The True Origin of Reality

[Quadrivium]

They are most certainly not variables at all.

However, π ≈ 3.141
And, e ≈ 2.718

Not what I'd call undefined. Just approximate. I'm sure that's all the same to you, but I like to use words for what they mean, as opposed to what they don't mean.

Then shouldn't that suggest we change the currently held logical result of dividing by zero from "undefined" to "approximately infinite" or "infinite potential"?

 

[psychoslice]

What on earth is reality, and who's reality is reality ?.

 

[Quadrivium]

Again, it is one or the other and not both. Please just get it already, Kanye.

You: I am both present on Mars and absent from Mars.
Me: You are not present on mars. Why do you think you are present on Mars?
You: [Quanta of me] is present on Mars.
Me: Oh okay. Then how are you absent?
You: See you agree that its both!
Me:

Okay yes you are right, I'm confused, and just defending myself without understanding what I'm saying. I think I understand this simplified overview now though. So hypothetically under this line of thought..

Quanta of me and "center" of me does not separate wholeness of me. So if everything that is, and if it is all of the same wholeness, this doesn't leave any logic for "real" absence? Is that right or am I still off?

But I'm still unclear on the options we have for describing a sense of "nothingness", that doesn't really exist, yet is reason/origin for everything that does exit, to be existing.

A sense of any coherence that breaches that horizon of what is and what is not. Everything (Anything) is only present in some way if ever present at all in any way?

This is the exact same thing I'm attempting to describe but its impossible because nothing doesn't exist, it doesn't even make sense.

This concept that "doesn't make sense", is still a definition of my origin of information. Isn't it? I mean logically it holds up to what I am suggesting overall, no?

or...?

 

[Quadrivium]

What on earth is reality, and who's reality is reality ?.

reality is subjective, the reason is not

Everyones' reality is reality

 

[Sir Doom]

Then shouldn't that suggest we change the currently held logical result of dividing by zero from "undefined" to "approximately infinite" or "infinite potential"?

Not really. Whatever calculator manufacturers want to respond to that nonsense with, is up to them. If I suggested anything it would be a big rubber mallet popping out and bonking the user on the head.

 

[psychoslice]

reality is subjective, the reason is not

Everyones' reality is reality

And what on earth does that mean ?.

 

[Sir Doom]

Okay yes you are right, I'm confused, and just defending myself without understanding what I'm saying. I think I understand this simplified overview now though. So hypothetically under this line of thought..

Quanta of me and "center" of me does not separate wholeness of me. So if everything that is, and if it is all of the same wholeness, this doesn't leave any logic for "real" absence? Is that right or am I still off?

You seem to be tracking now, yes. :namaste

But I'm still unclear on the options we have for describing a sense of "nothingness", that doesn't really exist, yet is reason/origin for everything that does exit, to be existing.

There is no reason to expect that reality has ever been literally 'nothing'. From what I gather, there is no preserved information from before the first Planck time. We can't really say what the state of reality was before that point, let alone before the big bang and if I'm not mistaken.

A sense of any coherence that breaches that horizon of what is and what is not. Everything (Anything) is only present in some way if ever present at all in any way?

Its just subjective. How you define presence is up to you. But whatever it is you decide, it can't be absence at the same time. That's objectively true. The only way to make it both is to use two different standards for presence at the same time and that's just no good.

This is the exact same thing I'm attempting to describe but its impossible because nothing doesn't exist, it doesn't even make sense.

This concept that "doesn't make sense", is still a definition of my origin of information. Isn't it? I mean logically it holds up to what I am suggesting overall, no?

or...?

Are you saying that because at some point you had no information, reality was not real? Or more properly that at some point there is no information and that indicates reality was at some point not real (or didn't exist)?

For example, as it is that black holes are a recent discovery that previous to that discovery, black holes did not exist?

If so, it sounds a bit like solipsism.

 

[Quadrivium]

Not really. Whatever calculator manufacturers want to respond to that nonsense with, is up to them. If I suggested anything it would be a big rubber mallet popping out and bonking the user on the head.

That's fine, but when we do actually attempt to calculate it, this is the calculation that we arrive at, using the logic that is also the foundation of other maths we use...

...we can choose to ignore it, or consider it.

And I've suggested a specific way to consider it, alongside a much broader analysis of natural things in our world in which an interpretation of reasoning may naturally express a truth about our realities "origin" or reason for existing.

 

[nash8]

I am simple folk by the way, and this depth is probably pretty superficial. The real value is in visualizing various patterns of fundamental behaviors. Not struggling through lexical limitations. Rather my goal was to illustrate fundamental information and coherence which is not my invention or something, its established. Then connect that behavior to an analogy. Then connect that analogy to all other things.

It's not the depth, but rather the tone of you OP that seemed superficial, but I understand where you were coming from. You all of a sudden come to this amazing realization about the fundamental reality of the universe, and when you try to explain it, you come out looking like you are a "new age mumbo jumboist".

However you did present some very good information, and I learned a lot from studying some of the authors in your OP, and the information was presented in a very understandable way on the websites. I didn't read through the entire thread, but I don't think relating wave function theories of quantum mechanics to the trinity is a good idea from any perspective. Although there are some gems of quantum mechanics within the Christian tradition if you look closely enough from the right perspective.

However, if you want to connect religious analogies to theories of quantum mechanics, I think the Eastern traditions are much more applicable. "Within a single grape seed lies a million universes" = holographic universe theory anyone? Dr. Seuss's "Horton Hears a Who" is another great one in my opinion.

[/quote] But I find my self trying to prove I'm not on Mars or something which is senseless.

I'm terrible at debate, so I am learning and that's good.[/QUOTE]

I think you were trying to prove that you were on Mars, and that you weren't on Mars simultaneously. If by this you were stating that the same "wave functions" and "empty space" that compromise your being, are present on Mars, and on Earth, but since you are simply "wave functions" and "empty space" that you are not really here nor there "physically", then you are right, but your are arguing definitions and semantics, and I would argue that "you" are not comprised of "wave functions" and "empty space", but rather a specific frequency of "wave function" and "empty space", and that specific resonant frequency is actually present in the universe, and at specifically one place in the universe at a particular time, that is unless your special.

The debate topics here pretty much cover everything, not just religion, especially in the general forum. Quantum mysticism is generally frowned upon by most on the forum, but I think it gets a bad rap because a lot of "gurus" promote ideas as fact when they don't really have the evidence to back up their arguments, but if you look at opinions of a lot of quantum theorists, many of them promote "quantum mystical" ideas, "the light code", "non-locality", "holographic universe", "photon theories of consciousness" amongst others.

I think you'll like it here, and it definitely makes you a lot better at logically defending your viewpoints hanging out here, and you will learn a lot as well. I have learned so much during my short time here it's amazing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_(mathematical_constant)

Pi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

These concepts disagree. These "values" are certainly undefined and not variable.

On some levels I would agree with you, but on others not. Pi is defined as it can be expressed as the quotient of two rational numbers - 22 and 7. Which is not necessarily undefined. Also, Pi could also be described as infinitely variable at the same time as, so far as we know, it's actual value can't be determined.

Nothing creates god, god is nothing. Inside of that nothing is potential for everything, except god and nothing.

This is just circular logic, and doesn't really say anything, but I do have a question for you with regard to this: Is nothing something? Look into that "empty space" that vibrates, and see whether it is really nothing or if it is actually something.

I'm not pulling anyone legs, I'm just bad at communicating. I assumed providing links to information was enough but I now understand its not reasonable to ask anyone spend the amount of time it takes to read all of those things.

You should provide more links. I had to copy and paste authors and concepts into google, and I'm lazy, it was almost too much work for me.

I know how I've come to realize these things and I can't expect anyone else to share my experience. I'm trying to share my conclusions though. Its probably best done in the form of a book though, not a religious forum.

No, this is the perfect place for you in my opinion. If you feel as though you have come to a profound conclusion, this is the perfect place to learn how to defend your stance from a logical standpoint, and I would wager to say that there are more than a few people on this forums that have had similar experiences to you. I highly suggest that you write a book if you feel so inclined, but stick around here for a little bit and see if your ideas hold up to some intelligent scrutiny, and above all be open to all new information, but always research it yourself and come to your own conclusions. I think you will enjoy your time here if you keep an open mind.

I think I got hung up on religion because I liked the similarities of the religious trinities and what I'm claiming is truth.

See you're already learning... your claiming something is the truth rather than declaring that it is.

And because I'm lazy, and didn't read the whole thread, can you explain what it is that your are claiming as the truth, and how exactly this relates to religious trinities? Short version please.

I'd suggest there's a potentially infinite amount of unknown. But there's no reason we can't understand why that is. And that doesn't negate the ability to know some things.

Very well put.

This video explains it

https://www.khanacademy.org/math/al...terminate/v/why-dividing-by-zero-is-undefined

Video doesn't work, but interestingly enough when you divide a number by 0 in google calculator you get infinity, but when you divide 0 by 0 you get an error message.

There was some decent info on the comments section though. I guess when you look at it a quotient is a representation of how many of something can fit into a defined whole, and there can be an infinite quantity of "0" that fits into any defined whole. But at the same time you can't multiply to simplify, and get a rational answer, so if a number divided by zero is logically rational then the division isn't a rational process. Any number divided by 0 can be equal to any number, so either division doesn't work or a number can't be rationally divided by 0.

I'm suggesting that it's not a mathematical fallacy, rather the founders of mathematical logic have determined this a fallacy to avoid the complication.

I posted a link to a paper written by a Harvard Professor of mathematical logic that describes Russell's paradox (set theory) being by no means true, and its the same concept for this issue of 'dividing by zero'.

Please post this link again so I can read it. I would love to see how Russell's paradox is not true. It seems pretty sound to me.

The issue is of recursive self-reference. When you divide anything by zero, you literally and intuitively get infinity. But this doesn't seem useful when trying to calculate finite value, so we've labeled it fallacy, or undefined.

What exactly is recursive self-reference? And on some levels I agree with you, as that there can be an infinite amount of 0's in any number, but at the same time you can't multiply by the quotient when 0 is the divisor, in order to get back to the original number.

Dividing by Zero

In the meantime math describes and drives everything else, except we continue to ignore this natural aspect of mathematical calculation.

So if you define a number divided by 0 as a number, then the entire foundation of multiplication and division breaks down, unless you can explain how it would still hold true.

 

[nash8]

Again, it is one or the other and not both. Please just get it already, Kanye.

If [quanta of you] is present on Mars, then you are present on Mars.
If [quanta of you] is absent from Mars, then you are absent from Mars.
If [quanta of you] is present on Mars, then you are not absent from Mars.
If [quanta of you] is absent from Mars, then you are not present on Mars.

You populated [quanta of you]. I accepted that quantization, meaning that you are present on Mars, regardless of my assertion to the opposite. However, the second question is, "How does that constitute absence?" You have failed to answer that.

The reality is that its all rhetorical. I didn't actually expect you to (nor do I need you to) populate [quanta of you] with anything. I don't expect you to (nor do I need you to) answer the second question either. The implication is quite clear.

Except that I didn't change my position on that. All I said was that absence is necessarily absolute, so calling it absolute is unnecessary. One moment something is absolutely present... then next moment absolutely absent. See how that doesn't change the situation at all? Present one moment, absent the next. Makes nothing different by calling it absolute absence.

I didn't twist anything. I am not using the logic you proposed at all. I am not saying that if I am wrong you are wrong. The only thing I would be wrong about is whether or not you are present on Mars. Stating that you are not on Mars is to establish the necessity of the questions that follow.

You: I am both present on Mars and absent from Mars.
Me: You are not present on mars. Why do you think you are present on Mars?
You: [Quanta of me] is present on Mars.
Me: Oh okay. Then how are you absent?
You: See you agree that its both!
Me:

According to his original post, I would think that he was trying to argue that a "quanta" of "you" is essentially empty space vibrating in response to a specific wave function, and at this basic quanta, a "quanta" of him would be simultaneously on earth and on Mars, but since this "quanta" is also comprised of essentially "empty space" that he would neither be on earth or on mars, thus he would be absent.

It's a poor definition of the "quanta of self" in my opinion, but it actually does hold true under some preset conditions and generally unused definitions of what quantifies something as self, all in all, it's really a pointless argument in my opinion, but it does enforce the idea that we are essentially all comprised of the substance(s), and are essentially "one", or actually "two" depending on how you look at it. It all depends on whether you qualify "nothing" as something.

Pulling our leg with word salad, posting for reaction, not debateable content.

Naw, I think he was being serious. He was trying to promote the idea of "oneness" that is prevalent in many traditions, by using quantum mechanics as a base. I think there is some relevance to the ideas he's trying to present. I personally think coherence between quantum systems, can present some worthwhile ideas to coherence in the real world.

Funny it works perfect for every single aspect of science and nature, and my daily lie.

LOL

correct
Education and kowledge are key for the benifit of mankind.

Preach it!!!!

Agreed.

I am happy saying I dont know rather then guess.

And that's why your no fun...

We still need to figure out gravity before larger answers

Apple falls = Case closed.

 

[Quadrivium]

Are you saying that because at some point you had no information, reality was not real? Or more properly that at some point there is no information and that indicates reality was at some point not real (or didn't exist)?

For example, as it is that black holes are a recent discovery that previous to that discovery, black holes did not exist?

If so, it sounds a bit like solipsism.

I'm saying in an abstract external sense everything always exists as one essence of infinite potential.

And through an immense series of interconnected mechanisms having evolved from "this topic of recursive self reference", within this potential our relativity is deduced. And formed are each of our subjective perspectives, sort of carved out of inflation and "self-referenced" prospectively depending on everything else.

 

[Password]

Binary math would be an interesting concept for a conversation when dealing with ones and zeros for an objective and subjective comparison and analysis presenting a structure system where something and nothing depend on one another to determine many realities of origins, but in themselves(ones and zeros) are the established absolutes that also limit our finite minds to solve from. Methods to solve could be representatives of the levels of understanding.

 

[Sir Doom]

That's fine, but when we do actually attempt to calculate it, this is the calculation that we arrive at, using the logic that is also the foundation of other maths we use...

...we can choose to ignore it, or consider it.

And I've suggested a specific way to consider it, alongside a much broader analysis of natural things in our world in which an interpretation of reasoning may naturally express a truth about our realities "origin" or reason for existing.

I don't think that's accurate. Division is specific in what it does. Split the value into X equal portions. If X is 0 you are splitting the value into 0 equal portions. You can say you aren't splitting it at all, but that's more properly expressed as 8/1 or you can split it into unequal portions. If you do that, though... now you aren't dividing at all and instead subtracting.

For example, if I have 8 oranges and I want to split them equally between myself and a friend (and for some reason can't just do that ) I can use math to determine how many I should give my friend. 8/2=4

But what am I trying to do that requires me to split 8 oranges into 0 equal portions? If I give 1 to a friend and keep 7: 8-1=7

Every way to split 8 that results in an unequal portion is subtraction instead of division. They all satisfy the term 8/0 but that doesn't really properly express what's happening or what you want to happen. If you aren't looking for equal portions than you shouldn't be using division, you should be using subtraction.

 

[Quadrivium]

I didn't read through the entire thread, but I don't think relating wave function theories of quantum mechanics to the trinity is a good idea from any perspective. Although there are some gems of quantum mechanics within the Christian tradition if you look closely enough from the right perspective.

The value in this analogy I saw for a couple reasons.

1. The function of the trintiy, mirrors the function of a monad expressing tri-fold synthesis.

2. It ties together aspects of Christianity and Hindusim, and coincidentally Chrisitanity is actually evolved from of Hinduism. And coincidentally almost all the worlds religions are an evolved form of Hinduism, which is one of the worlds oldest religions. Also in this light the human fiction aspect of the two religions (Christian/Hindu) is senseless to the suggested truth. While the core essence is analogously accurate, and maintaining the beauty of all(most?) religions, while denying the need of fictitious variations.

3. I like to think its not a coincidence that humanities historical expressions of existential beliefs reflect the same resonance that they actually originate of.

This is just circular logic, and doesn't really say anything, but I do have a question for you with regard to this: Is nothing something? Look into that "empty space" that vibrates, and see whether it is really nothing or if it is actually something.

"Nothing" is non-sensical, so it's both from my understanding. But also neither, its the conflict that's realized.

You should provide more links. I had to copy and paste authors and concepts into google, and I'm lazy, it was almost too much work for me.

There's so much stuff. I'll dump a bunch of references tomorrow.

And because I'm lazy, and didn't read the whole thread, can you explain what it is that your are claiming as the truth, and how exactly this relates to religious trinities? Short version please.

I think I described this above. But tri-fold synthesis is what makes information possible or coherent. And its the same concept of the father the son the holy ghost expressing god, and in hindu.. bramha, being of bramha, vishnu, and shiva, (and for similar reasons.) And when this tri-fold synthesis, is questioned of nothingness in this manor we apply injective function to an absolute and asymmetry is manifest. An asymmetry of recursive inverse deduction. And this extends through inflation, evolution, and cognition.

There was some decent info on the comments section though. I guess when you look at it a quotient is a representation of how many of something can fit into a defined whole, and there can be an infinite quantity of "0" that fits into any defined whole. But at the same time you can't multiply to simplify, and get a rational answer, so if a number divided by zero is logically rational then the division isn't a rational process. Any number divided by 0 can be equal to any number, so either division doesn't work or a number can't be rationally divided by 0.

Right, it's not rational, its a conflict, we ignore it and everything works fine. But ignoring it doesn't dissolve it from expression.

Please post this link again so I can read it. I would love to see how Russell's paradox is not true. It seems pretty sound to me.

Warren Goldfarb, “Russell's Reasons for Ramification” p38
http://www.mcps.umn.edu/philosophy/12_2goldfarb.pdf

What exactly is recursive self-reference?

fractal inflation/recursion/relativity... sort of its just what the words define. A repeating reflection of self. But each instance of repetition is new information being synthesized and fractal inflation.

 

[Thief]

Funny it works perfect for every single aspect of science and nature, and my daily lie.

It's a typo on your part......but sooooooooo revealing!

A Freudian slip tells so much!

 

[Quadrivium]

I don't think that's accurate. Division is specific in what it does. Split the value into X equal portions. If X is 0 you are splitting the value into 0 equal portions. You can say you aren't splitting it at all, but that's more properly expressed as 8/1 or you can split it into unequal portions. If you do that, though... now you aren't dividing at all and instead subtracting.

For example, if I have 8 oranges and I want to split them equally between myself and a friend (and for some reason can't just do that ) I can use math to determine how many I should give my friend. 8/2=4

But what am I trying to do that requires me to split 8 oranges into 0 equal portions? If I give 1 to a friend and keep 7: 8-1=7

Every way to split 8 that results in an unequal portion is subtraction instead of division. They all satisfy the term 8/0 but that doesn't really properly express what's happening or what you want to happen. If you aren't looking for equal portions than you shouldn't be using division, you should be using subtraction.

What happens when you actually attempt to divide by zero, isn't really debate-able. The reasoning for why is though. But changing the terms or rules doesn't change anything about what's expressed when we simply try to divide something by zero. Finding a way around the subject is not exactly addressing the subject.

More importantly maybe is the fact that all of these terms are forms of relation. When you divide or subtract you're expressing relations of categories. The object of topic is referenced and split into multiple categories to deduce new information for our sake of developing categories.

I'd question the accuracy of human number values compared to reality. There is in fact a difference between the abstract description of number values and the real world approximation these values represent.

In the case of the real world, there's no finite accuracy of measurable identity. The finite values are only man made representations, or "close-enough" approximation, or "potential wells". We create units which are truly just categorized analogies. But finite measurement doesn't exist in the real world. Hence, "the measurement problem".

In the real world (under the light of this scenario) it doesn't support an actual state of absence or real-world-zero, as we've already established. So we're forced to understand even the hard mathematical certainties are still just very reliable approximations. So I'd suggest an important emphasis on analogy being critical to interpreting the "truth".

 

[Quadrivium]

You should provide more links. I had to copy and paste authors and concepts into google, and I'm lazy, it was almost too much work for me.

Here' a number of references related to the study for anyone interested. This certainly isn't all of it, but it's a good amount to keep anyone busy for a while. I'm not directly supporting the work of these researches. I'refer to them as supportive reasoning.

[1] Warren Goldfarb, “Russell's Reasons for Ramification” p38
http://www.mcps.umn.edu/philosophy/12_2goldfarb.pdf

[2] Jean-Camille Birget, December 3, 2013, “One-way permutations, computational asymmetry and distortion” p3
Dept. of Computer Science, Rutgers University at Camden, Camden, NJ 08102, USA
[3] Maximilian Schlosshauer, 2005 “Decoherence, the measurement problem, and interpretations of quantum mechanics” Department of Physics, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195, USA

[4] Dustin Tucker and Richmond H. Thomason, March 1, 2007 “Paradoxes of Intensionality”
Philosophy Department, University of Michigan

[5] Robert Gl¨uck (a), Michael Leuschel (b), “Abstraction-Based Partial Deduction for Solving Inverse Problems – A Transformational Approach to Software Verification” p94
(a) DIKU, Department of Computer Science,
University of Copenhagen, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark
(b) Department of Electronics and Computer Science,
University of Southampton, Southampton SO17 1BJ, UK

[6] Kais Bouallegue, “A New Class of Control Using Fractal Processes”

Department of Electrical Engineering, High Institute of Applied Sciences and Technology of Sousse, Tunisia
Unit of Computer and Embedded System, Department of Electrical Engineering National Engineering School of Sfax, BP-1173, 3038, Sfax, Tunisia


[7] Perrin S Meyer, “The Fractal Dimension of Music”
Department of Applied Physics, Columbia University, New York, NY 10025

[8] Rachel Casiday and Regina Frey, “Vision and Light-Induced Molecular Changes - Spectroscopy and Quantum Chemistry Experiment” Department of Chemistry, Washington University, St. Louis, MO 63130

[9] W. Kinsner (a), R. Dansereau (b), 2010, “A Relative Fractal Dimension Spectrum for a Perceptual Complexity Measure” (a) University of Manitoba, Canada, (b) University of Manitoba, Canada

[10] Steven Pinker (a), Alan Prince (b), “The Nature Of Human Concepts/ Evidence From An Unusual Source” p350
(a) Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass.
(b) Department of Linguistics, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey

[?] Rahul Gupta, K****ij Saxena, 2010, “Nature’s Trademark – Phi, A review report on the occurrence of the golden ratio in nature” Biological Sciences and Bio Engineering, IIT Kanpur

[?] Iris Berent (a), Steven Pinker (b), Joseph Tzelgov (c), Uri Bibi (d), Liat Goldfarb (c), 2004 “Computation of semantic number from morphological information” Journal of Memory and Language 53 (2005) 342–358

(a) Department of Psychology, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL, USA
(b) Department of Psychology, Harvard University, USA
(c) Department of Behavioral Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Israel
(d) Sapir Academic College, Israel

[?] Alan Guth, 2007 “Eternal inflation and its implications” MIT-CTP#3811 hep-th/0702178
Center for Theoretical Physics, Laboratory for Nuclear Science, and Department of
Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139

[?] Zvi Berna(a), John Joseph M. Carrascoa, Henrik Johanssonb(b)2009 “Perturbative Quantum Gravity as a Double Copy of Gauge Theory” UCLA/10/TEP/102 Saclay/IPhT–T10/044

(a)Department of Physics and Astronomy,
UCLA, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1547, USA
(b)Institut de Physique Th´eorique, CEA–Saclay,
F–91191 Gif-sur-Yvette cedex, France


[?] Jon Barwise, 1988 “The situation in logic”
ISBN 0-937073-33-4, ISBN 0-937073-32-6 (pbk.)
1. Language arid logic. 2. Context (Linguistics)
I. Title. II. Series, BC57.B38 1988 88 38961, 160-dcl9 CIP


[?] Brian A. Wandell, “Foundation of Vision”
https://www.stanford.edu/group/vista/cgi-bin/FOV/chapter-2-image-formation/
[?] Vidya Manian, 2009 “Image Processing”
Dept. of Electrical and Computer Engineering http://www.ece.uprm.edu/~manian/Chapter2_eye.pdf

Douglas Hofstader – The Interconnectedness of Human Souls
NP-complete - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Charge, Parity, and Time Reversal Symmetry

The Finite Square Well
G.R.Dixon

[email protected]

FractalCosmology © Lori Gardi 2012

2009 ButterflyEffect.ca; Lori Gardi; Fractal Woman; ButterflyEffect.ca
Plank's Length
[email protected]

Relative fractal coding and its application in satellite image compression
S.K. Ghosh J. Mukhopadhyay V.M. Chowdary A. Jeyaram
Computer & Informatics Computer Science RRSSC / ISRO RRSSC / ISRO
Centre & Engineering IIT Kharagpur IIT Kharagpur
IIT Kharagpur IIT Kharagpur
[email protected] [email protected]


Duplicate Publication and ‘Paper Inflation’ in the Fractals Literature By
Dr. Ronald N. Kostoff, Office of Naval Research,
875 North Randolph Street, Arlington, VA 22217
Phone: 703-696-4198; Fax: 703-696-3098
Internet: [email protected]


Mr. Dustin Johnson, Office of Naval Research
875 North Randolph Street, Arlington, VA 22217

Dr. J. Antonio Del Río, Centro de Investigación en Energía
UNAM, Temixco, Mor. México

Dr. Louis A. Bloomfield, University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA

Dr. Michael F. Shlesinger, Office of Naval Research
875 North Randolph Street, Arlington, VA 22217

Mr. Guido Malpohl, University of Karlsruhe
Postfach 6980, 76128 Karlsruhe, Germany

The Trinity and Its Symbolism
John Nash

https://www.academia.edu/7347240/Ou...der_Kants_Epistemology_and_Hegelian_Dialectic

FQXi Community

 

[outhouse]

coincidentally Chrisitanity is actually evolved from of Hinduism.


.

Provide sources

 

[Quadrivium]

Provide sources

Sure...

Quick overview though. Hindusim was established from multiple lines of thought/practice dating back to 5500 BCE. It gave rise to a monotheistic religion called Zoroastrianism. From this Judaism evolved. Also The Romans interpreted parts of Zoroastrianism into the Mithras. Then when the Jesus thing happened, the Mithras evolved into Christianity.

Hinduism -- Ancient History Encyclopedia


Mithraic mysteries - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[outhouse]

Sure...

Quick overview though. Hindusim was established from multiple lines of thought/practice dating back to 5500 BCE. It gave rise to a monotheistic religion called Zoroastrianism. From this Judaism evolved. Also The Romans interpreted parts of Zoroastrianism into the Mithras. Then when the Jesus thing happened, the Mithras evolved into Christianity.

Hinduism -- Ancient History Encyclopedia


Mithraic mysteries - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You did not provide anything useful.

Show links that prove your statement

because as it stands you just added steps, that prove nothing.


You made a possible case that hinduism may have influenced Judaism, but that would not nor could be tied to christianity. You did not even prove monotheism is a result of Zo's