Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Feb 23, 2020 7:57 am
nothing wrote: ↑Sun Feb 23, 2020 7:46 am
according to the "technology" this person obviously relies on as authoritative, Φ²≠Φ+1.
It could be either. Nobody knows what "=" or "≠" means. Those symbols don't exist in Logic - they are Mathematical/reductionist mysticism.
You can build a system in which the expression 1 = 1 is true; or a system in which 1 ≠ 1 is true. Is all just grammar/syntax.
That's why I am saying - express the system's truth-proposition first, then construct it.
i. Almost everyone knows what = and ≠ means: equals
and equals not
as they are basic rationalizing propositions (is/not),
ii. nobody actually knows what "Logic" with a capital "L" is, as it is your own local usage (if in disagreement, ask the forum to define "Logic" without guiding them and watch there be as many definitions as there are answers)
iii. there is virtually no need to build any
system: the universe already exists and has/obeys a geometry concerning c (speed of light)
iv. 1=1 is just as true as c = c ("speed" of light)
wherein 1c≠1c is incoherent
concerning iii, thus the only universe concerned: the "one" that exists.
Concerning your last point, and serving as the base of a discourse,
it was already brought up between us: simply let the "speed" of light c = 1.
No other parameters are needed.
The speed of light is the speed of light (though light does not actually
"travel" and certainly not relative to itself
All that is physical (including our own physical existence) is thus a particular displacement(s)
from the same,
thus obeys a geometry implicitly concerning the same c = 1. This geometry is captured by the golden mean, thus
our bodies are constructed by way of the same
golden mean. This is why our bodies are in golden proportion:
we are proportioned in the "image" (line) and likeness (curve) of Φ and π.
These Φ and π are qualitative representations of the same "el" (masculine) and "im" (feminine) conjoined into elohim
the word used in Genesis 1:1 to describe what "generates" the skies and the terrains. This is what people understand as "GOD"
however I know that an all-knowing
"GOD" can not possibly be irrationally belief-
it must be rationally
knowledge-based such to satisfy all-knowing
, which must entail all
: not to believe
An all-knowing "GOD" can not possibly
be itself rooted in belief
as it would take a believer
in a false "GOD" (ie. "SATAN").
An all-knowing "GOD" must be rooted in the active negation
: who/what/where/why/when/how NOT to "BELIEVE".
Consider in light of "believer vs. unbeliever". Which side must
"SATAN" be on?
The problem with belief
is it is not knowledge
believers know not how to distinguish between knowledge and mere belief
as these are reflected in the two universal roots depicted as
the two Edenic trees: of living
, and of knowledge of good and evil
the former being true knowledge, the latter being merely believing to know
while being dead wrong
. This is the reason for the admonishment of Genesis 2:17
concerning believing to know good and evil: it causes death over time. Indeed,
see the believers who religiously spill blood over books and idols while
blaming others (such as "atheists") for their own crimes against humanity
("blame" is the original sin of Adam: he blamed his own iniquity on the woman, thus
blaming/scapegoating are all displacements and is like a mark worn. See hijab/niqab/burqa
as the blaming of women for the inability of men to control themselves around them.)