Amoram needs to go?
0 views
Skip to first unread message
chazwin
Jun 25, 2008, 7:41:56 AM6/25/08
to Epistemology
When I logon to "Epistemology" I am normally pleased to find
interesting and coherent debate on matters of epistemology and related
matters. Where they are not directly involved with epistemology, the
topics are otherwise of some interest in the realm of current affairs
or humour. I have always imagined that George was a sort of magic
fairy that helped prevent spam and gibberish from polluting the fine
pages herein: a moderator. Am I wrong?
Perhaps Amoram speaks to a higher wisdom, that I am too much of a
village idiot to understand? Perhaps I am ignorant of the wonders of
Amoram's topics and am not worthy to grace the same Newsgroup? But it
seems to me, a man of humble beginning and humble intellect, that
Amoram's postings are nothing better than gibberish.
interesting and coherent debate on matters of epistemology and related
matters. Where they are not directly involved with epistemology, the
topics are otherwise of some interest in the realm of current affairs
or humour. I have always imagined that George was a sort of magic
fairy that helped prevent spam and gibberish from polluting the fine
pages herein: a moderator. Am I wrong?
Perhaps Amoram speaks to a higher wisdom, that I am too much of a
village idiot to understand? Perhaps I am ignorant of the wonders of
Amoram's topics and am not worthy to grace the same Newsgroup? But it
seems to me, a man of humble beginning and humble intellect, that
Amoram's postings are nothing better than gibberish.
amoram
Jun 26, 2008, 8:54:54 AM6/26/08
to Epistemology
Dear friend EPISTEMOLOGY is the rational control of all the Science's
principles.
A serious control isn't based on the personal juice, and I don't
control your in base to mine. You are acting in this way: you besed
yours judices on me, basing on yours. You, so acting, are not students
of Epistemology, but the CHURCH of the actual Faith in the Science.
Wen I consider the Physics i Control it on the base not of mine VERB,
but that of the same science.
If PHISICS affirm: "An "Absolute" quantity cannot be derived in
experimental way" I can control the Physical action on the base OF ITS
AFFIRMATION.
If I - so acting - discover that the PHYSIC affirms in a way and DOES
in the opposit way, I do an important contribute.
But if I enter in a CHURCH, and I do the same, to discover a bad
interpretation of Jesus, I disturb the quiet of persons that don't
desider to DO NOTHING of new.
The Epistemology has or not the function to FOUND NEW MISTAKES?
Or they all are already KNOWN and we can stop every research?
Are really so disturbed from me, that have the courage to analize the
existing, expecially when is more than 100 years that a problem is
without solution?
It is not a question of intelligence, or to be the village's foolish.
I speake CLEAR: I do not do the axamination starting from my FAITH,
but starting from the other one. But if ONE believes in a Truth, and
afterwards acts believing in the Opposite Truth I note the lack of
CONGRUENCY.
The Physics today cannot be unified by lack of congruency, and this
isnt a JUICE made starting from the Juice of the oters.
I am correct, and do not offend none.
But I am offended, becouse against my Epistemology Search, Goeorge
opposes his Juice, against mine.
To reveal my incongruency I am to be put in contraddiction with my
idea and not the George's one!
If he thinks that - so acting - he loves Epistemology, itsn't true,
because he doesn't contraddict me using my affirmations but... his.
A real control of 3+5=8 is made controlling this, on the base of this,
and not of the OPINIONS of George that says "it is not important. Pass
over!".
Or... "There is not the necessity to work for unifying the Physics,
and thi wark is time lost!"
Nothing, in the Physics is so important, how the Unification of what
is not Unified.
So these matters are directly involved with epistemology, in the line
of the most necessity, because if the UNIFICATION lacks there is a
reason. What is it?
I have found it. The Physic hasn't respected its general assumptions,
and I have numbered it: 1, 2, 3... till to 8, where one, one only out
be enough!
principles.
A serious control isn't based on the personal juice, and I don't
control your in base to mine. You are acting in this way: you besed
yours judices on me, basing on yours. You, so acting, are not students
of Epistemology, but the CHURCH of the actual Faith in the Science.
Wen I consider the Physics i Control it on the base not of mine VERB,
but that of the same science.
If PHISICS affirm: "An "Absolute" quantity cannot be derived in
experimental way" I can control the Physical action on the base OF ITS
AFFIRMATION.
If I - so acting - discover that the PHYSIC affirms in a way and DOES
in the opposit way, I do an important contribute.
But if I enter in a CHURCH, and I do the same, to discover a bad
interpretation of Jesus, I disturb the quiet of persons that don't
desider to DO NOTHING of new.
The Epistemology has or not the function to FOUND NEW MISTAKES?
Or they all are already KNOWN and we can stop every research?
Are really so disturbed from me, that have the courage to analize the
existing, expecially when is more than 100 years that a problem is
without solution?
It is not a question of intelligence, or to be the village's foolish.
I speake CLEAR: I do not do the axamination starting from my FAITH,
but starting from the other one. But if ONE believes in a Truth, and
afterwards acts believing in the Opposite Truth I note the lack of
CONGRUENCY.
The Physics today cannot be unified by lack of congruency, and this
isnt a JUICE made starting from the Juice of the oters.
I am correct, and do not offend none.
But I am offended, becouse against my Epistemology Search, Goeorge
opposes his Juice, against mine.
To reveal my incongruency I am to be put in contraddiction with my
idea and not the George's one!
If he thinks that - so acting - he loves Epistemology, itsn't true,
because he doesn't contraddict me using my affirmations but... his.
A real control of 3+5=8 is made controlling this, on the base of this,
and not of the OPINIONS of George that says "it is not important. Pass
over!".
Or... "There is not the necessity to work for unifying the Physics,
and thi wark is time lost!"
Nothing, in the Physics is so important, how the Unification of what
is not Unified.
So these matters are directly involved with epistemology, in the line
of the most necessity, because if the UNIFICATION lacks there is a
reason. What is it?
I have found it. The Physic hasn't respected its general assumptions,
and I have numbered it: 1, 2, 3... till to 8, where one, one only out
be enough!
einseele
Jun 26, 2008, 10:34:39 AM6/26/08
to Epistemology
Hi Amoram
> Dear friend EPISTEMOLOGY is the rational control of all the Science's
> principles.
I dont think this first declaration is ok. As epistemology is just a
philosophic discipline dealing with knowledge.
So I dont see why I should accept words like rational control, and
Science's principles.
Anyway all views are welcome, but be careful, do not claim you are
some Church victim (church here equals physics), when you try to
impose your own view as well.
Being not religious at all, I do believe Faith is also a valid path to
knowledge, knowledge of what, well, knowledge of Faith's objects,
which are fascinating no doubt.
Absolute values are not possible within any language environment, and
Science, Faith, Theories, even Math are language domains
I dont know which is your mother tongue. Mine are Spanish and
Portuguese
And happens to be we have two different values for the word Absolute.
Absoluto and Absoluta, being the first a "he" and the second a "she".
So see how even the word absolute in my language is unable to mean
"Absolute".
There will be always a gap, expressed like decimal positions or who
knows through how many other forms.
The distance between the tool we use (words, signs) and the
information we try to point is always there.
We necessarily approach, so results like 8, 999999020228 (whatever)
are part of the endless game.
Descartes tried to bridge that gap, and may be he felt good for a
while. The only little detail he did not see was "I"
I exist is the very trap, should be better I "exists", but then we
need to enter poetry, (IMO the only valid path)
Physics also has a poetic side. Gravity, Space, Time, Universe, are
poetic words pointing to absolute concepts, among many others of
course.
Could anyone tell me which is the difference between Space/Time and
God. I'll tell you what, the only difference is that I feel bad when I
say God, but that is another thing, I believe
rgds
> Dear friend EPISTEMOLOGY is the rational control of all the Science's
> principles.
philosophic discipline dealing with knowledge.
So I dont see why I should accept words like rational control, and
Science's principles.
Anyway all views are welcome, but be careful, do not claim you are
some Church victim (church here equals physics), when you try to
impose your own view as well.
Being not religious at all, I do believe Faith is also a valid path to
knowledge, knowledge of what, well, knowledge of Faith's objects,
which are fascinating no doubt.
Absolute values are not possible within any language environment, and
Science, Faith, Theories, even Math are language domains
I dont know which is your mother tongue. Mine are Spanish and
Portuguese
And happens to be we have two different values for the word Absolute.
Absoluto and Absoluta, being the first a "he" and the second a "she".
So see how even the word absolute in my language is unable to mean
"Absolute".
There will be always a gap, expressed like decimal positions or who
knows through how many other forms.
The distance between the tool we use (words, signs) and the
information we try to point is always there.
We necessarily approach, so results like 8, 999999020228 (whatever)
are part of the endless game.
Descartes tried to bridge that gap, and may be he felt good for a
while. The only little detail he did not see was "I"
I exist is the very trap, should be better I "exists", but then we
need to enter poetry, (IMO the only valid path)
Physics also has a poetic side. Gravity, Space, Time, Universe, are
poetic words pointing to absolute concepts, among many others of
course.
Could anyone tell me which is the difference between Space/Time and
God. I'll tell you what, the only difference is that I feel bad when I
say God, but that is another thing, I believe
rgds
chazwin
Jun 26, 2008, 10:43:20 AM6/26/08
to Epistemology
On 26 Jun, 13:54, amoram <ra.amo...@libero.it> wrote:
> Dear friend EPISTEMOLOGY is the rational control of all the Science's
> principles.
> A serious control isn't based on the personal juice, and I don't
> control your in base to mine.
Becasue your words are gibberish. What, for example, do you mean by
"personal juice"?
You are acting in this way: you besed
> yours judices on me, basing on yours. You, so acting, are not students
> of Epistemology, but the CHURCH of the actual Faith in the Science.
>
> Wen I consider the Physics i Control it on the base not of mine VERB,
> but that of the same science.
> If PHISICS affirm: "An "Absolute" quantity cannot be derived in
> experimental way" I can control the Physical action on the base OF ITS
> AFFIRMATION.
> If I - so acting - discover that the PHYSIC affirms in a way and DOES
> in the opposit way, I do an important contribute.
> But if I enter in a CHURCH, and I do the same, to discover a bad
> interpretation of Jesus, I disturb the quiet of persons that don't
> desider to DO NOTHING of new.
>
> The Epistemology has or not the function to FOUND NEW MISTAKES?
> Or they all are already KNOWN and we can stop every research?
>
> Are really so disturbed from me, that have the courage to analize the
> existing, expecially when is more than 100 years that a problem is
> without solution?
>
> It is not a question of intelligence, or to be the village's foolish.
> I speake CLEAR: I do not do the axamination starting from my FAITH,
> but starting from the other one. But if ONE believes in a Truth, and
> afterwards acts believing in the Opposite Truth I note the lack of
> CONGRUENCY.
>
> The Physics today cannot be unified by lack of congruency, and this
> isnt a JUICE made starting from the Juice of the oters.
get from squeezing a beaver?
> I am correct, and do not offend none.
> But I am offended, becouse against my Epistemology Search, Goeorge
> opposes his Juice, against mine.
chazwin
Jun 26, 2008, 10:53:27 AM6/26/08
to Epistemology
On 26 Jun, 15:34, einseele <Einse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Amoram
>
> > Dear friend EPISTEMOLOGY is the rational control of all the Science's
> > principles.
>
> I dont think this first declaration is ok. As epistemology is just a
> philosophic discipline dealing with knowledge.
> So I dont see why I should accept words like rational control, and
> Science's principles.
>
> Anyway all views are welcome, but be careful, do not claim you are
> some Church victim (church here equals physics), when you try to
> impose your own view as well.
>
> Being not religious at all, I do believe Faith is also a valid path to
> knowledge, knowledge of what, well, knowledge of Faith's objects,
> which are fascinating no doubt.
any kind of knowledge. Study, evidence and reason are paths to
knowledge. Faith is nothing more than the path to belief.
It is possible to "take on faith" some knowledge, as a priori
information by which you can acquire more knowledge. But this "faith"
is only in the sense of trust, whereby one can trust the results of
another's empirical and experiential evidence without having direct
contact with the material in question. But this is not the same as
taking on Faith beliefs for which no a posteriori evidence can be
available or possible. To take on such beliefs can only lead to
contradiction, confusion and more unsupportable beliefs.
>
> Absolute values are not possible within any language environment, and
> Science, Faith, Theories, even Math are language domains
>
> I dont know which is your mother tongue. Mine are Spanish and
> Portuguese
einseele
Jun 26, 2008, 11:13:41 AM6/26/08
to Epistemology
Hi chaz
> Do you know what Amoram means by "juice"?
I believe Amoram tries to say judgement, opinion, good sense, etc.
"juice" reminds me "juicio" the word in Spanish for that
> Do you know what Amoram means by "juice"?
"juice" reminds me "juicio" the word in Spanish for that
archytas
Jun 27, 2008, 10:23:39 AM6/27/08
to Epistemology
It seems to me that we put stories together in the hope we are getting
things right. Science and being reasonable where we can makes us seek
evidence. Sure, this may swirl in the theory of the story, but
there's a point where we can have faith in evidence rather than the
story world-view and any faith that requires. There is ability in
spinning the yarn (poetics?) AND in working out demonstration - plus a
need to accept how one is relating concepts in a frame. At some times
it is acceptable to hold competing theories or stories as possible, to
hold to symbolic interpretation, but it is surely not acceptable to
use specious bollox other than for prudential reasons (such as
believing in aroma therapy because it is easing you path to death to
do so). We always evaluate against a relational field - and sometimes
if that field is exposed so is the daftness of the argument.
things right. Science and being reasonable where we can makes us seek
evidence. Sure, this may swirl in the theory of the story, but
there's a point where we can have faith in evidence rather than the
story world-view and any faith that requires. There is ability in
spinning the yarn (poetics?) AND in working out demonstration - plus a
need to accept how one is relating concepts in a frame. At some times
it is acceptable to hold competing theories or stories as possible, to
hold to symbolic interpretation, but it is surely not acceptable to
use specious bollox other than for prudential reasons (such as
believing in aroma therapy because it is easing you path to death to
do so). We always evaluate against a relational field - and sometimes
if that field is exposed so is the daftness of the argument.
nominal9
Jun 30, 2008, 11:06:25 AM6/30/08
to Epistemology
Howdy Chazwin....
I was wondering the same thing, myself..... but (unlike you) I have an
"empathy" for people who may not completely understand the English
Language (been there myself).... sometimes such people just try to do
a "sounds like" direct "transferrence".... here's a possibility that
makes some sense to me ....
http://dictionary.reverso.net/italian-english/il%20giudizio%20universale
nominal9
> > > Amoram's postings are nothing better than gibberish.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I was wondering the same thing, myself..... but (unlike you) I have an
"empathy" for people who may not completely understand the English
Language (been there myself).... sometimes such people just try to do
a "sounds like" direct "transferrence".... here's a possibility that
makes some sense to me ....
http://dictionary.reverso.net/italian-english/il%20giudizio%20universale
nominal9
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
archytas
Jul 1, 2008, 1:15:59 AM7/1/08
to Epistemology
Apparently English is an odd language in that it is structured
differently from how everyone uses visual language in stuff like
charades. I note scientific language is far too hard for mere mortals
in the humanities (Guradian yesterday) - oops - Grauniad!
differently from how everyone uses visual language in stuff like
charades. I note scientific language is far too hard for mere mortals
in the humanities (Guradian yesterday) - oops - Grauniad!
nominal9
Jul 1, 2008, 12:08:20 PM7/1/08
to Epistemology
Grauniad... eh????
Sounds like a newspaper after my own heart.... damn the editors....
bane of the earth.... anal-retentive, pycayune, "Nitpicking".....
Figurative Kapos in the prison camps of abridging Free Speech.....
I searched for that Guardian entry on scientific language vis-a-vis
the humanities, Archytas. I couldn't find it on the internet, and I
don't have access to the "hard-copy".... What did it say? Somebody
picking a fight????
nominal9
Sounds like a newspaper after my own heart.... damn the editors....
bane of the earth.... anal-retentive, pycayune, "Nitpicking".....
Figurative Kapos in the prison camps of abridging Free Speech.....
I searched for that Guardian entry on scientific language vis-a-vis
the humanities, Archytas. I couldn't find it on the internet, and I
don't have access to the "hard-copy".... What did it say? Somebody
picking a fight????
nominal9
archytas
Jul 1, 2008, 12:49:35 PM7/1/08
to Epistemology
The Guardian was once the Manchester Guardian and famed for spelling
mistakes - hence Grauniad is the nickname. Guardian.co.uk would
probably show the article - it really only involved checking grades
against criteria of intelligence and discovering you can gey English
Literature and sociology grade A fpr a few tokens, whilst chemistry
and so on are harder. I think critical reasoning really picks people
out as a subject rather than science versus humanities as some from
both sides are good at this and most are nearly useless.
mistakes - hence Grauniad is the nickname. Guardian.co.uk would
probably show the article - it really only involved checking grades
against criteria of intelligence and discovering you can gey English
Literature and sociology grade A fpr a few tokens, whilst chemistry
and so on are harder. I think critical reasoning really picks people
out as a subject rather than science versus humanities as some from
both sides are good at this and most are nearly useless.
chazwin
Jul 2, 2008, 10:35:05 AM7/2/08
to Epistemology
Don't think it is fair to say that I have no empathy for those that do
not completely understand English. At the risk of having George hit
me with his "village idiot" accusation, I can say that I have only one
language and have had to overcome Dyslexia to be able to clearly
express the massed ranks of crowded thoughts that so need to come out
of my brain. I did not utter a word until I was five and used my
brother as a channel for my wishes with a private language only he
understood. My first words were long sentences with clauses that only
adults would fully understand. Writing came slowly but I am getting
there at 48.
not completely understand English. At the risk of having George hit
me with his "village idiot" accusation, I can say that I have only one
language and have had to overcome Dyslexia to be able to clearly
express the massed ranks of crowded thoughts that so need to come out
of my brain. I did not utter a word until I was five and used my
brother as a channel for my wishes with a private language only he
understood. My first words were long sentences with clauses that only
adults would fully understand. Writing came slowly but I am getting
there at 48.
amoram
Jul 2, 2008, 12:00:18 PM7/2/08
to Epistemology
On 26 Giu, 16:34, einseele <Einse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Amoram
>
> > Dear friend EPISTEMOLOGY is the rational control of all the Science's
> > principles.
>
> I dont think this first declaration is ok. As epistemology is just a
> philosophic discipline dealing with knowledge.
> So I dont see why I should accept words like rational control, and
> Science's principles.
>
the Phylosofy, that is love for the knowledge.
The "rational control" is just the aim of any phylosofy.
The "science's principles" is the knowledge in science. Not I speake
of "First Princilpe of the Dynamic Law", but the science.
> Anyway all views are welcome, but be careful, do not claim you are
> some Church victim (church here equals physics), when you try to
> impose your own view as well.
necessary to do in this way", and afterwards you are incoherent, I
look only this: the coherency of a sistem. I'm not a victim.
But the difficult, when anyone tries a new way, in original way, is
the mass of whom don't do how you, that explain your judgement. Then
the opposition really seems to be how is a man of FATH... in the
actual science, that he see attacked, and it is not so. I look for
give my apport.
>
> Being not religious at all, I do believe Faith is also a valid path to
> knowledge, knowledge of what, well, knowledge of Faith's objects,
> which are fascinating no doubt.
>
> Absolute values are not possible within any language environment, and
> Science, Faith, Theories, even Math are language domains
>
> I dont know which is your mother tongue. Mine are Spanish and
> Portuguese
My mother language is the italian, and my english is very bad.
> Being not religious at all, I do believe Faith is also a valid path to
> knowledge, knowledge of what, well, knowledge of Faith's objects,
> which are fascinating no doubt.
>
> Absolute values are not possible within any language environment, and
> Science, Faith, Theories, even Math are language domains
>
> I dont know which is your mother tongue. Mine are Spanish and
> Portuguese
Patience! The world speakes in this language and in Italy the
Epistemology is that of a little Country, also if Italy is the Culture
Place...
>
> And happens to be we have two different values for the word Absolute.
> Absoluto and Absoluta, being the first a "he" and the second a "she".
> So see how even the word absolute in my language is unable to mean
> "Absolute".
>
It is clear! ABSOLUTE - without any article - for me means ALL, the
> And happens to be we have two different values for the word Absolute.
> Absoluto and Absoluta, being the first a "he" and the second a "she".
> So see how even the word absolute in my language is unable to mean
> "Absolute".
>
whole, TODO (em portugues). Means what has no reference to other, how
the matematical ratio 10/0, indeterminated one how the absolute.
I can say that the water that is is 10. If I don't explain 10 of what,
10 in a absolute quantity. I can measure it, tooking 1/10 of 10, so,
with 1/10, I count 9 other decimals, and my calculus is gotten UNITARY
ONE, because I measure through 1, the other 9 parts.
> There will be always a gap, expressed like decimal positions or who
> knows through how many other forms.
> The distance between the tool we use (words, signs) and the
> information we try to point is always there.
> We necessarily approach, so results like 8, 999999020228 (whatever)
> are part of the endless game.
>
> Descartes tried to bridge that gap, and may be he felt good for a
> while. The only little detail he did not see was "I"
> I exist is the very trap, should be better I "exists", but then we
> need to enter poetry, (IMO the only valid path)
> Physics also has a poetic side. Gravity, Space, Time, Universe, are
> poetic words pointing to absolute concepts, among many others of
> course.
Science (epistemology) is ambitious one: I desire to be a Phylosofer
and not one that speakes of the other's philosphy.
>
> Could anyone tell me which is the difference between Space/Time and
> God. I'll tell you what, the only difference is that I feel bad when I
> say God, but that is another thing, I believe
>
I preove to tel you, doing the philosofer:
> Could anyone tell me which is the difference between Space/Time and
> God. I'll tell you what, the only difference is that I feel bad when I
> say God, but that is another thing, I believe
>
God is the System of all the possibilities that exist, as a projet
binari founded on 0 and 1 (what exists in power, and what exist in the
act of the calculus N^0=1)
God if the ABSOLUTE LAW that orders the General Relativity.
Since Absolute and Realtive are in Relation (being Relative Just for
this reason) and since we are also passion, love, ideals... the
certain Relation exists also with these mind's qualities, and, to the
I of the man, the absolute spakes as an I, ane Ego.
The space/time is the concemption of the mind of the men, mind that is
GOD, in our relative contest, with our Relative Cross.
We, in fact, have the "divine" quality to Create also the space/time,
as a way to realize the idea of our world.
Space/time, in fact, are two inverser worth. For example: the space of
1 Film can be divided in 2 times. When it is so, we have the film
space divided in two times.
When di division if by 3, we have three 1/3, where 3 is Big, is the
space, and 1/3, its inverse, is the "part", the "time" of the unit.
When the reality is 10^4, and it has 16 quantities, this 16/1 is
"space" of 1, while 1/16 is "time" of one.
This a system to understand.
So, being we GOD, in our essence (and not in the quantity), the space/
time is our creation, of our brain.
>
> - Mostra testo citato
amoram
Jul 2, 2008, 12:24:56 PM7/2/08
to Epistemology
On 26 Giu, 16:43, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 26 Jun, 13:54, amoram <ra.amo...@libero.it> wrote:
>
> > Dear friend EPISTEMOLOGY is the rational control of all the Science's
> > principles.
> > A serious control isn't based on the personal juice, and I don't
> > control your in base to mine.
>
> Can you answer a simple question? Are you using an online translator?
> Becasue your words are gibberish. What, for example, do you mean by
> "personal juice"?
>
> You are acting in this way: you besed
>
besed"
> > yours judices on me, basing on yours. You, so acting, are not students
> > of Epistemology, but the CHURCH of the actual Faith in the Science.
>
> Meaning is lost here too.
The meaning is that if I try to do use of the reason, and one says
> > yours judices on me, basing on yours. You, so acting, are not students
> > of Epistemology, but the CHURCH of the actual Faith in the Science.
>
> Meaning is lost here too.
"it's wrong!" without explain becouse it is wrong, he do a affirmation
of FAITH, in that which è think the reaon, without explaining it.
>
>
>
> > Wen I consider the Physics i Control it on the base not of mine VERB,
> > but that of the same science.
>
> Ditto.
>
Wat's the means of "Ditto"? Already said?
>
>
> > Wen I consider the Physics i Control it on the base not of mine VERB,
> > but that of the same science.
>
> Ditto.
>
My coherence control is made on the single affirmations. If Science
says that the absoluta cannot be derived in experimental way... and do
properly in this way... it is a lack of coherency.
>
>
>
> > If PHISICS affirm: "An "Absolute" quantity cannot be derived in
> > experimental way" I can control the Physical action on the base OF ITS
> > AFFIRMATION.
> > If I - so acting - discover that the PHYSIC affirms in a way and DOES
> > in the opposit way, I do an important contribute.
> > But if I enter in a CHURCH, and I do the same, to discover a bad
> > interpretation of Jesus, I disturb the quiet of persons that don't
> > desider to DO NOTHING of new.
>
> > The Epistemology has or not the function to FOUND NEW MISTAKES?
> > Or they all are already KNOWN and we can stop every research?
>
> > Are really so disturbed from me, that have the courage to analize the
> > existing, expecially when is more than 100 years that a problem is
> > without solution?
>
> > It is not a question of intelligence, or to be the village's foolish.
> > I speake CLEAR: I do not do the axamination starting from my FAITH,
> > but starting from the other one. But if ONE believes in a Truth, and
> > afterwards acts believing in the Opposite Truth I note the lack of
> > CONGRUENCY.
>
> Eh what?
>
This lack of coherency:
>
>
> > If PHISICS affirm: "An "Absolute" quantity cannot be derived in
> > experimental way" I can control the Physical action on the base OF ITS
> > AFFIRMATION.
> > If I - so acting - discover that the PHYSIC affirms in a way and DOES
> > in the opposit way, I do an important contribute.
> > But if I enter in a CHURCH, and I do the same, to discover a bad
> > interpretation of Jesus, I disturb the quiet of persons that don't
> > desider to DO NOTHING of new.
>
> > The Epistemology has or not the function to FOUND NEW MISTAKES?
> > Or they all are already KNOWN and we can stop every research?
>
> > Are really so disturbed from me, that have the courage to analize the
> > existing, expecially when is more than 100 years that a problem is
> > without solution?
>
> > It is not a question of intelligence, or to be the village's foolish.
> > I speake CLEAR: I do not do the axamination starting from my FAITH,
> > but starting from the other one. But if ONE believes in a Truth, and
> > afterwards acts believing in the Opposite Truth I note the lack of
> > CONGRUENCY.
>
> Eh what?
>
1) The ABSOLUTE cannot be derived through an experiment.
2) I obtain the ABSOLUTE light speed through an experiment.
More clear than this...
Now the mistake of whom derived the light speed through an experiment
was not so simple. The "absolute" of c^2 was demanded by Einstein.
But the ABSOLUTE SPEED isn't a real speed!
Space/time has the form of a speed, but can be a pure disposition
between the 3 dimension of the cube system and the dimension 1 of the
linear advancement of the light.
This 3/1 is a PRESENCE, and the ABSOLUTE SPEED must regard a presence,
and non a movement.
All the Univers exists as its 3/1 presence, while the light speed
needs millions and millions of light yeas to be runned all.
>
>
> > The Physics today cannot be unified by lack of congruency, and this
> > isnt a JUICE made starting from the Juice of the oters.
>
> Well I've never tried the juice of otters. Is it the same stuff as you
> get from squeezing a beaver?
>
> > I am correct, and do not offend none.
>
> This is a double negative and implies that you offend everyone.
>
Excuse my poor language!
>
> > The Physics today cannot be unified by lack of congruency, and this
> > isnt a JUICE made starting from the Juice of the oters.
>
> Well I've never tried the juice of otters. Is it the same stuff as you
> get from squeezing a beaver?
>
> > I am correct, and do not offend none.
>
> This is a double negative and implies that you offend everyone.
>
> > But I am offended, becouse against my Epistemology Search, Goeorge
> > opposes his Juice, against mine.
>
> hehehe Can you PLEASE tell us all what you think "juice" is?
>
JUICE in English. I tried to say that George sayd his opinion.
George has done it, saing "asnerie", or "non sense" my pure
explanations. >
> > > Amoram's postings are nothing better than gibberish.- Nascondi testo citato
>
> - Mostra testo citato- Nascondi testo citato
>
>
> - Mostra testo citato
nominal9
Jul 4, 2008, 7:41:32 PM7/4/08
to Epistemology
Howdy Chazwin... no offense meant on my part.
I have never had Dyslexia, so I cannot even dare to say that I
understand what you've gone through, Chazwin. But then, let's be fair
abouyt it... in your post at issue, you did "seem" to make some
humours fun about Amoram's plight.... "he he he"... Nothing wrong
with having a chuckle , in good fun, I wrote on Mind's Eye" recently
that laughter derives from a situation of a "knowing" person deririnfg
an "ignorant" person's mistakes.....Irony or Satire.... I gave my take
on them on Mind's Eye. I also askd the "moral" or "ethical" question
of whether it is a KIND think to do to derive the "pleasure" of
ridicule at any other person' s ignorance... However, it is a
certainty that KIND or NOT ridicule of ignorance happens all the time
by almost everyone.... even perhaps as an "involuntary" refelex, of
sorts.
But here's a psychological quetion for you, Chazwin.... What do you
think of the "Common Usage" notion (even proven in some actual bona
fide studies) that a victim of abuse often becomes an similar abuser
in his or her own right.... Would I be imposing on our friendship (I
like to think it is fairly genuine from my side) if I ask you,
Chazwin, whether it may be the case that you feel some desire or
"reflez" to ridicule the language expression "ignorance" of others
[perhaps because you yourself were exposed to so much of that sort of
ridicule, yourself?.... But then, often Psychology makes mountains out
of mole hills.... Ireally did not think that you transgressed all that
much in your comments about Amoram... Chazwin.
nominal9
I have never had Dyslexia, so I cannot even dare to say that I
understand what you've gone through, Chazwin. But then, let's be fair
abouyt it... in your post at issue, you did "seem" to make some
humours fun about Amoram's plight.... "he he he"... Nothing wrong
with having a chuckle , in good fun, I wrote on Mind's Eye" recently
that laughter derives from a situation of a "knowing" person deririnfg
an "ignorant" person's mistakes.....Irony or Satire.... I gave my take
on them on Mind's Eye. I also askd the "moral" or "ethical" question
of whether it is a KIND think to do to derive the "pleasure" of
ridicule at any other person' s ignorance... However, it is a
certainty that KIND or NOT ridicule of ignorance happens all the time
by almost everyone.... even perhaps as an "involuntary" refelex, of
sorts.
But here's a psychological quetion for you, Chazwin.... What do you
think of the "Common Usage" notion (even proven in some actual bona
fide studies) that a victim of abuse often becomes an similar abuser
in his or her own right.... Would I be imposing on our friendship (I
like to think it is fairly genuine from my side) if I ask you,
Chazwin, whether it may be the case that you feel some desire or
"reflez" to ridicule the language expression "ignorance" of others
[perhaps because you yourself were exposed to so much of that sort of
ridicule, yourself?.... But then, often Psychology makes mountains out
of mole hills.... Ireally did not think that you transgressed all that
much in your comments about Amoram... Chazwin.
nominal9
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages