Interesting and Humour - page 4866
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
Thank you, I am familiar with his work.https://www.mql5.com/ru/forum/333336/page2#comment_15090483
Everyone has a talent for something. That's nature's way.
Some people have a talent for drawing, others for singing, cooking, making a lot of money, stealing, writing poems and fairy tales).
Thanks, I'm familiar with his work.https://www.mql5.com/ru/forum/333336/page2#comment_15090483
Yes, an excellent text, known maidenly as Zaibatsu-do ("The Way of the Office Samurai") and even more maidenly as 葉隠聞書 ("Records of the Hidden in the Leaves"). The original text is interesting in that the author condemns Ako's perpetrators of revenge (story of the 47 ronins)
The most important thing is that the results of Gödel, Tarsky, etc. destroyed the foundations of the deductive theory of knowledge, constructed by Plato and Aristotle in the image and likeness of mathematics. As a result it turned out that mathematics is inductive like all other sciences, and its results depend only on what statements-axioms are put in the basis of reasoning. There is only one way out - the appeal to the philosophy of the Oneness, created by Solovyov.
I knew Zheryagin-Miroshnikov's daughter. She gave me her father's book, which I regret was lost. He had made a field theory on axioms, which he successfully tied to reality))). Unfortunately I could not find his works in the Internet.
Any beginning is axiomatic. This is the beginning))))
I try not to go beyond the duality of the world and quanta.) But one can break his brain on curved spaces and on rows. When, everything further is considered sophistry, everything further is given easier) And to a paradox/problem of the barber to shave, with an order to shave only those who cannot shave lightly, and k.kastaneda is given even sometimes).
...
Bombastic picture! thank you!
David Hilbert in his Grundlagen der Mathematik wrote that modern mathematics and physics cannot satisfactorily solve Zeno's aporias. And nowadays no form of infinitesimal analysis can be constructed without the choice axiom, but its application may lead to rather monstrous conclusions, like the Banach-Tarsky paradox.
Singularity is only one aspect of the fact that the Cosmos is One. The One cannot be composed of parts, but the very attempt to know it is already a division into the knower (the subject of the act of epistemology) and the knowable (the object of the act of epistemology). The Neo-Platonists, above all Jamvlich, eventually came to the possibility of knowing the One only by means of esoteric practices described in coded form in the Chaldee Oracles.
The most important thing is that the results of Gödel, Tarsky, etc. destroyed the foundations of the deductive theory of knowledge, built by Plato and Aristotle in the image and likeness of mathematics. As a result it turned out that mathematics is inductive like all other sciences, and its results depend only on what statements-axioms are put in the basis of reasoning. There is only one way out - the appeal to the philosophy of the Oneness, created by Solovyov.
I'll comment a little later, but in short the paradoxBanach-Tarsky paradox refers only to pure formalisation of set theory, more exactly to the way of formalisation, we are not going to refuse mathematics because of it 😀 naive set theory was buried long ago, but I agree, that probably future discoveries may reveal the links between pure mathematics and physics, ideally we will come to mathematical theory of Universe, final ensemble, may be even to Oneness, but I do not think, that the Solovyov and Russian cosmism model will be the only choice, the current problem as quite clearly pointed out is the inductivity of language, we have no possibility to base on the existence itself, in this sense concepts always hang a bit in vacuum, relying only on a set of postulates, or strictly formal description of the world is impossible at all 😕🙁 and it is clear that classical philosophy trying to separate itself from scholasticism ends up being just pure scholasticism itself, but philosophy is an attempt to break out of the prison of vicious circle...
P.S. By the way, amazing coincidence that the Chaldean Oracles were quoted in a sect yesterday.... I see it as some kind of sign 😃
P.P.S. the possibility of immeasurable sets certainly is frightening, yes...
I'll comment a bit later, but in short the paradoxBanach-Tarsky paradox refers only to pure formalization of set theory, more exactly to the way of formalization, we are not going to refuse mathematics because of it 😀 naive set theory was buried long time ago, but I agree, that probably future discoveries can open connection between pure mathematics and physics, ideally we will come to mathematical theory of universe, finite ensemble, may be even to unity, but I do not think that Solovyov and Russian cosmism model will be the only choice, the current problem as quite clearly pointed out is the inductivity of language, we have no possibility to base on the existence itself, in this sense concepts always hang a bit in vacuum, relying only on a set of postulates, or strictly formal description of the world is impossible at all 😕🙁 and it is clear that classical philosophy trying to separate itself from scholasticism ends up being just pure scholasticism itself, but philosophy is an attempt to jump out of the prison of a vicious circle...
P.S. By the way, amazing coincidence that the Chaldean Oracles were quoted in a sect yesterday.... I see it as some kind of sign 😃
P.P.S. the possibility of immeasurable sets is certainly frightening, yes...
In the super small, super large, near zero, and beyond the super large or near very much surprising)
In super small, super large, near zero, and beyond super large or near very much amazing)
Hunting for YEGGOs, ZGGOs and others?
If anyone remembers http://epizodsspace.airbase.ru/bibl/tehnika_-_molodyoji/1986/1/put.html...
P.P.S. The possibility that immeasurable sets exist is of course frightening, yes...
Everything is relative. Humanity knows neither depth nor height but sees itself as the centre of the universe. This too is ridiculous from my bell tower.
And the BW and 13.5 billion years is a ridiculous joke to philistines. It's a blip in the universe.
Everything is relative. Humanity knows neither depth nor height, but sees itself as the centre of the universe. This too is ridiculous from my bell tower.
And the BW and 13.5 billion years is a ridiculous joke to philistines. It's a blink in the universe.
I, too, oppose the anthropocentric view.