On 2 Apr, 23:24, wrote:

(1)
The universe is an hypersphere surface. The universe is the boundary
of the 4th dimension. The universe came from nothing and is nowhere.
There is no outside of the Hypersphere. There is only one hypersphere.
There can be only one universe because this universe goes on forever.
Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008

Because I was attacked with regard to George Hammond, who has
curiously disappeared, perhaps he has been too busy, I have hesitated
to comment.
************************************************** ***********************************
There are three sorts of propositions that make any sense to me at
all:

(1)
True by definition. As above, though what you write is quite
incomprehensible to me! All the same, is it capable of being false?
In Godelian terms, for example?

(2)
All your other propositions. True in our experience, yet
experimentally refutable. Yes or No!

(3) synthetic a priori?
Quaternions; transistors, for example? [Dodgy category!]

******************************
'foolsrushin.'

On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 16:39:05 -0700 (PDT), "foolsrushin."
wrote:

On 2 Apr, 23:24, wrote:

(1)
The universe is an hypersphere surface. The universe is the boundary
of the 4th dimension. The universe came from nothing and is nowhere.
There is no outside of the Hypersphere. There is only one hypersphere.
There can be only one universe because this universe goes on forever.
Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008

Because I was attacked with regard to George Hammond, who has
curiously disappeared, perhaps he has been too busy, I have hesitated
to comment.


[Hammond]
I haven't gone anywhere... just got bored talking to
morons.
Meanwhile, I find your observation that there is nothing
"outside" the universe to be interesting. Let me put it
this way: Do you think there is anything "outside" of human
reality? What I mean is: If everyone died at 9am tomorrow
morning; do you think the "World" would still exist? If so-
how would you prove it at 9:01 am? After all, if you can't
prove it exists, even in principle, then it doesn't exist!
=====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
=====================================

On Apr 2, 7:39*pm, "foolsrushin." wrote:
On 2 Apr, 23:24, wrote:

(1)

The universe is an hypersphere surface. The universe is the boundary
of the 4th dimension. The universe came from nothing and is nowhere.
There is no outside of the Hypersphere. There is only one hypersphere.
There can be only one universe because this universe goes on forever.
Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008

Because I was attacked with regard to George Hammond, who has
curiously disappeared, perhaps he has been too busy, I have hesitated
to comment.
************************************************** ************************************
There are three sorts of propositions that make any sense to me at
all:

(1)
True by definition. As above, though what you write is quite
incomprehensible to me! All the same, is it capable of being false?
In Godelian terms, for example?

(2)
All your other propositions. True in our experience, yet
experimentally refutable. Yes or No!

(3) synthetic a priori?
Quaternions; transistors, for example? [Dodgy category!]

******************************
'foolsrushin.'

xxein: Why bother. He has no info.

But, otoh, since we have no firm physical description to date, all
guesses are welcome.

BUT we cannot just make 'wild' guesses. They have to have a
connection to our observation. This does not mean that our
observation is the 'end all-be all'. "Connection".

We already know of the Doppler effect. Connection to observation.
There are probably as many connections like this known as unknown.

When we make guesses, we make them only upon what we think we know.
We do not create a science based upon unknowns. But what do we really
know?

Turn the wheels of science backwards and examine each 'discovery' in
the context in which it was 'discovered'. Hardly impressive. But it
seems to be better as empirical knowledge increases.

Oops! There where some great insights. My bad. But half of them are
still mushroom dreams. Especially as we get more emperical
measurement. How does that happen?

Well, we get more confident as we see and measure our predictions.
The bus or train arrives in a time. But we still tend to ignore (in
science) what causes the events to happen. We simply accept a "broad"
explanation.

But this explanation includes only the methods and measurements that
we choose to use as a measure of our science.

We break our backs to include new and different measurements
(especially the exotic) to within a current framework. What's wrong
with this picture?

Aside from thinking in our own invented framework, we know practically
nothing. We need a science that can stand on a framework of it's own,
rather than what we believe of it.

This is what we should call a reality. I do not know why "our
science" continually avoids this notion except for a flaw in our
thinking that makes us believe in (and through) the past.

On Apr 2, 8:41*pm, George Hammond wrote:
On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 16:39:05 -0700 (PDT), "foolsrushin."

wrote:
On 2 Apr, 23:24, wrote:

[Hammond]
* *I haven't gone anywhere... just got bored talking to
morons.
* *Meanwhile, I find your observation that there is nothing
"outside" the universe to be interesting. *Let me put it
this way: *Do you think there is anything "outside" of human
reality? *What I mean is: *If everyone died at 9am tomorrow
morning; do you think the "World" would still exist? *If so-
how would you prove it at 9:01 am? *After all, if you can't
prove it exists, even in principle, then it doesn't exist!

xxein: I'm not sure of your point here.

If you want to say that there exists a reality beyond a mere human
understanding and the existence of human brains, I agree.

But if you want to say that there is God that created all this, I have
to disagree. That can only be the product of your mind. 9:01.
Remember? No! You cannot. 9:01 means you do not exist to have such
a thought.

I don't think the universe will cease to exist if you or I can no
longer contemplate it.

Now, without us, is the universe still God's play-toy? Maybe.

Is this the only universe? Is this the only God?

As you ponder that, ponder this. Where did a notion of a god come
from? It came from some recreation within the human mind. 9:01. God
is gone. You cannot evangelize any more.

Why did you even start?

On 3 Apr, 01:41, George Hammond wrote:
On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 16:39:05 -0700 (PDT), "foolsrushin."

wrote:
On 2 Apr, 23:24, wrote:

(1)
The universe is an hypersphere surface. The universe is the boundary
of the 4th dimension. The universe came from nothing and is nowhere.
There is no outside of the Hypersphere. There is only one hypersphere.
There can be only one universe because this universe goes on forever.
Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008

Because I was attacked with regard to George Hammond, who has
curiously disappeared, perhaps he has been too busy, I have hesitated
to comment.

[Hammond]
* *I haven't gone anywhere... just got bored talking to
morons.
Meanwhile, I find your observation that there is nothing
"outside" the universe to be interesting. *Let me put it
this way: *Do you think there is anything "outside" of human
reality? *What I mean is: *If everyone died at 9am tomorrow
morning [excepting you, mate!]; do you think the "World" would still exist? *If so how would you prove it at 9:01 am? *After all, if you can't
prove it exists, even in principle, then it doesn't exist!

Wake up: get out of bed! I'd say, though, that the proposition 'Snow
fell on the date of Socrates' birth is either true or false'. To say
it is neither, would seem to be absoid! Yet its truth is
indeterminable! Thus, there are propositions whose truth is in
principle unknowable... . An there must be an indeterminably large
number ...? Maybe not! Think.

=====================================
* * *SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
*http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
* *mirror site:
*http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
* * * GOD=G_uv * (a folk song on mp3)
*http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
=====================================

Don't take the ****, Hammond. Read: you don't strike me as stoopid!
--
'foolsrushin..

xxein wrote:

Why did you even start?

xeah, that's the Point ;-)


--

On Apr 2, 7:01*pm, "foolsrushin." wrote:
On 3 Apr, 01:41, George Hammond wrote:
On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 16:39:05 -0700 (PDT), "foolsrushin."
wrote:
On 2 Apr, 23:24, wrote:
(1)
The universe is an hypersphere surface. The universe is the boundary
of the 4th dimension. The universe came from nothing and is nowhere.
There is no outside of the Hypersphere. There is only one hypersphere..
There can be only one universe because this universe goes on forever.
Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008

Because I was attacked with regard to George Hammond, who has
curiously disappeared, perhaps he has been too busy, I have hesitated
to comment.

[Hammond]
I haven't gone anywhere... just got bored talking to
morons.
Meanwhile, I find your observation that there is nothing
"outside" the universe to be interesting. *Let me put it
this way: *Do you think there is anything "outside" of human
reality? *What I mean is: *If everyone died at 9am tomorrow
morning [excepting you, mate!]; do you think the "World" would still exist? *If so how would you prove it at 9:01 am? *After all, if you can't
prove it exists, even in principle, then it doesn't exist!

Wake up: get out of bed! I'd say, though, that the proposition 'Snow
fell on the date of Socrates' birth is either true or false'. To say
it is neither, would seem to be absoid! Yet its truth is
indeterminable! Thus, there are propositions whose truth is in
principle unknowable... . An there must be an indeterminably large
number ...? Maybe not! Think.


Indeterminability or undeterminability has in the past been called
antinomy. Antinomies are contradictions that follow necessarily from
our attempts to conceive the nature of reality beyound the boundries
of our ability to sense things. Antinomies cannot be resolved and
attempts to conceive the reality beyond the representations derived
from sensory impulses will always produce irresolvable contradictions.
This does not mean that there is no reality beyond our snesibility or
that attempts to conceive things as they are in the world vs things as
they appear are meaningless. They are necessitated by reason and logic
itself. It does mean, however, that the transcendent defeats rational
representation.

Speculative reason will be mis-applied beyond the limits of possible
experience while considering such topics. The contradiction arises
because valid arguments can be made in favour of two or more views
each with some probable evidence. If unresolved antimonies could lead
to 'the euthanasia of pure reason' (AKA skepticism).

They are contradictory, but validly proven pairs of claims that reason
is compelled toward. The contradictory claims could both be proven
because they both shared the mistaken metaphysical assumption that we
can have knowledge of things as they are in themselves, independent of
the conditions of our experience of them.

An antinomy produces a self-contradiction by accepted ways of
reasoning. It establishes that some tacit and trusted pattern of
reasoning must be made explicit and henceforward be avoided or
revised.

http://www.faithnet.org.uk/Philosophy/kant.htm
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=antinomy+kant

It is easy to doubt the claims of the Rationalists because of
Antinomies, or contradictory, but validly proven pairs of claims that
reason is compelled toward. From the basic principles that the
Rationalists held, it is possible to prove conflicting claims like,
"The world has a beginning in time and is limited as regards space,"
and "The world has no beginning, and no limits in space." Antinomies
like this one reveal fundamental methodological and metaphysical
mistakes in the rationalist project. The contradictory claims could
both be proven because they both shared the mistaken metaphysical
assumption that we can have knowledge of things as they are in
themselves, independent of the conditions of our experience of them.

The Antinomies can be resolved if we understand the proper function
and domain of the various faculties that contribute to produce
knowledge. We must recognize that we cannot know things as they are in
themselves and that our knowledge is subject to the conditions of our
experience. The Rationalist project is doomed to failure because it
does not take note of the contribution that our faculty of reason
makes to our experience of objects.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/k/kantmeta.htmhttp://academics.vmi.edu/psy_dr/Kant's%20antinomies.htm


=====================================
* * *SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
*http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
* *mirror site:
*http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
* * * GOD=G_uv * (a folk song on mp3)
*http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
=====================================

Don't take the ****, Hammond. Read: you don't strike me as stoopid!
--
'foolsrushin..- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"George Hammond" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 16:39:05 -0700 (PDT), "foolsrushin."
wrote:

On 2 Apr, 23:24, wrote:

(1)
The universe is an hypersphere surface. The universe is the boundary
of the 4th dimension. The universe came from nothing and is nowhere.
There is no outside of the Hypersphere. There is only one hypersphere.
There can be only one universe because this universe goes on forever.
Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008

Because I was attacked with regard to George Hammond, who has
curiously disappeared, perhaps he has been too busy, I have hesitated
to comment.


[Hammond]
I haven't gone anywhere... just got bored talking to
morons.
Meanwhile, I find your observation that there is nothing
"outside" the universe to be interesting. Let me put it
this way: Do you think there is anything "outside" of human
reality?

Same question, same answer.

Human energy is also an integral part of the infinite universe,and maifests
on an infinite number of levels.

BOfL


What I mean is: If everyone died at 9am tomorrow
morning; do you think the "World" would still exist? If so-
how would you prove it at 9:01 am? After all, if you can't
prove it exists, even in principle, then it doesn't exist!





=====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
=====================================

On Apr 2, 8:41*pm, George Hammond wrote:
On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 16:39:05 -0700 (PDT), "foolsrushin."

wrote:
On 2 Apr, 23:24, wrote:

(1)
The universe is an hypersphere surface. The universe is the boundary
of the 4th dimension. The universe came from nothing and is nowhere.
There is no outside of the Hypersphere. There is only one hypersphere.
There can be only one universe because this universe goes on forever.
Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008

Because I was attacked with regard to George Hammond, who has
curiously disappeared, perhaps he has been too busy, I have hesitated
to comment.

[Hammond]
* *I haven't gone anywhere... just got bored talking to
morons.
* *Meanwhile, I find your observation that there is nothing
"outside" the universe to be interesting. *Let me put it
this way: *Do you think there is anything "outside" of human
reality? *What I mean is: *If everyone died at 9am tomorrow
morning; do you think the "World" would still exist? *If so-
how would you prove it at 9:01 am? *After all, if you can't
prove it exists, even in principle, then it doesn't exist!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantics_of_logic

"The truth conditions of various sentences we may encounter in
arguments will depend upon their meaning, and so conscientious
logicians cannot completely avoid the need to provide some treatment
of the meaning of these sentences. The semantics of logic refers to
the approaches that logicians have introduced to understand and
determine that part of meaning in which they are interested; the
logician traditionally is not interested in the sentence as uttered
but in the proposition, an idealised sentence suitable for logical
manipulation.

Until the advent of modern logic, Aristotle's Organon, especially De
Interpretatione, provided the basis for understanding the significance
of logic. The introduction of quantification, needed to solve the
problem of multiple generality, rendered impossible the kind of
subject-predicate analysis that governed Aristotle's account, although
there is a renewed interest in term logic, attempting to find calculi
in the spirit of Aristotle's syllogistic but with the generality of
modern logics based on the quantifier.

The main modern approaches to semantics for formal languages are the
following:

Model-theoretic semantics is the archetype of Alfred Tarski's semantic
theory of truth, based on his T-schema, and is one of the founding
concepts of model theory. This is the most widespread approach, and is
based on the idea that the meaning of the various parts of the
propositions are given by the possible ways we can give a recursively
specified group of interpretation functions from them to some
predefined mathematical domains: an interpretation of first-order
predicate logic is given by a mapping from terms to a universe of
individuals, and a mapping from propositions to the truth values
"true" and "false". Model-theoretic semantics provides the foundations
for an approach to the theory of meaning known as Truth-conditional
semantics, which was pioneered by Donald Davidson. Kripke semantics
introduces innovations, but is broadly in the Tarskian mold.
Proof-theoretic semantics associates the meaning of propositions with
the roles that they can play in inferences. Gerhard Gentzen, Dag
Prawitz and Michael Dummett are generally seen as the founders of this
approach; it is heavily influenced by Ludwig Wittgenstein's later
philosophy, especially his aphorism "meaning is use".
Truth-value semantics (also commonly referred to as substitutional
quantification) was advocated by Ruth Barcan Marcus for modal logics
in the early 1960s and later championed by Dunn, Belnap, and Leblanc
for standard first-order logic. James Garson has given some results in
the areas of adequacy for intensional logics outfitted with such a
semantics. The truth conditions for quantified formulas are given
purely in terms of truth with no appeal to domains whatsoever (and
hence its name truth-value semantics).
Game-theoretical semantics has made a resurgence lately mainly due to
Jaakko Hintikka for logics of (finite) partially ordered
quantification which were originally investigated by Leon Henkin, who
studied Henkin quantifiers.
Probabilistic semantics originated from H. Field and has been shown
equivalent to and a natural generalization of truth-value semantics.
Like truth-value semantics, it is also non-referential in nature."

On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 18:57:24 -0700 (PDT), xxein
wrote:

On Apr 2, 8:41*pm, George Hammond wrote:
On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 16:39:05 -0700 (PDT), "foolsrushin."

wrote:
On 2 Apr, 23:24, wrote:

[Hammond]
* *I haven't gone anywhere... just got bored talking to
morons.
* *Meanwhile, I find your observation that there is nothing
"outside" the universe to be interesting. *Let me put it
this way: *Do you think there is anything "outside" of human
reality? *What I mean is: *If everyone died at 9am tomorrow
morning; do you think the "World" would still exist? *If so-
how would you prove it at 9:01 am? *After all, if you can't
prove it exists, even in principle, then it doesn't exist!

xxein: I'm not sure of your point here.

[Hammond]
My point is clear: the World would not exist at 9:01 am
according tro the Laws of Physics.

If you disagree (and most run of the mill morons do) then
answer the question:

How would you prove the World still exists at 9:01 am.
Just answer the question.
=====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
=====================================