Wikileaks says Wednesday is the End for Hillary.

[xorcist at sigaint.org]

>
> 	So "being attacked by the US nazis is an axiom" - But it's not
> 	provable nor disprobable. So how do they know it will happen?

They don't KNOW. They suspect. Like you suspect the law of
non-contradiction is absolutely, always, in all cases, true.

They can't prove it, or disprove it. They REGARD IT as true. The way you
regard the law of non-contradiction as true.

> 	Actually what I posted is not exactly a taylor series. In the
> 	code a stands for acceleration, v for velocity and p por
> 	position. Since you are such a genius you could have figured
> 	that out, but somehow you didn't...?

As formed, no it isn't a Taylor series, exactly. But this particular
system of recurrence relations has all the essential properties, which is
precisely why it forms the basic result. The result of the relations forms
a polynomial by the process of additions and multiplications, essentially,
and if you scaled it appropriately to actually be cos(x) it would be the
Taylor polynomial for cos(x).

>> All quite good - but none of this represents emergent behavior,
>> feedback,
>
>
> 	Actually my example does illustrate feedback. Since you
> 	mentioned a fed-back amplifier, I posted a mathematical
> 	representation of a similar system. But hey you are
> 	the Great Master of Mathematics, aren't you.

Mmm, ok I see what you're getting at. Yes I suppose we can consider
recurrence as feedback. I should have been more specific: uncontrolled
feedback. Precise control of feedback can produce oscillation like this,
but what I was trying get at was the results of unbounded positive
feedback.

> 	No sonny, my example is perfect. It goes from a linear system
> 	to a more complex, 'curved' result. It is good enough to
> 	illustrate my point.

Curves like this are not more "complex" than lines. A line is a polynomial.
Curves like this are just longer polynomials. Lines are differential
everywhere. This curve is differential everywhere.

They are more complex only in the sense that they are longer, and take
more time to compute. But if you can compute a polynomial, you can compute
a line. If you can compute a polynomial, you can compute a curve.

>> It is for this reason that they
>> are able to PROVIDE that property of truth/falsity to other claims,
>
> 	Ah that really makes sense! They can provide something they
> 	don't have.

Why shouldn't it? Even looking at your example, your curve provides
periodic behavior that addition and multiplication and line segments don't
have.

>> >       So truth is a matter of choice? And Party 'Agreement' of
>> > course!
>>
>> Yes, but no. Perhaps.
>
> 	Right. Infinite, involuntary, self-parody. Absolute.

These emails are getting long enough as is, I don't feel the need to
respond to every single point, especially when you to make not-so-veiled,
insulting insinuations.
>> Prove some, then. Prove either the law of the excluded middle, or the
>> law of non-contradiction. Your choice.
>
>
> 	Igonre it, like you actually do all the time, and all you get
> 	is nonsense, like the nonsense you post all the time.

That is no proof. What you call nonsense may just be counter-intuitive, or
unexpected results. Lots of physicists in the early 1900s thought quantum
mechanics couldn't be true, because they dismissed it on its face because
it seemed like nonsense.

There is no particular reason to believe that the universe will adhere to
principles the human mind cooks up.

So, try again. Prove it.

>
> 	But again, let's say the 'law of non contradiction' can't be
> 	proven. So? It stops being self-evidently true? =)

It was never self-evidently true. And again, axioms are REGARDED AS
self-evidently true. A red-green color blind person looks at reddish
leaves in the autumn and green grass and says IT IS SELF-EVIDENT they are
the same color. And they are, according to the apprehension of color blind
people. They are not the same to those that see differently.

Seeming to be, on the surface, according to human senses or the human mind
doesn't mean IS. The fact that something is obvious and self-evident to
YOU, or even the MAJORITY of people, doesn't make it TRUE.

> 	The fact that ignoring it leads to nonsense is good enough
> 	proof. But if you don't like that proof, so-fucking-what. The
> 	'law' remains valid.

Only according to your opinion, and the opinion of the majority.