Fwd: Page 2) Re: reddit/com/u/Pt-Ir_parsec (**G***rave*) (formatt!ng om^tted)

2 views
Skip to first unread message

LXXQLa-5n5w#v5Ok3_l1Opc: I%am\^/priori;VfsS-0ffVyw

unread,
Apr 28, 2016, 4:34:23 AM4/28/16
to cxmpl...@googlegroups.com
f
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rp-discuss/OHtP-cNy5jM/k1uUK46H89EJ
On Monday, October 13, 2014 at 11:02:30 AM UTC-6, LXXQLa-5n5w#v5Ok3_l1Opc: I%am\^/priori;VfsS-0ffVyw wrote:
https://www.reddit.com/user/Pt-Ir_parsec/?count=25&after=t3_2iq6wx

When will the worldclass physicists earn the ^my certificate of equi-valence in high school (T|) Geometry? The i'nherent **Un**certainty ofF I'deal Mutual Reciprocity; by Pt-Ir_parsecin askscience

[–]Pt-Ir_parsec[S] 1 point 4 days ago 

OP: When will the worldclass physicists earn the my certificate of equi-valence in high school (T|) Geometry? The i'nherent Uncertainty ofF I'deal Mutual Reciprocity;

Every individual to ever take a hard look at the derivation of the mathematical constant commonly referred to as Pi (T| hereafter), has concluded that it is "irrational". Most people know, by rote, T| = the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter. Basic dimensional analysis demands that the irrational unit on the T| side of the equation be matched by irrationality on the obverse|reverse side as well?

I have not counted the number of equations wherein the worldclass physicists encounter T|. Nor do I know how many or few of them may be solved for T| isolation-wise, versus recursion-wise. Either way, the superficially negligent way in which deference is not paid to the fundamental irrationality leads to a great deal of popular confusion about the nature of physical calculations: i.e. the sense of rational materiality domineers the (metaphysical) Truth of i'deality.

Granted, the "x" factor "rapidly" approaches unity, but still, for propriety, that x-factor should be carried through all "physical" equations that include T|.and then, remains the rest of the irrational numbers of intere$+G~race!!!

salud

"The universe is different than our everyday experience" -- Sean Carroll by mobydikcin DebateAnAtheist

[–]Pt-Ir_parsec -1 points 5 days ago 

/u/MetalHeel, attn /u/mobydikc,

The only thing they couldn't do is say or write their god's name.

I'm a bit rusty as far as physics goes, by now; but, I do have a strong background, such that I can say that there are about a bagillion equations which can be solved for the mathematician's' Pi. I got a bunch of flack yesterday for allegedly refusing to provide a P.proof for "soul", yet, every person who has ever taken a good hard look into his Pi hole, confirms IRRATIONAL! What physical evidence, then, do we have for the reality of such a phantom?: none.Idolatrous Faith What evidence, then, do we have for the ideality of such a Phantom?: that's Personal.

To be sure, seems that anyone capable of such maths would benefit from, - as they are themselves the a priori being under scrutiny, - deriving their own irrational infinitude. To be super sure, what shall we call it?: "the cardio-pulmonary operator"?, goes a little somethin' like this:

sqrt(2+sqrt(2+sqrt(2+sqrt(2+sqrt(2+sqrt(2+sqrt(2+sqrt(2+sqrt(2+sqrt(2+sqrt(2+sqrt(2+sqrt(2+sqrt(2+sqrt(2+sqrt(2+sqrt(2+sqrt(2+sqrt(2+sqrt(2+sqrt(2+sqrt(2+sqrt(2+sqrt(2+sqrt(2+sqrt(2+sqrt(2+sqrt(2+sqrt(2+sqrt(2+sqrt(2+sqrt(2+sqrt(2+sqrt(2+sqrt(2+sqrt(2+sqrt(2+sqrt(2+sqrt(2+sqrt(2+sqrt(2+sqrt(2+sqrt(2+sqrt(2+sqrt(2+sqrt(2+sqrt(2+sqrt(2+sqrt(2+sqrt(2+sqrt(2+sqrt(2+sqrt(2+sqrt(2+sqrt(2+sqrt(2+sqrt(2+sqrt(2+sqrt(2+sqrt(2+sqrt(2+sqrt(2+sqrt(2+sqrt(2+sqrt(2+

Arguments against an impersonal, non-agent God? by mobydikcin DebateAnAtheist

[–]Pt-Ir_parsec 0 points 5 days ago 

I rarely encounter religion in my daily life.

...

Good vibrations. Harmony.

,OP /u/mobydikc.

so much for self consistency?, you falliable universe you;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Polanyi#All_knowing_is_personal

"Rob Base & DJ EZ Rock - It Takes Two"

http://books.google.com/books?id=vAIQAAAAYAAJ&ots=w5XKmPBykt&dq=The%20limits%20of%20Evolution%20howison&pg=PA308#v=onepage&q&f=false "The objector who would open the eternal permanence of the soul to doubt, then, must assail the proofs of *a priori* knowledge;" by Pt-Ir_parsecin DebateAnAtheist

[–]Pt-Ir_parsec[S] 1 point 5 days ago 

/u/Morkelebmink (in full, 8 hours ago as I cliqued),

Someone translate this into english for me please, I have no idea what I'm looking at. I think it's instructions on how to build a stereo, but I'm not sure.

we are anti-debating the legitimacy of the "I". For myself, "'I' am never broken."; for my "pets", something oh so "shifting sands" about their continued use of "I" whilst crying out all the while "I don't believe! Prove (I wont be bothered to highlight the 'ornication of their unproved - and unprovable - wannabe elsewise material interjections) it."

They say immersion is the quickest way to learn language. And you certainly, as a rug rat in your parents' abode, didn't utter as your first, "translate this into goo-goo ga-ga for me please". At least, not per se.

But, if you want to speak with some who have disdaint =x="And we speak about them not with words taught by human wisdom, but with words taught by the Spirit, describing spiritual realities in spiritual terms"-[1 Corinthians 2:13], try, if you Will/care, "moq_discuss" @ moq.org.

I first found and read Howison in April, 2011. Here is a link to my first MD post, Nov 1, 2010; which was, for the record, my first sacramental foray into internet bechainment: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/2010-November/055424.html (forgive the formatting that got "lost in translation").

K.M.A. http://blog.ted.com/2011/03/15/the-sound-the-universe-makes-janna-levin-on-ted-com/

http://books.google.com/books?id=vAIQAAAAYAAJ&ots=w5XKmPBykt&dq=The%20limits%20of%20Evolution%20howison&pg=PA308#v=onepage&q&f=false "The objector who would open the eternal permanence of the soul to doubt, then, must assail the proofs of *a priori* knowledge;" by Pt-Ir_parsecin DebateAnAtheist

[–]Pt-Ir_parsec[S] 0 points 6 days ago 

/u/deten (in full),

Okay but the point remains.since you are not taking the effort to show address my comment I suspect you are not here to debate.

"The objector who would open the eternal permanence of the soul to doubt, then, must assail the proofs of a priori knowledge;"

http://books.google.com/books?id=vAIQAAAAYAAJ&ots=w5XKmPBykt&dq=The%20limits%20of%20Evolution%20howison&pg=PA308#v=onepage&q&f=false

"I remain but eternally-unassailed."

http://books.google.com/books?id=vAIQAAAAYAAJ&ots=w5XKmPBykt&dq=The%20limits%20of%20Evolution%20howison&pg=PA308#v=onepage&q&f=false "The objector who would open the eternal permanence of the soul to doubt, then, must assail the proofs of *a priori* knowledge;" by Pt-Ir_parsecin DebateAnAtheist

[–]Pt-Ir_parsec[S] 0 points 6 days ago 

/u/deten (in full),

By definition souls last forever. I do not contest that. I contest that souls even exist at all. I have not seen any evidence for them.

Eternal is not a synonym for "forever". Noumenal means: standing rooted 'beyond' phenomenal contingency.

I remain but eternally-unassailed.

http://books.google.com/books?id=vAIQAAAAYAAJ&ots=w5XKmPBykt&dq=The%20limits%20of%20Evolution%20howison&pg=PA308#v=onepage&q&f=false "The objector who would open the eternal permanence of the soul to doubt, then, must assail the proofs of *a priori* knowledge;" by Pt-Ir_parsecin DebateAnAtheist

[–]Pt-Ir_parsec[S] -1 points 6 days ago 

/u/cjdeist92 (in full),

So are you just a spammer? Cuz even for a troll, this is outstandingly stupid and lazy.

"Howison's Limits":

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/lilasquad/GLHdhQg9Dgw

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/55128-my-most-cherished-resource/?p=836957



On Monday, October 13, 2014 11:00:00 AM UTC-6, Whiqh? is sxlfordinat\e; I~am, apriori cxmplxplura wrote:

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages