: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perfection And i invite you to read my thoughts of my philosophy here: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/YZSYxV41-qI Also i invite you to read more of my thoughts of my philosophy here: https://groups.google.com/g/comp.programming.threads/c/OjDTCDiawJw Also i invite you to read more of my thoughts of my philosophy here: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/ftf3lx5Rzxo More philosophy about the real numbers in mathematics.. I will ask the following philosophical question: Can we know more about real numbers in mathematics? Notice that real numbers in mathematics is like a general "concept" that permits to generally represent quantities or such, so you are then noticing that this general concept has an independent life from the reality, since notice that we can find some parts of the real numbers in mathematics that are not real in reality but they are general and they ensure that real numbers in mathematics work in all the cases in reality, but notice that the real numbers in mathematics are also inferred from reality, it is like a concept that is also inferred from the reality, so when we say "1", i think that the "1" in real numbers is inferred from the reality, but we can find other real numbers that are not real and that generalize. It is like the concept of a "cat" or "dog", if we look carefully at those concepts you will notice that they are both the reality and not the reality, since a concept of a dog is an abstraction that is not the reality, but it is also a generalization that is the reality, so we are abstracting the concept so that to generalize. More philosophy about relativity of time and relativity.. I think that i am a philosopher that is smart, and i think that there Einstein special relativity that determines that time is relative, but i say that the zero in the axis of real numbers in mathematics that represents a meaning is also "relative", i mean we can say that we have zero "of" a thing, so you are then noticing that the axis of real numbers is like a general "concept", i mean it is like a general concept that permits to represent like a quantity or such, but since as i made you understand (read my thoughts below) that the law of causation doesn't apply to some things such as the wide space of the universe, so we can not say there is "zero" thing, since for example things such as the wide space of our universe or multiverse have always existed, read my thoughts below of philosophy so that to understand it. More philosophy about time and space and matter and our universe.. I think i am a philosopher that is smart and now i will ask a philosophical question of: From where come time and space and matter of our universe and why our universe is fine-tuned for consciousness? First you can read the following about science: "The laws of thermodynamics say they always existed. Matter is created by energy. All matter consists of energy. This energy is electromagnetic. Light is electromagnetic energy when it decays it creates a background radiation to the universe. Energy cannot be created from nothing or destroyed to nothing, it mutates into another form. Without time there would be infinite space and without space there would be infinite time. Spacetime is a fabric with dimensions and is part of the physical universe. Space and time are inseparable. Everything that exists inside of it is part of it. Time has always existed with space the proportions are all that have changed. Science is trying to explain when the proportions changed." And read the following that says that there is a Multiverse from where has formed our fine-tuned universe: Our Improbable Existence Is No Evidence for a Multiverse https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/LGP8A8s6N9c So i think that there is something really important to notice, since i think that for example the wide "space" of our universe or the multiverse has always existed, so we can then say that there is no cause that has created the wide "space" of our universe or multiverse, so then we can then say that we can not give a meaning by the law of causation in such case, since the law of "causation" doesn't apply to some things such as the wide space of the universe, so then we can logically infer that there is some things such as God or the wide space of the universe that have no cause that has created them, so then we can logically infer that we humans have the tendency to think things by using the law of causation, but i think it is a big logical mistake, because there is things such as the wide space of the universe that have no cause. And here is the logical proof that God exist: Read the following of outer body experiences and you will notice that the soul from God exists: More proof of the existence of God.. You will say that God doesn't exist, but read the following(read especially the outer body experience of the 57-year old man below, it is the proof that the soul from God exists): "A University of Southampton study has revealed that people could still experience consciousness for up to three minutes after the heart stops beating. The study interviewed 2,060 patients from Austria, USA and the UK who have all suffered a cardiac arrest. The Express reports that 40% could recall some form of awareness after being pronounced clinically dead. One 57-year old man seemed to confirm an outer body experience by recalling everything that was going on around him with eerie accuracy while he was technically dead." Read more here: https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/516195/university-southampton-study-science-life-death-hell-heaven And read the following: Does God exists ? You will say that God doesn't exist, but read the following(read especially about the following study where two per cent exhibited full awareness with explicit recall of "seeing" and "hearing" events – or out-of-body ) Read more here: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/life-after-death-largest-ever-study-provides-evidence-that-out-of-body-and-near-death-experiences-9780195.html Yet more philosophy about the essence of God.. As you have just noticed, i have just explained that the nature of God is that he is greatly arrogant(read my thoughts below), so he likes from us to tell him that he is the greatest and the most beautiful and such, so in my new monotheistic religion we have to "glorify" God and it means to give glory to Him, so look in the following muslim video how muslim white people are glorifying God: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3xjz4nxzGQ&list=RDBXBdyJitlRk&index=10 More philosophy about the nature of God.. I invite you to read the definition of being arrogant, here it is: "Who is an arrogant person? Arrogance can be defined as the personality trait whereby a person has an obnoxiously elevated sense of self-worth. An arrogant person is the one who acts as if they're superior, more worthy, and more important than others. Therefore, they tend to disrespect and put others down. At the same time, they want admiration and respect from others. They want to be appreciated for the great things they've done and for their special qualities and abilities." And in my new monotheistic religion, God is "greatly" arrogant, it is his "nature", this is why he can be indifferent to suffering of poor animals and he can be indifferent to suffering of humans etc. and this is why God likes from us to tell him that he is the greatest and the most beautiful and such and this is why we have to believe in God and fear him and ask him for help. More of my philosophy about from where comes monotheistic religions.. I think many of the talking and writing of Qur'an and Bible are from humans, i mean that God has not 100% guided prophet Muhammad or Jesus Christ, so i think that God has let prophet Muhammad writes and talks as a human in many of the parts of the Qur'an with his human defects, and God has also let Jesus Christ talks as a human not as a God with his human defects, I mean God had programmed prophet Muhammad and Jesus Christ and he had let them talks and writes in the Bible and Qur'an as humans with there human defects, so God is the greatest, this is why we can notice that Jesus Christ has made mistakes that look like mental health disorders, and i think it is part of the curse from God and i think that the scientific errors and errors and extremism in the Bible and Qur'an also come from the curse from God, and the facts also prove that the most important thing for God is that we believe in him and we fear him and we ask him for help, it is is the basis of my monotheistic religion, and read more in the following web link about my new monotheistic religion so that to understand(it is my preliminary thoughts and i will organize them much more efficiently and make of them a pdf and html book): https://groups.google.com/g/soc.culture.quebec/c/eaEbfSmu4is More of my philosophy about the muslim persian philosopher Al-Ghazali.. https://groups.google.com/g/soc.culture.quebec/c/eaEbfSmu4is I invite you to look at this interesting video about the persian muslim philosopher Al-Ghazali: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZL-ZxXQ6HCU I am a philosopher and i say that those muslim phisosophers are really smart, since i think that the persian philosopher Al-Ghazali was an orthodox muslim but the Arab philosopher Ibn ʿArabi was not an orthodox muslim, but i am smart and i understand the muslim orthodoxy of the persian philosopher Al-Ghazali that has shaped his philosophy that you look at it in the above video, i think that you have to look at the context of past time of the persian philosopher Al-Ghazali, i think there was a requirement that is "dependent" on this context of past time of the persian philosopher Al-Ghazali, and it is that we had to strengthen the faith in God in the muslim orthodoxy way so that to avoid corruption of the minds that could hurt a lot muslim people of that time, so i think that the "engine" of faith in God in the way of muslim orthodoxy was a |
| You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to comp.programming.threads+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. |
No comments:
Post a Comment