|
Post by IM LITERALLY NEO on Dec 5, 2022 23:56:35 GMT
Instead Of Banning Me After My Date, Why Not Make A Rule That You Will Ban Me ONLY If I Make Another Post So I Can Still Have My Work On Here To Study Further (After My Date).
Getting Straight To It:
Two Date Puzzles:
| 12 6 707 ~ 1 4 2821 = 771784 DAYS
| 12 9 65 ~ 12 6 2022 = 714778 DAYS
I Found This By Accident (Back To Back), The Numbers Are The Same Order, But Arranged.
BECAUSE I Found Them, I Found Something Even Better:
12 6 2022 Is 21 Years 2 Months 25 Days After 9 11 2001 (Twin Towers / Legs Giving Birth To A Prodigious Sun Child).
2 1 2 25 In Letters = B A B Y According To Where Letters Are In The Alphabet, Which Stems From The Original 26 GOD Letters.
I Used 12 9 65 Because It's L I F E In Letters From Numbers.
Then I Used Two Dates 12 6 707 And 1 4 2821 For One Reason:
1 = Penis, 2 = Sperm From Penis, 6 = Insemination Of An Egg, 707 = Woman's Legs + Woman's Womb Giving Birth After Pregnant.
1 4 2821 Is 1 1 = Woman's Legs, 42 = F+I+S+H (Term For Vagina), 28 = M+A+N (That Inseminates The Woman Between The Legs).
This Gets Even Better:
12 6 1281 Is The Man (28) Between The Legs (11) Impregnating By Penis (1) And Sperm (2) Illustrated By Sperm + Egg (6).
12 6 1281 To 9 11 2001 (Twin Towers / Woman's Legs) = 719 YEARS 9 MONTHS 5 DAYS.
719 = 1 (Penis) Impregnating 79 (M+O+T+H+E+R), And 95 = P+R+E+G+N+A+N+T, It's All In The Numbers / Letters.
This Gets Even B E T T E R:
ONE GOD In Hebrew (911 = 468 The Lord GOD + 443 The Word In Hebrew) = 26 x 43 = 1118 (911), 26 + 43 = 69.
GOD Appears In 3876 Verses, I Found (26+43)3876.
When The MAN Exits The WOMAN By 1281, It Becomes 101 (Just Her Legs And Her Vagina), And Again 12 6 = Penis Sperm Egg.
12 . 6 . 101 ~ 9 . 11 . 2001 = 693876 DAYS, This Is ONE GOD In Hebrew (26+43) And 3876 Verses GOD Appears In The Bible.
The Reason I Am So Fixated On 101 Is Because Of John 10:1, GOD Says "I Am The Door", And Orwell's / Neo's Room "101".
(Don't Tell Me My Work Is Meaningless, It's Genius).
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Dec 9, 2022 7:34:24 GMT
yeshua is 79 salvation is 113 Jesus is 74 Jesus Christ is 151 in standard gematria so I'm not sure where you get 555 from
|
|
|
Post by IM LITERALLY NEO on Dec 9, 2022 18:01:28 GMT
yeshua is 79 salvation is 113 Jesus is 74 Jesus Christ is 151 in standard gematria so I'm not sure where you get 555 from Not In Standard Gematria, The Mention Of "Christ" In The Bible Recorded By Scholars Across The Planet In A Collective Effort To Count Per Iteration Of "Christ" Was 555 Times. And GOD 4444 Times. And Jesus 935 Times. And Jesus Christ (Together) 256 Times.
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Dec 10, 2022 19:53:20 GMT
yeshua is 79 salvation is 113 Jesus is 74 Jesus Christ is 151 in standard gematria so I'm not sure where you get 555 from Not In Standard Gematria, The Mention Of "Christ" In The Bible Recorded By Scholars Across The Planet In A Collective Effort To Count Per Iteration Of "Christ" Was 555 Times. And GOD 4444 Times. And Jesus 935 Times. And Jesus Christ (Together) 256 Times.Omg that's amazing!..........now go take your pills and work on your excuse for the 1st of the year when we are still here
|
|
|
Post by IM LITERALLY NEO on Dec 11, 2022 1:31:22 GMT
Not In Standard Gematria, The Mention Of "Christ" In The Bible Recorded By Scholars Across The Planet In A Collective Effort To Count Per Iteration Of "Christ" Was 555 Times. And GOD 4444 Times. And Jesus 935 Times. And Jesus Christ (Together) 256 Times. Omg that's amazing!..........now go take your pills and work on your excuse for the 1st of the year when we are still here If You Recall My Specific Wording, I Was Asked What Would Happen On My Date (Typical "Prove It" Scenario), I Told You What I Saw In The Numbers, Not In The Future. I Showed How It Was Connected By The Numbers, And By Those Connections Suggested What Could Happen On My Date. I Never Said Flat Out It Would Happen, I Specifically Said "By The Numbers", And Other Connections To "Watch" Out For These Possibilities, Because Something You Have Denied Your Whole Life Is About To Occur In Your Lifetime.
My Number's Game Isn't A Game, It's Something More, I Am Onto Something Big, Something That Has Been Forgotten By Humans All These Years, That's Existed Underneath Their Senses And Soon Something Is About To Occur That Will Make Reality Not So Reality.
Higher Forces Maintain These Realms In Their State, It Is Fully Foolish To Assume The Existing Foundation We Stand On Was Created For No Meaningful Purpose, Yet Is Purported By Meaningful Laws And Logical Lessons With Logical Consequences.
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Dec 11, 2022 3:45:48 GMT
Omg that's amazing!..........now go take your pills and work on your excuse for the 1st of the year when we are still here If You Recall My Specific Wording, I Was Asked What Would Happen On My Date (Typical "Prove It" Scenario), I Told You What I Saw In The Numbers, Not In The Future. I Showed How It Was Connected By The Numbers, And By Those Connections Suggested What Could Happen On My Date. I Never Said Flat Out It Would Happen, I Specifically Said "By The Numbers", And Other Connections To "Watch" Out For These Possibilities, Because Something You Have Denied Your Whole Life Is About To Occur In Your Lifetime.
My Number's Game Isn't A Game, It's Something More, I Am Onto Something Big, Something That Has Been Forgotten By Humans All These Years, That's Existed Underneath Their Senses And Soon Something Is About To Occur That Will Make Reality Not So Reality.
Higher Forces Maintain These Realms In Their State, It Is Fully Foolish To Assume The Existing Foundation We Stand On Was Created For No Meaningful Purpose, Yet Is Purported By Meaningful Laws And Logical Lessons With Logical Consequences.In that case then just shut up and keep it to yourself seeing as your not telling anyone anything, but you can't because you are making claims you just can't man up and except the risk involved because you doubt yourself. I've seen it a million times with other fake prophets in the church your no different, I still expect your straw grabbing pathetic fear mongering internet news that you are going to show us and talk about how your right and try to soak up all that attention you feel you need... You might be a mistake but you don't have to stay one your entire life you don't have to fail and be a terrible person because your parents were You can still grow up and get your mental instability under control and maybe have a chance at a healthy life one day , you don't have to be one of the things that makes the world a crappy place to be you can be something better .
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Dec 11, 2022 16:25:45 GMT
The name Jesus is a new name and was not the name of the biblical character in the bible originally The Name "Jesus" That Is Modern Is Not The "Jesus" That Is Translated In Its Hebrew Root Form That I Am Referring To. All References To "Jesus" In The Bible Was A Total Of 935 Times, Every Single Account Of "Jesus" In Its Hebrew Root Form Was Recorded By Scholars Across The Planet. For GOD, 4444 Times. And For Christ, 555 Times. And For Jesus Christ, 256 Times.Your study is not the study of Bible, but rather the study of one of King James's translations. Why don't you write your own Bible to leave people alone of that constant too subjective interpretations of yours? What if good people believe in your reading of it, whilst your analysis is wrong? It's a risky way, the initiator accepts all the burdens of the possible sequences.
|
|
|
Post by joustos on Dec 11, 2022 19:16:58 GMT
12272022, You are discriminating against SATANA-el or his cohorts/ Why? They are not in the GENESIS list. Given your method of acquiring knowledge, TELL us how they got to exist and their portent. In these days of criminality, war, and plague, we need some entertainment.........
|
|
|
Post by IM LITERALLY NEO on Dec 12, 2022 3:20:29 GMT
If You Recall My Specific Wording, I Was Asked What Would Happen On My Date (Typical "Prove It" Scenario), I Told You What I Saw In The Numbers, Not In The Future. I Showed How It Was Connected By The Numbers, And By Those Connections Suggested What Could Happen On My Date. I Never Said Flat Out It Would Happen, I Specifically Said "By The Numbers", And Other Connections To "Watch" Out For These Possibilities, Because Something You Have Denied Your Whole Life Is About To Occur In Your Lifetime.
My Number's Game Isn't A Game, It's Something More, I Am Onto Something Big, Something That Has Been Forgotten By Humans All These Years, That's Existed Underneath Their Senses And Soon Something Is About To Occur That Will Make Reality Not So Reality.
Higher Forces Maintain These Realms In Their State, It Is Fully Foolish To Assume The Existing Foundation We Stand On Was Created For No Meaningful Purpose, Yet Is Purported By Meaningful Laws And Logical Lessons With Logical Consequences. In that case then just shut up and keep it to yourself seeing as your not telling anyone anything, but you can't because you are making claims you just can't man up and except the risk involved because you doubt yourself. I've seen it a million times with other fake prophets in the church your no different, I still expect your straw grabbing pathetic fear mongering internet news that you are going to show us and talk about how your right and try to soak up all that attention you feel you need... You might be a mistake but you don't have to stay one your entire life you don't have to fail and be a terrible person because your parents were You can still grow up and get your mental instability under control and maybe have a chance at a healthy life one day , you don't have to be one of the things that makes the world a crappy place to be you can be something better . That's What Happens When You Don't Listen To What I Am Saying, And Listening To What You Are Expecting To Hear. This Happens Too Often In This World, People Don't Realize How Much They Aren't Listening Because They Spend Too Much Time Expecting.
I Explained In Specific Wording Exactly What I Am Intending To Say, And If You Go Back To My Posts On 9 13 2022, I Specifically Said "According To The Number Connections I Found"; It's People Like You That Put Pressure On People Like Us With Foolish Expectations And Poor Understanding Of Prophetic Work That Make A Mess Out Of Our Message (I Oppose False Messengers).
|
|
|
Post by IM LITERALLY NEO on Dec 12, 2022 3:23:45 GMT
The Name "Jesus" That Is Modern Is Not The "Jesus" That Is Translated In Its Hebrew Root Form That I Am Referring To. All References To "Jesus" In The Bible Was A Total Of 935 Times, Every Single Account Of "Jesus" In Its Hebrew Root Form Was Recorded By Scholars Across The Planet. For GOD, 4444 Times. And For Christ, 555 Times. And For Jesus Christ, 256 Times. Your study is not the study of Bible, but rather the study of one of King James's translations. Why don't you write your own Bible to leave people alone of that constant too subjective interpretations of yours? What if good people believe in your reading of it, whilst your analysis is wrong? It's a risky way, the initiator accepts all the burdens of the possible sequences. The KJV Is Regarded As One Of The Most Authentic Versions Of The Bible, And Other Bible Versions Do Not. It Fits Mathematical Geometry Known As "Bible Code" For The Scholars That Have Discovered The Hidden Mathematics In The KJV And Hebrew Bible.
|
|
|
Post by IM LITERALLY NEO on Dec 12, 2022 3:30:54 GMT
12272022, You are discriminating against SATANA-el or his cohorts/ Why? They are not in the GENESIS list. Given your method of acquiring knowledge, TELL us how they got to exist and their portent. In these days of criminality, war, and plague, we need some entertainment......... I Named The Main Aspects Of The Entire Bible As The Mainest Of The Main Hold The Main Keys To The Puzzle, Which I And Many Scholars Across The Planet Have Proven To Be Real, So There's No Actual Discriminating, What I Showed Is How It Works To That Point.
Another Thing, Those Are The Most Common Names Used To Decode Nearly The Entire Array Of Hidden Mathematics Discovered In The Bible By Scholars, I.E John 1:1 = 3627 And Genesis 1:1 = 2701 In Gematria, 3627 And 2701 Form The Euler's Function:
Evidence In This Picture: www.google.com/search?q=3627+2701+euler+bible+code&sxsrf=ALiCzsaQaspKumlpJ_hbSsBrU0eWL2ZMnw:1670815701988&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiur5vDkfP7AhWlmmoFHR08BI0Q_AUoAnoECAIQBA&biw=1600&bih=789&dpr=1#imgrc=3sbFQDLsbNlEsM
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Dec 12, 2022 6:55:34 GMT
In that case then just shut up and keep it to yourself seeing as your not telling anyone anything, but you can't because you are making claims you just can't man up and except the risk involved because you doubt yourself. I've seen it a million times with other fake prophets in the church your no different, I still expect your straw grabbing pathetic fear mongering internet news that you are going to show us and talk about how your right and try to soak up all that attention you feel you need... You might be a mistake but you don't have to stay one your entire life you don't have to fail and be a terrible person because your parents were You can still grow up and get your mental instability under control and maybe have a chance at a healthy life one day , you don't have to be one of the things that makes the world a crappy place to be you can be something better . That's What Happens When You Don't Listen To What I Am Saying, And Listening To What You Are Expecting To Hear. This Happens Too Often In This World, People Don't Realize How Much They Aren't Listening Because They Spend Too Much Time Expecting.
I Explained In Specific Wording Exactly What I Am Intending To Say, And If You Go Back To My Posts On 9 13 2022, I Specifically Said "According To The Number Connections I Found"; It's People Like You That Put Pressure On People Like Us With Foolish Expectations And Poor Understanding Of Prophetic Work That Make A Mess Out Of Our Message (I Oppose False Messengers).No your saying one thing and doing another Why can't you just man up just 1 time in your entire life?
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Dec 12, 2022 7:32:22 GMT
In that case then just shut up and keep it to yourself seeing as your not telling anyone anything, but you can't because you are making claims you just can't man up and except the risk involved because you doubt yourself. I've seen it a million times with other fake prophets in the church your no different, I still expect your straw grabbing pathetic fear mongering internet news that you are going to show us and talk about how your right and try to soak up all that attention you feel you need... You might be a mistake but you don't have to stay one your entire life you don't have to fail and be a terrible person because your parents were You can still grow up and get your mental instability under control and maybe have a chance at a healthy life one day , you don't have to be one of the things that makes the world a crappy place to be you can be something better . That's What Happens When You Don't Listen To What I Am Saying, And Listening To What You Are Expecting To Hear. This Happens Too Often In This World, People Don't Realize How Much They Aren't Listening Because They Spend Too Much Time Expecting.
I Explained In Specific Wording Exactly What I Am Intending To Say, And If You Go Back To My Posts On 9 13 2022, I Specifically Said "According To The Number Connections I Found"; It's People Like You That Put Pressure On People Like Us With Foolish Expectations And Poor Understanding Of Prophetic Work That Make A Mess Out Of Our Message (I Oppose False Messengers).Only what are you doing is posting the wrong eschatalogy/armageddon data. Who would be listening it? The question is - for why on earth you are needed this wrong method? If you personally don't face the very fact of your wrongness, then nobody helps you. How can you rely on someone's help? Those numbers you present time to time are wrong. Your choice of their connection is free and unfunctional. Even part of mathematicians would agree that '2+2=4' is just a way of writing numbers. People still do not know too much about this world; who today will believe in this method of connection? It was popular, by the way, in US in 20's-30's by a school, unfortunately I don't remember the name of it (I'll try to find it again later), but they thought that a way of our usage of semantics is the key point to psychology. That school was the most relevant founder of fugher neurolinguistic programming stuff, etc. Among those followers there were people who thought in a no-doubt mode that somewhere in our brains there are structures of 'Coca-Cola', 'Jeans', 'Marylin Monroe', etc. Not a single doubt the way of their thinking was wrong. Moreover, one of the most famous American philosophers W. V. O. Quine blew those expectations by revealing that the very logical methods are broken to investigate the ontological structure of the world. Yes, there were also critiques toward him, but what he was saying was quine closer to what a German philosopher Immanuel Kant was saying, exactly that: the world might be whatever it is, and we still might only be guessing of it. 'Tables', 'lamps', 'planets', 'clouds', 'elementary particles', 'molecules', 'fields' - are only our view of the nature. The world may look like completely differently. That is why this risked to blow out the whole physics hopes to become not only the chapter of the applied math. And this risk is still here, because who from the sanest can be certain in his claims that 'the set S' exists as S? We don't know about S, and we only may assume that if there is such a set of S, it should act in such and such way. That's about it. So, how were you going to investigate any nature sequences relying on numbers only? But that has been a no go for such a long time! In the times of Peano and Frege (end and beginning of XX century) the mathematicians and logics thought how to represent numbers formally, and the way Frege done it was more prefarrable, whille Peano founded one of such quite rough ways. Bertrund Russell then caught an initiative moding it into his apparatues, and things went haste and rushing - in the philosphy of math. The most important key was that: a) Frege could find one of the sharpest way to describe any number in a formal way; b) even his hopes will fail soon. Frege said that '0' can be represented as 'there are no such x that x=/=x', and '1' is 'there is an element x such that x=/=x', or alternatively 'there is 0'. But his idea of classes over classes became a paradox holder (Russell revealed it), and that buried the wishes of Frege and other mathematicians who wanted to base the math on some logical rails. But Russell kept studying the subject considering the type theory which was partially semantical, partially the hierarchy system. This system has been used by many coders even today, but that system is closed and limited. Philosophically Russell didn't get out of that. Then the semantics time came, while it hadn't changed anything for real, because - what is semantics? - is still a question for today. Studying language brought many thoughts, except for the answers for philosphy. It couldn't, I guess, because no semantic is without formalization, and as soon as any of such appears - just waits for math here. But if the math is out of complete formalization, that unformalized*unformalized = guess what it will be. We still wander in foggy being, not knowing anyting even the knowledge itsef, because - what knowledge is?
|
|
|
Post by IM LITERALLY NEO on Dec 12, 2022 19:57:36 GMT
That's What Happens When You Don't Listen To What I Am Saying, And Listening To What You Are Expecting To Hear. This Happens Too Often In This World, People Don't Realize How Much They Aren't Listening Because They Spend Too Much Time Expecting.
I Explained In Specific Wording Exactly What I Am Intending To Say, And If You Go Back To My Posts On 9 13 2022, I Specifically Said "According To The Number Connections I Found"; It's People Like You That Put Pressure On People Like Us With Foolish Expectations And Poor Understanding Of Prophetic Work That Make A Mess Out Of Our Message (I Oppose False Messengers). No your saying one thing and doing another Why can't you just man up just 1 time in your entire life? No, I Said "According To The Number Connections I Found", Followed By The Number Connections And The Context Behind It. I Never Repeated The Things False Messengers Say, I.E Sell Your Things Or Do Something Irresponsible Because It's The End Of The World, I Stuck To My Number Connections And Simply Explained Why I Was Concerned, And Still Am Concerned Because End Of 2022 Is Digitally Encoded By A "Man", "Woman", "Child", "Egg", Like Some Sort Of Intelligent Algorithm Beyond Time And Space.
|
|
|
Post by IM LITERALLY NEO on Dec 12, 2022 20:06:28 GMT
That's What Happens When You Don't Listen To What I Am Saying, And Listening To What You Are Expecting To Hear. This Happens Too Often In This World, People Don't Realize How Much They Aren't Listening Because They Spend Too Much Time Expecting.
I Explained In Specific Wording Exactly What I Am Intending To Say, And If You Go Back To My Posts On 9 13 2022, I Specifically Said "According To The Number Connections I Found"; It's People Like You That Put Pressure On People Like Us With Foolish Expectations And Poor Understanding Of Prophetic Work That Make A Mess Out Of Our Message (I Oppose False Messengers). Only what are you doing is posting the wrong eschatalogy/armageddon data. Who would be listening it? The question is - for why on earth you are needed this wrong method? If you personally don't face the very fact of your wrongness, then nobody helps you. How can you rely on someone's help? Those numbers you present time to time are wrong. Your choice of their connection is free and unfunctional. Even part of mathematicians would agree that '2+2=4' is just a way of writing numbers. People still do not know too much about this world; who today will believe in this method of connection? It was popular, by the way, in US in 20's-30's by a school, unfortunately I don't remember the name of it (I'll try to find it again later), but they thought that a way of our usage of semantics is the key point to psychology. That school was the most relevant founder of fugher neurolinguistic programming stuff, etc. Among those followers there were people who thought in a no-doubt mode that somewhere in our brains there are structures of 'Coca-Cola', 'Jeans', 'Marylin Monroe', etc. Not a single doubt the way of their thinking was wrong. Moreover, one of the most famous American philosophers W. V. O. Quine blew those expectations by revealing that the very logical methods are broken to investigate the ontological structure of the world. Yes, there were also critiques toward him, but what he was saying was quine closer to what a German philosopher Immanuel Kant was saying, exactly that: the world might be whatever it is, and we still might only be guessing of it. 'Tables', 'lamps', 'planets', 'clouds', 'elementary particles', 'molecules', 'fields' - are only our view of the nature. The world may look like completely differently. That is why this risked to blow out the whole physics hopes to become not only the chapter of the applied math. And this risk is still here, because who from the sanest can be certain in his claims that 'the set S' exists as S? We don't know about S, and we only may assume that if there is such a set of S, it should act in such and such way. That's about it. So, how were you going to investigate any nature sequences relying on numbers only? But that has been a no go for such a long time! In the times of Peano and Frege (end and beginning of XX century) the mathematicians and logics thought how to represent numbers formally, and the way Frege done it was more prefarrable, whille Peano founded one of such quite rough ways. Bertrund Russell then caught an initiative moding it into his apparatues, and things went haste and rushing - in the philosphy of math. The most important key was that: a) Frege could find one of the sharpest way to describe any number in a formal way; b) even his hopes will fail soon. Frege said that '0' can be represented as 'there are no such x that x=/=x', and '1' is 'there is an element x such that x=/=x', or alternatively 'there is 0'. But his idea of classes over classes became a paradox holder (Russell revealed it), and that buried the wishes of Frege and other mathematicians who wanted to base the math on some logical rails. But Russell kept studying the subject considering the type theory which was partially semantical, partially the hierarchy system. This system has been used by many coders even today, but that system is closed and limited. Philosophically Russell didn't get out of that. Then the semantics time came, while it hadn't changed anything for real, because - what is semantics? - is still a question for today. Studying language brought many thoughts, except for the answers for philosphy. It couldn't, I guess, because no semantic is without formalization, and as soon as any of such appears - just waits for math here. But if the math is out of complete formalization, that unformalized*unformalized = guess what it will be. We still wander in foggy being, not knowing anyting even the knowledge itsef, because - what knowledge is? How Am I Supposed To Take You Seriously When You Quote "Immanuel Kant" While Proposing What You Consider An Intelligible Point In The Same Sentence?
Immanuel Kant And Other Anti-Philosophers That Demean Meaning And Create Pseudo-Points By Deconstructing A Constructed World They Can't Mentally Construct Themselves Is Stupendously Stupid And Should Never Be Quoted In An Intelligent Debate.
I Was 16 When I Chose To Research Minds Like Nikola Tesla And Carl Jung, It's Those Kind Of Minds That Shape Our Minds To Better Our Minds And To Better Understand Our Minds Shaping.
Immanuel Kant, Edgar Allen Poe, Nietzsche And Darwin Type Minds Aren't Mindful, They Are Mindless And Unminded, Incapable Of Constructing With The Mind, A Lost Mind, No Mind, Minding Nothing, But Minding Enough To Unmind The Mind, It's Mindless.
Eugene, Real Talk. How Do You Expect To Understand Me, When You've Yet To Escape The Logical Fallacies Of These Idiots? They Have Contributed Nothing But The Downward Spiral Of Philosophy, They Are Murderers Of This Philosophy Board's Purpose, All Things Can Be Thought, Doesn't Mean All Thoughts Should Be Accepted, Especially When Some Thoughts Are Existing To Destroy Better Thoughts.
So No, You're Wrong On This. Every Day I Literally Watch Numbers Stand Out On The Get Go, I Then See Them Pop Up In My Next Work, Unique / Rare Formulations Back To Back, As If I Knew It Was Going To Happen Before It Did; I Know, Before I Know, That's The Power Of Mathematical Genesis And Soulful Intuition, I Feel Something Higher Going On And I'm Picking Up On An Intelligent Algorithm, A Purposeful Design In The Midst Of Our Senses That Is Just Visible To A Master Eye.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Dec 12, 2022 20:17:19 GMT
Only what are you doing is posting the wrong eschatalogy/armageddon data. Who would be listening it? The question is - for why on earth you are needed this wrong method? If you personally don't face the very fact of your wrongness, then nobody helps you. How can you rely on someone's help? Those numbers you present time to time are wrong. Your choice of their connection is free and unfunctional. Even part of mathematicians would agree that '2+2=4' is just a way of writing numbers. People still do not know too much about this world; who today will believe in this method of connection? It was popular, by the way, in US in 20's-30's by a school, unfortunately I don't remember the name of it (I'll try to find it again later), but they thought that a way of our usage of semantics is the key point to psychology. That school was the most relevant founder of fugher neurolinguistic programming stuff, etc. Among those followers there were people who thought in a no-doubt mode that somewhere in our brains there are structures of 'Coca-Cola', 'Jeans', 'Marylin Monroe', etc. Not a single doubt the way of their thinking was wrong. Moreover, one of the most famous American philosophers W. V. O. Quine blew those expectations by revealing that the very logical methods are broken to investigate the ontological structure of the world. Yes, there were also critiques toward him, but what he was saying was quine closer to what a German philosopher Immanuel Kant was saying, exactly that: the world might be whatever it is, and we still might only be guessing of it. 'Tables', 'lamps', 'planets', 'clouds', 'elementary particles', 'molecules', 'fields' - are only our view of the nature. The world may look like completely differently. That is why this risked to blow out the whole physics hopes to become not only the chapter of the applied math. And this risk is still here, because who from the sanest can be certain in his claims that 'the set S' exists as S? We don't know about S, and we only may assume that if there is such a set of S, it should act in such and such way. That's about it. So, how were you going to investigate any nature sequences relying on numbers only? But that has been a no go for such a long time! In the times of Peano and Frege (end and beginning of XX century) the mathematicians and logics thought how to represent numbers formally, and the way Frege done it was more prefarrable, whille Peano founded one of such quite rough ways. Bertrund Russell then caught an initiative moding it into his apparatues, and things went haste and rushing - in the philosphy of math. The most important key was that: a) Frege could find one of the sharpest way to describe any number in a formal way; b) even his hopes will fail soon. Frege said that '0' can be represented as 'there are no such x that x=/=x', and '1' is 'there is an element x such that x=/=x', or alternatively 'there is 0'. But his idea of classes over classes became a paradox holder (Russell revealed it), and that buried the wishes of Frege and other mathematicians who wanted to base the math on some logical rails. But Russell kept studying the subject considering the type theory which was partially semantical, partially the hierarchy system. This system has been used by many coders even today, but that system is closed and limited. Philosophically Russell didn't get out of that. Then the semantics time came, while it hadn't changed anything for real, because - what is semantics? - is still a question for today. Studying language brought many thoughts, except for the answers for philosphy. It couldn't, I guess, because no semantic is without formalization, and as soon as any of such appears - just waits for math here. But if the math is out of complete formalization, that unformalized*unformalized = guess what it will be. We still wander in foggy being, not knowing anyting even the knowledge itsef, because - what knowledge is? How Am I Supposed To Take You Seriously When You Quote "Immanuel Kant" While Proposing What You Consider An Intelligible Point In The Same Sentence?
Immanuel Kant And Other Anti-Philosophers That Demean Meaning And Create Pseudo-Points By Deconstructing A Constructed World They Can't Mentally Construct Themselves Is Stupendously Stupid And Should Never Be Quoted In An Intelligent Debate.
I Was 16 When I Chose To Research Minds Like Nikola Tesla And Carl Jung, It's Those Kind Of Minds That Shape Our Minds To Better Our Minds And To Better Understand Our Minds Shaping.
Immanuel Kant, Edgar Allen Poe, Nietzsche And Darwin Type Minds Aren't Mindful, They Are Mindless And Unminded, Incapable Of Constructing With The Mind, A Lost Mind, No Mind, Minding Nothing, But Minding Enough To Unmind The Mind, It's Mindless.
Eugene, Real Talk. How Do You Expect To Understand Me, When You've Yet To Escape The Logical Fallacies Of These Idiots? They Have Contributed Nothing But The Downward Spiral Of Philosophy, They Are Murderers Of This Philosophy Board's Purpose, All Things Can Be Thought, Doesn't Mean All Thoughts Should Be Accepted, Especially When Some Thoughts Are Existing To Destroy Better Thoughts.
So No, You're Wrong On This. Every Day I Literally Watch Numbers Stand Out On The Get Go, I Then See Them Pop Up In My Next Work, Unique / Rare Formulations Back To Back, As If I Knew It Was Going To Happen Before It Did; I Know, Before I Know, That's The Power Of Mathematical Genesis And Soulful Intuition, I Feel Something Higher Going On And I'm Picking Up On An Intelligent Algorithm, A Purposeful Design In The Midst Of Our Senses That Is Just Visible To A Master Eye.It's unbelievable. I did not like Kant, neither glorified his snoopings in philosophy. He was a keenest mind of the time, nevertheless. If you doubt Kant – it is good. With the rest is not easy to agree, bit I don't mind to at least partially do it.
|
|