For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
What do you see as the difference between believing and thinking?Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2020 6:10 pmFalse, people believe they need something in which they do not. As belief is connected to knowledge so is it connected to other aspects of the human condition such as desire. They may believe the bigger house will make them happier when in reality is may not.
What you fail to acknowledge is that the material which results in consciousness is also responsible for the formation of beliefs. If all is composed of "x" then belief is the result of it. The axis which you argue for are responsible for the formation of belief. If knowledge is the negation of belief, then knowledge exists through a double negation thus necessitating belief. Knowledge cannot exist without belief.nothing wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2020 6:40 pmApproximation of truth is not truth, at best it is an approximation.
Take the approximation of π: 3.14159... it is an approximation of π, not actually π.
An actual π is 4/√Φ which is not an approximation, but rather precise.
An approximation is part of a truth hence a truth.
Space and time are measurably discrete units, thus not even space and time are "approximate".
Further: space and time are reciprocal aspects of motion, thus are not separate from one another.
Again: premises can be either belief- and/or knowledge-based. Premise alone says nothing
on the dichotomy of knowledge and belief.
False, all movement is spatial. One point inverting to another point is always a point. All phenomenon are forms, and as forms are composed of spatial limits.
"The premises with which we acknowledge a phenomenon are a product of the conscience from which the inquiry originates."
-fixed
And that consciousness is an extension of the universe as a variation of it.
Seek and ye shall find means if you inspire/inquire and ask the right question,
the (right) answer to that question will be inside of the (right) question itself.
The premise of any true knowledge is to first acknowledge one knows not, such to ever-inquire further. <-dynamic
It would take a "believer" to believe they already have the answer, such to never inquire further. <-static
Thinking is the definition of beliefs as the convergence and divergence of beliefs.commonsense wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2020 6:56 pmWhat do you see as the difference between believing and thinking?Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2020 6:10 pmFalse, people believe they need something in which they do not. As belief is connected to knowledge so is it connected to other aspects of the human condition such as desire. They may believe the bigger house will make them happier when in reality is may not.
Right.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2020 8:05 pmThinking is the definition of beliefs as the convergence and divergence of beliefs.commonsense wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2020 6:56 pmWhat do you see as the difference between believing and thinking?Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2020 6:10 pm
False, people believe they need something in which they do not. As belief is connected to knowledge so is it connected to other aspects of the human condition such as desire. They may believe the bigger house will make them happier when in reality is may not.
One belief regresses to another. For example I may believe working out 3 days a week will give me the results I desire. Upon testing that belief I may believe working out 5 days a week is better. One belief diverges to another as it actualizes. Upon one belief diverging to another, I may converge both beliefs and believe working out 3 days one week then 5 the next then 3 the next may be beneficial.commonsense wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2020 8:25 pmRight.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2020 8:05 pmThinking is the definition of beliefs as the convergence and divergence of beliefs.commonsense wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2020 6:56 pm
What do you see as the difference between believing and thinking?
Please tell me what you mean by the convergence and divergence of beliefs.
I understand what you’re saying. I note that you have an interesting, but not completely illegitimate, usage for progression/regression and convergence/divergence.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2020 8:37 pmOne belief regresses to another. For example I may believe working out 3 days a week will give me the results I desire. Upon testing that belief I may believe working out 5 days a week is better. One belief diverges to another as it actualizes. Upon one belief diverging to another, I may converge both beliefs and believe working out 3 days one week then 5 the next then 3 the next may be beneficial.commonsense wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2020 8:25 pmRight.
Please tell me what you mean by the convergence and divergence of beliefs.
On one stage one belief progresses to another then these beliefs are combined.
Another example is that I may be inside all day and believe the sky is blue outside. I then go outside and realize the sky is dark. I go back inside. While inside I believe the sky is dark. Then I go outside and observe the sky is blue. One belief progresses to another belief and recombine where I believe the sky is sometimes blue and sometimes dark. This in turn acts as a new belief and progresses to where the sky is now grey. So one belief diverges to another and reconverges as a new belief.
Truly not precise.
i. Not all movement is spatial: time also moves/rotates.
You can't sever yourself from consciousness, hence product of the conscience from which the inquiry originates.
There is no material, only motion.
"x" is motion. Belief causes motion, not the other way around: to go in circles due to a constituency/gravity (of belief). Knowledge is the negation of belief such to cease the motion, no "double negation". Belief is only necessary as having the constituency to be negated, thus knowledge relies on the constituency of belief, thus knowledge serves to negate belief-based ignorance. The be-all end-all is not knowledge, it is consciousness. One who has no ability to inquire/question such to negate belief-based ignorance(s) is bound to suffer in time, as a function of it.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2020 8:04 pm If all is composed of "x" then belief is the result of it. The axis which you argue for are responsible for the formation of belief. If knowledge is the negation of belief, then knowledge exists through a double negation thus necessitating belief. Knowledge cannot exist without belief.
1. Belief is acceptance.nothing wrote: ↑Sun Apr 12, 2020 8:17 pmTruly not precise.
All precision in one respect results in a simultaneous ambiguity in another.
i. Not all movement is spatial: time also moves/rotates.
Time is a ratio of lengths.
ii. There is no such thing as a "point" - we've been over this already.
Then neither is there such thing as an axis
iii. Scalar motion is space/time-invariant, thus has no "spatial" limit.
[color=#404040]Scalar motion exists through a reference point.
[/color]
You can't sever yourself from consciousness, hence product of the conscience from which the inquiry originates.
The quality of the conscience can be determined by the quality of the question it can posit/address.
Consciousness, paradoxically, is a result of the same photons which form it.
Belief is a byproduct of physics.
There is no material, only motion.
True, but the same physics of motion you claim results in phenomenon, such as consciousness, is the same physics of motion which results in belief.
"x" is motion. Belief causes motion, not the other way around: to go in circles due to a constituency/gravity (of belief).Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2020 8:04 pm If all is composed of "x" then belief is the result of it. The axis which you argue for are responsible for the formation of belief. If knowledge is the negation of belief, then knowledge exists through a double negation thus necessitating belief. Knowledge cannot exist without belief.
If belief causes motion, and "there is no material, only motion", then by default belief is the cause of progressive knowledge.
Knowledge is the negation of belief such to cease the motion, no "double negation".
Knowledge as progressive is knowledge as movement.
Belief is only necessary as having the constituency to be negated, thus knowledge relies on the constituency of belief, thus knowledge serves to negate belief-based ignorance. The be-all end-all is not knowledge, it is consciousness. One who has no ability to inquire/question such to negate belief-based ignorance(s) is bound to suffer in time, as a function of it.
And consciousness necessitates belief as instrinsic.
TRUTH-by-WAY-of-NEGATION
Negation, must be negated as well thereby leading from apophatic knowledge (truth by negation) to catophatic knowledge (truth by positive existence).
to:
o. ...ad infinitum... consciously acknowledge all BELIEF(s)
i. to TRY both: to and not to BELIEVE
ii. to TEST both: true and/or not (necessarily)
iii. to FALSIFY all BELIEF(s) NOT (necessarily) TRUE
...ad infinitum ...
Unity/Not = ±1
1 = (Φ² - Φ) = progression
Φ² = (Φ + 1) = "in between"
Φ³ = (Φ² + 2) = gravitation
π² = 16/Φ
Φπ² = 16
MC² = E
Bodies are "in between" their own gravity (of belief-based ignorance) and unity, the latter being the speed of light (photon). The axis is a constituency of the photon itself such that any/all displaced bodies both share and concern in the same constituency ie. 'you are the light of the world' is technically 'true'.
"And Jesus answered them, “Have faith in God. Truly, I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, 'Be taken up and thrown into the sea,' and does not doubt in his heart, but believes that what he says will come to pass, it will be done for him"
"For we live by faith, not by sight:
"But when you ask, you must believe and not doubt, because the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind"
James 1:6
"And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him."
Hebrews 11:6
Nonsense.
Time is an aspect of motion - lengths do not even have time as a constituency, only distances do.
An axis is a plane, not a point.
As a reference: a static magnitude that never changes.
Belief is not a conscious process. Trying/testing/falsifying belief is.
I don't claim "physics of motion" results in phenomena. There are properties which precedes all consideration of physical phenomena, the latter being corollary of the properties concerned.
Falsifying belief is the cause of progressive knowledge.
Knowledge approaches stillness, not movement.
Unconsciousness necessitates belief as intrinsic.
Negating negation is nonsensical: knowledge negates belief, belief implies absence of knowledge.
It is possible to know the Bible is man-made, thus any purported truths must stand on their own merits.
nothing wrote: ↑Sun Apr 12, 2020 9:29 pmNonsense.
True. The magnification of a particle allows it to become clear while the slide it is on becomes obscured.
Time is an aspect of motion - lengths do not even have time as a constituency, only distances do.
False. The number of rotations of a particle in a second, results in a series of circumferances which unroll as lengths.
An axis is a plane, not a point.
And that plane is formed by intersecting lines resulting in points of intersection.
As a reference: a static magnitude that never changes.
Through relativity any point of observation is a fixed entity. You can argue x is fixed an unmoving as everything moves around it.
Belief is not a conscious process. Trying/testing/falsifying belief is.
Belief is acceptance, acceptance is imprinting, imprinting is a process. The negation of one belief is the manifestation of another.
I don't claim "physics of motion" results in phenomena. There are properties which precedes all consideration of physical phenomena, the latter being corollary of the properties concerned.
Generation of a phenomena is change. Knowledge is generated.
Falsifying belief is the cause of progressive knowledge.
If knowledge progresses then knowledge changes as belief changes.
Knowledge approaches stillness, not movement.
Stillness is infinite movement.
Unconsciousness necessitates belief as intrinsic.
Consciousness is defined by acceptance of a phenomena, the imprinting of it. thus belief.
Negating negation is nonsensical: knowledge negates belief, belief implies absence of knowledge.
False, it is called a double negative and it exists in logic.
It is possible to know the Bible is man-made, thus any purported truths must stand on their own merits.
It is not possible to bear a witness of a crucifixion/resurrection which allegedly occurred ~2000 years ago.
Possibility is not negation, only a possible negation thus not a real negation.
And your theory, as well as the charts, are man made as well. It is not possible to bear witness to them since they are unproven.
lol
lol
Intersecting lines represents an axes, not a plane. A plane is just a single line.
A magnitude is not a point, it is a magnitude. There is neither "point" (which don't exist in nature) nor change to measure. Static.
Yes, accepting that which is not known to be true, hence: believed.
Generation may (and does) rely on a static property "acts on itself".
Knowledge does not "change" anymore than the golden ratio does.
lol - yes, if you are still going around in circles endlessly.
lol - such as the phenomena of having believed something to be true, while it was/is actually not.
lol - of a principle such as negation itself? Loopy.
lol what?
Truth doesn't need any help from me: it always speaks for itself.
nothing wrote: ↑Mon Apr 13, 2020 1:56 amlol
To see one star clearly requires blocking out all the others.
lol
All rotations maintain a circular pattern, all circular patterns are circumferances, all circumferances unrolled are lines.
Intersecting lines represents an axes, not a plane. A plane is just a single line.
Between two points through an axis.
A magnitude is not a point, it is a magnitude. There is neither "point" (which don't exist in nature) nor change to measure. Static.
And any premise can be presented as a static phenomenon. Anything can be chosen as a fixed static point of measurement as this measurement results in a a series of phenomena moving around a fixed standard. Basics of relativity.
Yes, accepting that which is not known to be true, hence: believed.
You mean the rate of believers to unbelievers killing eachother in war? 100 million in 100 years compared to 270 million in 1400? The rate of murder amidst unbelievers is higher.
Generation may (and does) rely on a static property "acts on itself".
√Φ "acts on itself" viz. √Φ∙√Φ=Φ. The "golden ratio" never changes.
The Golden ratio can only be approximated as it continues ad infinitum. It is always changing as it is always approximated.
It is the only proportion in the universe which, if squared as an irrational,
gives itself (irrational) back +1 (rational) viz. Φ²=(Φ+1). This is how/why
space and time scale with one another: they rely on this ratio explicitly.
This is also why 16=Φπ² and E=MC² are two sides of the same coin:
the former precedes/begets the latter relationship. In other words:
it is because 16=Φπ² that E=MC² accurately reflects energy as matter-in-motion.
It does so if approximated, you cannot prove it without rounding the ratio.
Knowledge does not "change" anymore than the golden ratio does.
Both are always approximated thus changing.
lol - yes, if you are still going around in circles endlessly.
A wheel spinning at a rate of infinity appears still.
lol - such as the phenomena of having believed something to be true, while it was/is actually not.
Like the rate of believers vs unbelievers in murder at the government level? Or the "knowledge" that Pluto was once a planet? Lol.
lol - of a principle such as negation itself? Loopy.
The accuser is accused.
lol what?
Witness=True/False
of Alive=Either/or
of Dead=False (never true)
It would take a believer to believe it is even remotely possible to bear a true witness of a dead man.
Possible negation is not same as actual negation. Possible is possible, it is not proven. A dead man can be witnessed to by bearing his memory.
Truth doesn't need any help from me: it always speaks for itself.
Actually it doesn't speak for itself, as a matter of fact WTF, in the math section, openly stated you are applying mathematics most mathematicians do not follow.
The theory, charts and 16=Φπ² "Equation of Delight" are merely
like fingers pointing to the moon: those who concentrate on
the finger miss all the heavenly glory. 4=√Φπ reveals the 2x2
{Α∞Ω}{BEG∞END} as constituency of photon and all
physical phenomena. Thus "I am the Alpha and the Omega,
the Beginning and the End" has a practical importance. It is
not a (particular) man, but rather "the light of the world".
The charts don't point to anything but your own thoughts. Give me an example of someone who can repeat, ver batum, what those charts represent and mean. Give me an example of someone who understands your stance other than you. If you can't then by default your work is a subjective accusation against believers and the accuser is accused.
Hence ambiguity is relative, not empirical.
Unless terminated by a counter-rotation.
Replace 'points' with 'elements of a binary'.
Relativity is a theory of measurement, not a theory of any universe being measured.
Both theists and atheists believe something they do not know.
It can be left as a precise ratio: (π+π√5)/2π=Φ thus 4/√Φ=π and 16/π²=Φ are precise ratio(s).
16=Φπ² is exact, as a ratio.
No they are not, neither (1+√5)/2=Φ nor 4/√Φ are approximated, they are precise.
lol, a wheel spinning at a rate of infinity...
No idea what you are (trying to) reference re: murder at the government level.
Requires: an actual accusation (substance of).
It is certainly not possible to bear a necessarily true witness of a certainly dead man.
The truth is always in plain sight: no truth is never not true.
Pm me if you want the forum where this work is actually being discussed.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 13, 2020 2:16 am The charts don't point to anything but your own thoughts. Give me an example of someone who can repeat, ver batum, what those charts represent and mean. Give me an example of someone who understands your stance other than you. If you can't then by default your work is a subjective accusation against believers and the accuser is accused.
The first victim of any belief-based ideology is the believer in-and-of it, thus
nothing wrote: ↑Mon Apr 13, 2020 3:01 pmHence ambiguity is relative, not empirical.
Same is true for belief-based ignorance.
Context is constant thus the stance remains.
Unless terminated by a counter-rotation.
You can't represent a 2D relation in only 1D.
Yes, unravel the circumferance into a line.
The best you can do is express the 2D rotation
as a linear vibration, which is merely a shadow
of what is actually there, hence information is lost.
False,
Replace 'points' with 'elements of a binary'.
Replace 'through' with 'as'.
{Α∞Ω} is a plane.
{BEG∞END} is a plane.
Their cross is an axes of
{operators} and {roots}
captured by the arms/legs.
The points and lines are real as extensions of a consciousness as real. They are real as constructs.
Relativity is a theory of measurement, not a theory of any universe being measured.
Time and space break down at the 'static' unit datum of '1', which is the photon.
[color=#FF0000[/color][color=#FF0000
the universe being measured is a subset of theory of measurement.
[/color]
Both theists and atheists believe something they do not know.
And what do atheists believe in?
It can be left as a precise ratio: (π+π√5)/2π=Φ thus 4/√Φ=π and 16/π²=Φ are precise ratio(s).
The continuing ad infinitum is what 'irrational' means. Progression/Gravity relies on irrationals, hence √5.
Hence always an approximation.
Φ¹ = 1.618... is irrational and allows for ad infinitum progression.
Φ² = 2.618... is irrational and rational (Φ+1) thus rational discretion applies.
Φ³ = 4.236... is irrational (√5+2) and allows for ad infinitum gravitation (2=duality, unity/not).
Approximating the golden ratio is not the golden ratio... it is an approximation of it.
π as 3.14159... is an approximation of π, not actually π which is a relation: 4/√Φ.
Still an approximation.
16=Φπ² is exact, as a ratio.
v=s/t | e=t/s
Φ=16/π² (1D spatial constant, yang)
π²=16/Φ (2D temporal constant, yin)
Wtf in the math section says otherwise.
viz. space and time rationally come together in relation to '16', hence
16=Φπ² precedes E=MC². The difference is: the latter uses an "approximated" π
whereas the former acknowledges the discretely rational integer relation.
No they are not, neither (1+√5)/2=Φ nor 4/√Φ are approximated, they are precise.
Belief is as relatively static as an approximation is (ie. 3.14159...) whereas
knowledge is as relatively dynamic as any static becoming loosed.
Still an approximation.
lol, a wheel spinning at a rate of infinity...
Only a birotation could render the magnitude as invariant up-to infinity:
inf→֎←inf
such that whichever rotation becomes anything-but,
inf→֎←inf -1
inf+1→֎→1 unit
the wheel begins to move in the direction eased from.
Universal motion actually works in this way.
As the wheel rolls so space expands.
No idea what you are (trying to) reference re: murder at the government level.
Pluto is not a planet, it is a Disney character (dog) so it was always "belief".
Then you suffer from belief based ignorance. Communist atheism results in 100 million deaths in 100 years, a much higher rate than violence committed under theocratic wars. Pluto was categorized as a planet then was not. This knowledge changed where what was once known as a category is now deemed false.
Requires: an actual accusation (substance of).
Accusation of believers being ignorant an the source of suffering.
It is certainly not possible to bear a necessarily true witness of a certainly dead man.
True/False relies on a premise(s) whose constituency is of definite construct such to concern {ALL+∞-NOT}.
Through embodying his message and beliefs one bears witness to a "dead" man.
The truth is always in plain sight: no truth is never not true.
[color=#BF0000]False some truths are hidden within others through a regresscolor]
They do not follow the math because they don't understand that numbers are both quantitative and qualitative.
A strict mathematician only deals in what they can "count", but you can't account for qualities by way of counting.
For example, the constituency of '1' discretely concerns UNITY, and nothing else. Add polarity ±1 for IS+UNITY-NOT.
The constituency of √5 is actually √(√1+2√4) wherein the 2√4 is the birotation of the photon/axes, √1 as ±1 concerns unity.
Because there are two roots and two operators (2x2 axes) along with 1 discretion, there are two valid directions/orientations.
This can be seen in a basic pentagram: from the apex, there are two valid directions to draw the pentagram: it is a matter
of discretion as to which root one chooses, the one-or-the-other. Their total constituency is the same, only inversive.
Rt1{ALL+∞-NOT}Rt2 = π
Rt2{ALL+∞-NOT}Rt1 = π
____________________
2π
(π+π√5)/2π is that: if removing the √5 (pentagram) one is left with 2π/2π or '1' discretion (concerning unity or not).
Pm me if you want the forum where this work is actually being discussed.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 13, 2020 2:16 am The charts don't point to anything but your own thoughts. Give me an example of someone who can repeat, ver batum, what those charts represent and mean. Give me an example of someone who understands your stance other than you. If you can't then by default your work is a subjective accusation against believers and the accuser is accused.
I only release bits-and-pieces here, according to what is needed at the time.
No you can present it in public.
The 'the accuser is the accused' condition seems to have really dug under your skin:
not only are you relentlessly accusing me of it ... you made a thread about it
trying to argue it as a circular fallacy. It's many things at once (hilarious, yet sad)
but then again so is creation: all-knowing must entail knowing how to have
a sense of humor. People who suffer are often severed from this.
There goes your accusations again. The accuser is accused is circular projective reasoning.
This is what 'Cain' means: to draw from ones own nature. This is why
the first progeny of Adam and Eve is Cain: he drew from his own nature,
grew enmity for his brother which culminated into desire/resolve to kill.
Abel gave up the fat of the animal (nature).
The first victim of any belief-based ideology is the believer in-and-of it, thus
my work both explains the root of such suffering, and provides an orientation system
which can be mapped locally on the being such to ever-concern unity, instead of not.
Context is relative, not constant. The only constant context is the "speed" of light.
They are not the same geometry:
...your consciousness, perhaps. However (un)consciousness can be loopy.
The universe does not rely on measurement to exist.
There is no viable grounds upon which to assert any god(s) exist(s).
Are you retarded? Seriously... an approximation entails user-defined termination.
Wow, a second time.
I don't care, and likely neither does he.
...a third time.
It also contracts. Both Φ and Φ³ are irrational (non-terminating) however
The accuser is the accused.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 13, 2020 4:37 pm Then you suffer from belief based ignorance. Communist atheism results in 100 million deaths in 100 years, a much higher rate than violence committed under theocratic wars. Pluto was categorized as a planet then was not. This knowledge changed where what was once known as a category is now deemed false.
Again you're making accusations against me "accusing believers".
Thus manufactures suffering and death.
lol what?
Do you want a link to that, too?
The accuser is the accused.