|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Mar 10, 2023 20:19:06 GMT
The fact that mathematical axioms are 'self' evidential necessitates a self within the formation of mathematics and as such further necessitates a subjectivity. This subjective nature to math paradoxically results in certain axioms not being accepted as the subjective is relative thus necessitating true/false values for everything depending upon the angle of observation. I don't accept the axioms of math and the 'self'-evidential nature of these axioms is further proof I don't have to.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Mar 15, 2023 17:35:17 GMT
Thanks. Honestly I would like to hear more about June 12 2017, but it's up to your wish. Do you know what happened on 5.11 (the unknown year)? – Now I am reading (2nd time) Bram Stoker's "Dracula". Guess who died that day? I have a feeling you're wrong about the date as your previous predictions. You follow the wrong path. Maybe 5.11.2032 will be the best day in the whole history. And why are you obsessed with those negative data? Why can't you calculate something positive? There are so many bad things in the world... Besides, your methods are not bad at all, I think you make mistakes because of your exact interpretations of events. I do hope you are reading this message of mine: So, let's you predict about X. And you say X is good or bad. But such the analysis is weak. Let's say another person corrects you saying that X is 0.01 or 0.02. I would prefer that latter analysis. It might be that your previous analysis had some success, but your descriptions to then as "the end of the days" or "apocalypse" was as vague and fuzzy as possible. This isn't a better path. And again, why your predictions are usually about bad events? Why so?
Like Water Circling A Drain, The Numbers Are Circling A Singularity, I Am On The Verge Of Completely Revealing This Singularity.
I Just Spelled Out The Name Of An Ancient Goddess (Hathor) With Our Conversation Just By Noticing The Numbers, That Says It All.
Certain Dates Are Utterly Complex And Seem To Hold Vast Algorithmic Secrets, I Am On The Verge Of Uncovering Everything.
Before 5 . 11 . 2032, I Am Watching 4 . 1 . 2023, Not That You Care, But Just In Case You Say Something That Confirms It.
The Date 6 . 12 . 2017 To My 4 . 1 . 2023 Date Does Confirm My Concerns. I Would Tell You Why, But You Wouldn't Believe Me.Numbers are numbers, but humans are humans, and it's the main purpose not to offend them. It's inappropriate to disrespect someone. Again any data are vague, fuzzy, and depends on our calendar system, our measures. For other cultures with other numerical systems the results would be different. So, honestly I don't expect some data would be correct for numerology. There's another point that may work and this point is supposed to deal with physics. What do I mean? If there's a material like Uranium 238 or something and it is in some place in a certain time, then it's natural to expect that material to depart due to its inner properties. So, one can do the next: by using a certain numerical system to measure the time, calendar data, and so on, and then to expect that one day that material to depart. Let's say a) the material U will be departed on Tuesday the 14 of May in 2302, if our calendar system is the same as the current in many countries today b) the material U will be departed on Wednesday the 14 of May in 1151, if our calendar system is ½ of what's being currently used for today in many countries That's why to relate purely on dates... well, I don't see many reasons. If to write the current day as ½ of 6×5 of the third of March, we will have 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6, and if to write it as the 15 of March we will have 1 and 5. Depending on how to name it the numbers look not the same. Besides there must be no objections to name today's data as 27 or 46 of March instead of 15, the calendar system is circumstantial. Or we cannot refuse a possible chance that earlier in history someone didn't make a mistake with the calendar. |
|
|
|
Post by IM LITERALLY NEO on Mar 16, 2023 14:53:16 GMT
It's Like I Said Before, I'm Just Telling You What Is In The Numbers, The Limitations Of Numbers Means Reality Has An End.
Like Water Circling A Drain, The Numbers Are Circling A Singularity, I Am On The Verge Of Completely Revealing This Singularity.
I Just Spelled Out The Name Of An Ancient Goddess (Hathor) With Our Conversation Just By Noticing The Numbers, That Says It All.
Certain Dates Are Utterly Complex And Seem To Hold Vast Algorithmic Secrets, I Am On The Verge Of Uncovering Everything.
Before 5 . 11 . 2032, I Am Watching 4 . 1 . 2023, Not That You Care, But Just In Case You Say Something That Confirms It.
The Date 6 . 12 . 2017 To My 4 . 1 . 2023 Date Does Confirm My Concerns. I Would Tell You Why, But You Wouldn't Believe Me. Numbers are numbers, but humans are humans, and it's the main purpose not to offend them. It's inappropriate to disrespect someone. Again any data are vague, fuzzy, and depends on our calendar system, our measures. For other cultures with other numerical systems the results would be different. So, honestly I don't expect some data would be correct for numerology. There's another point that may work and this point is supposed to deal with physics. What do I mean? If there's a material like Uranium 238 or something and it is in some place in a certain time, then it's natural to expect that material to depart due to its inner properties. So, one can do the next: by using a certain numerical system to measure the time, calendar data, and so on, and then to expect that one day that material to depart. Let's say a) the material U will be departed on Tuesday the 14 of May in 2302, if our calendar system is the same as the current in many countries today b) the material U will be departed on Wednesday the 14 of May in 1151, if our calendar system is ½ of what's being currently used for today in many countries That's why to relate purely on dates... well, I don't see many reasons. If to write the current day as ½ of 6×5 of the third of March, we will have 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6, and if to write it as the 15 of March we will have 1 and 5. Depending on how to name it the numbers look not the same. Besides there must be no objections to name today's data as 27 or 46 of March instead of 15, the calendar system is circumstantial. Or we cannot refuse a possible chance that earlier in history someone didn't make a mistake with the calendar.
Eugene, I'm Not Going To Tell You Again, I Have PI's Formula, I Have PHI's Golden Ratio Formula And I Have Euler's Formula (The ONLY MAN On This Planet With A Euler Formula That Works), On Top Of Everything Else That Is Mathematical AND Malleable. Your Doubt In Mathematics Does Not Have Anything To Do With The Wealth Of True Mathematical Genius.
Besides, I Literally Spelled Out The Name "HATHOR" (An Ancient Goddess) During Our Conversation Just By The Timing Of Numbers, So Your Doubt Is Not Well Founded, And This World's Need To Down Play Mathematical Genius Is The Bane Of Its Growth. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Mar 16, 2023 15:40:33 GMT
Numbers are numbers, but humans are humans, and it's the main purpose not to offend them. It's inappropriate to disrespect someone. Again any data are vague, fuzzy, and depends on our calendar system, our measures. For other cultures with other numerical systems the results would be different. So, honestly I don't expect some data would be correct for numerology. There's another point that may work and this point is supposed to deal with physics. What do I mean? If there's a material like Uranium 238 or something and it is in some place in a certain time, then it's natural to expect that material to depart due to its inner properties. So, one can do the next: by using a certain numerical system to measure the time, calendar data, and so on, and then to expect that one day that material to depart. Let's say a) the material U will be departed on Tuesday the 14 of May in 2302, if our calendar system is the same as the current in many countries today b) the material U will be departed on Wednesday the 14 of May in 1151, if our calendar system is ½ of what's being currently used for today in many countries That's why to relate purely on dates... well, I don't see many reasons. If to write the current day as ½ of 6×5 of the third of March, we will have 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6, and if to write it as the 15 of March we will have 1 and 5. Depending on how to name it the numbers look not the same. Besides there must be no objections to name today's data as 27 or 46 of March instead of 15, the calendar system is circumstantial. Or we cannot refuse a possible chance that earlier in history someone didn't make a mistake with the calendar.
Eugene, I'm Not Going To Tell You Again, I Have PI's Formula, I Have PHI's Golden Ratio Formula And I Have Euler's Formula (The ONLY MAN On This Planet With A Euler Formula That Works), On Top Of Everything Else That Is Mathematical AND Malleable. Your Doubt In Mathematics Does Not Have Anything To Do With The Wealth Of True Mathematical Genius.
Besides, I Literally Spelled Out The Name "HATHOR" (An Ancient Goddess) During Our Conversation Just By The Timing Of Numbers, So Your Doubt Is Not Well Founded, And This World's Need To Down Play Mathematical Genius Is The Bane Of Its Growth.Hathor is from Jewish Kabbalah tradition, is that right? I remember I met some of those names here or there. Speaking honestly, I can't get their meaning. Most of them are vague and out of my mind. Okay, let's say you're genius, but is it good for genius to offend someone by using the numbers? Maybe for you these numbers are just something extraordinary or well-written, while some may found these numbers offensive or inappropriate. Some numbers may be antiracial or antisocial. Do you know that in the Third (by the way the Third - it is "3"!) Reich there was a cult of numerology, and the soldiers of Hitler should spread the different numerical sequences to eliminate as many as possible souls? People like Hitler believed in that. Also, if you deal with numbers in a so good way why don't you propose your offers to some companies or someone else? No, I'm not joking, I am deadly serious. There was a series in Columbo movie series where the lieutenant Columbo investigated the case, and NASA hired two person who dealt with numbers, were mathematical geniuses. And in the series X-Men there was a Professor X who used extra powers. And yes, I may doubt in anything. It is anyone's right, isn't it? If we couldn't doubt, then how could we use our brains in a proper way anyway? |
|
|
|
Post by IM LITERALLY NEO on Mar 16, 2023 16:07:24 GMT
No, There's MANY Tropes On This Already, It's Well Established That People Are EASILY Offended And Thin-Skinned, And That OFFENDING Someone Is NOT An Offense. This Is Why Parents Tell Children To Grow Thicker Skin When It Comes To Being Offended Over Non-Offensive Situations. Parents That Throw A Tantrum With Their Poorly Offended Child Look Like Idiots To Anyone With A Brain.
Eugene, I'm Not Going To Tell You Again, I Have PI's Formula, I Have PHI's Golden Ratio Formula And I Have Euler's Formula (The ONLY MAN On This Planet With A Euler Formula That Works), On Top Of Everything Else That Is Mathematical AND Malleable. Your Doubt In Mathematics Does Not Have Anything To Do With The Wealth Of True Mathematical Genius.
Besides, I Literally Spelled Out The Name "HATHOR" (An Ancient Goddess) During Our Conversation Just By The Timing Of Numbers, So Your Doubt Is Not Well Founded, And This World's Need To Down Play Mathematical Genius Is The Bane Of Its Growth. Hathor is from Jewish Kabbalah tradition, is that right? I remember I met some of those names here or there. Speaking honestly, I can't get their meaning. Most of them are vague and out of my mind. Okay, let's say you're genius, but is it good for genius to offend someone by using the numbers? Maybe for you these numbers are just something extraordinary or well-written, while some may found these numbers offensive or inappropriate. Some numbers may be antiracial or antisocial. Do you know that in the Third (by the way the Third - it is "3"!) Reich there was a cult of numerology, and the soldiers of Hitler should spread the different numerical sequences to eliminate as many as possible souls? People like Hitler believed in that. Also, if you deal with numbers in a so good way why don't you propose your offers to some companies or someone else? No, I'm not joking, I am deadly serious. There was a series in Columbo movie series where the lieutenant Columbo investigated the case, and NASA hired two person who dealt with numbers, were mathematical geniuses. And in the series X-Men there was a Professor X who used extra powers. And yes, I may doubt in anything. It is anyone's right, isn't it? If we couldn't doubt, then how could we use our brains in a proper way anyway?
There Is A Healthy Skepticism That Is Able To Apply Itself Lightly In Any Case, And There Is Your Unhealthy Skepticism That Banned Me For No Reason Except "Numbers Offend Us", After I Put All This Work And Spirit Into My Work Just For You Guys In A CORDIAL Form.
While We Discussed "2986" I Found "2986" x "271963" = "812081518" = "H A T H O R", Look Her Up. Your "Skepticism" Completely Ignored That Genius Act.
My Work Has Nothing To Do With Genocide, It's Just Genius -- Not Genocide, JUST GENIUS. I Looked Up To People Like Tesla. I Took Intelligence And Genius And Intuition To The Next Level. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Mar 16, 2023 17:36:31 GMT
Hathor is from Jewish Kabbalah tradition, is that right? I remember I met some of those names here or there. Speaking honestly, I can't get their meaning. Most of them are vague and out of my mind. Okay, let's say you're genius, but is it good for genius to offend someone by using the numbers? Maybe for you these numbers are just something extraordinary or well-written, while some may found these numbers offensive or inappropriate. Some numbers may be antiracial or antisocial. Do you know that in the Third (by the way the Third - it is "3"!) Reich there was a cult of numerology, and the soldiers of Hitler should spread the different numerical sequences to eliminate as many as possible souls? People like Hitler believed in that. Also, if you deal with numbers in a so good way why don't you propose your offers to some companies or someone else? No, I'm not joking, I am deadly serious. There was a series in Columbo movie series where the lieutenant Columbo investigated the case, and NASA hired two person who dealt with numbers, were mathematical geniuses. And in the series X-Men there was a Professor X who used extra powers. And yes, I may doubt in anything. It is anyone's right, isn't it? If we couldn't doubt, then how could we use our brains in a proper way anyway?
There Is A Healthy Skepticism That Is Able To Apply Itself Lightly In Any Case, And There Is Your Unhealthy Skepticism That Banned Me For No Reason Except "Numbers Offend Us", After I Put All This Work And Spirit Into My Work Just For You Guys In A CORDIAL Form.
While We Discussed "2986" I Found "2986" x "271963" = "812081518" = "H A T H O R", Look Her Up. Your "Skepticism" Completely Ignored That Genius Act.
My Work Has Nothing To Do With Genocide, It's Just Genius -- Not Genocide, JUST GENIUS. I Looked Up To People Like Tesla. I Took Intelligence And Genius And Intuition To The Next Level.Some images, constructions, and other structures may be viewed as offensive. Actually, there were precedents. Such numbers as fourteen eighty eight, or triple six, or sixty nine may were found offensive by some groups. Hitler also thought he was a genius. It's not a good way to act like that. It's not impossible for a person to be a genius, but usually societies consider or pick the geniuses by themselves. Let's say in sport competitions - there are judges, and they decide it, not a sportsman by himself. |
|
|
|
Post by IM LITERALLY NEO on Mar 17, 2023 3:33:28 GMT
Offending Anyone With "Numbers" Is A Ludicrous Position And Would Never Hold Up In Any Professional Court.
There Is A Healthy Skepticism That Is Able To Apply Itself Lightly In Any Case, And There Is Your Unhealthy Skepticism That Banned Me For No Reason Except "Numbers Offend Us", After I Put All This Work And Spirit Into My Work Just For You Guys In A CORDIAL Form.
While We Discussed "2986" I Found "2986" x "271963" = "812081518" = "H A T H O R", Look Her Up. Your "Skepticism" Completely Ignored That Genius Act.
My Work Has Nothing To Do With Genocide, It's Just Genius -- Not Genocide, JUST GENIUS. I Looked Up To People Like Tesla. I Took Intelligence And Genius And Intuition To The Next Level. Some images, constructions, and other structures may be viewed as offensive. Actually, there were precedents. Such numbers as fourteen eighty eight, or triple six, or sixty nine may were found offensive by some groups. Hitler also thought he was a genius. It's not a good way to act like that. It's not impossible for a person to be a genius, but usually societies consider or pick the geniuses by themselves. Let's say in sport competitions - there are judges, and they decide it, not a sportsman by himself. Eugene, Your "Numbers Are Offensive" Would NEVER Get Through A Court System, It's Laughable, It's Ridiculous And Quite Frankly It's Childish. You Banned The Wrong Person For The Wrong Reason, Own Up To Your Short Sight And Move On To Being A More Mature Moderator. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Mar 17, 2023 6:23:58 GMT
Some images, constructions, and other structures may be viewed as offensive. Actually, there were precedents. Such numbers as fourteen eighty eight, or triple six, or sixty nine may were found offensive by some groups. Hitler also thought he was a genius. It's not a good way to act like that. It's not impossible for a person to be a genius, but usually societies consider or pick the geniuses by themselves. Let's say in sport competitions - there are judges, and they decide it, not a sportsman by himself. Eugene, Your "Numbers Are Offensive" Would NEVER Get Through A Court System, It's Laughable, It's Ridiculous And Quite Frankly It's Childish. You Banned The Wrong Person For The Wrong Reason, Own Up To Your Short Sight And Move On To Being A More Mature Moderator. Certain numbers wrote in a certain way. Next offenses won't be passed by by me. See absolutely no reasons for you to offend me or xxxxxxxxx. None of us told you anything about your features, or abilities. Did 9'x or me told you about the range of your vision or something? – No. Only about posting weird stuff. Moreover I never doubted whether or not you were genius. There are different people in the world, each is unique, or at least many ones are not the same. |
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Mar 17, 2023 10:45:08 GMT
The fact that mathematical axioms are 'self' evidential necessitates a self within the formation of mathematics and as such further necessitates a subjectivity. This subjective nature to math paradoxically results in certain axioms not being accepted as the subjective is relative thus necessitating true/false values for everything depending upon the angle of observation. I don't accept the axioms of math and the 'self'-evidential nature of these axioms is further proof I don't have to.
At no point do you say what these axioms are even said to be. Which are you even disagreeing with?
Because a mind has a subjective distortion to it, its always better to use two quite distinct math processes to answer any question.
The odds of the same identical error occurring,
in two entirely different processes is virtually zero.
Its why having two eyes is virtually infinitely superior to having one.
|
|
|
|
Post by IM LITERALLY NEO on Mar 17, 2023 15:24:33 GMT
Eugene, Your "Numbers Are Offensive" Would NEVER Get Through A Court System, It's Laughable, It's Ridiculous And Quite Frankly It's Childish. You Banned The Wrong Person For The Wrong Reason, Own Up To Your Short Sight And Move On To Being A More Mature Moderator. Certain numbers wrote in a certain way. Next offenses won't be passed by by me. See absolutely n o reasons for you to offend me or xxxxxxxxx. None of us told you anything about your features, or abilities. Did 9'x or me told you about the range of your vision or something? – No. Only about posting weird stuff. Moreover I never doubted whether or not you were genius. There are different people in the world, each is unique, or at least many ones are not the same.
I.E You And Xxxxxxx's Profile Pictures OFFEND Me, Because You Both Look Like Depraved Serial Killers That Rape Women With Those Joker Sociopathic Smile And That Zealot Poker Face. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Mar 17, 2023 16:21:56 GMT
Certain numbers wrote in a certain way. Next offenses won't be passed by by me. See absolutely n o reasons for you to offend me or xxxxxxxxx. None of us told you anything about your features, or abilities. Did 9'x or me told you about the range of your vision or something? – No. Only about posting weird stuff. Moreover I never doubted whether or not you were genius. There are different people in the world, each is unique, or at least many ones are not the same.
I.E You And Xxxxxxx's Profile Pictures OFFEND Me, Because You Both Look Like Depraved Serial Killers That Rape Women With Those Joker Sociopathic Smile And That Zealot Poker Face.I warned you, buddy that was your last post here. Farewell |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Mar 22, 2023 20:41:58 GMT
The fact that mathematical axioms are 'self' evidential necessitates a self within the formation of mathematics and as such further necessitates a subjectivity. This subjective nature to math paradoxically results in certain axioms not being accepted as the subjective is relative thus necessitating true/false values for everything depending upon the angle of observation. I don't accept the axioms of math and the 'self'-evidential nature of these axioms is further proof I don't have to. But there not self evidential Exactly. What is considered self-evidential to some is not self-evidential to others. Self-evidence is relative. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Mar 22, 2023 20:44:29 GMT
the ability of farmers to predict the seasons with precision over the eons, avoids seasonal war Whilst those who miscalculate the length of a year by a few minutes, will wage war every few generations as a consequence of mistimed reaping and sowing yielding famine and drought... luckily for you, the fruits of such labors yields to you the capacity to use THIS primary tool, and tell me on the other side of the world, that all math is just wrong cos you wannitobe I never said it what wrong, I said it is not self-evidential to all considering math is subject to angles of observation. The fact that math can predict some things but not others necessitates it as only a relative truth. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Mar 22, 2023 20:51:58 GMT
The fact that mathematical axioms are 'self' evidential necessitates a self within the formation of mathematics and as such further necessitates a subjectivity. This subjective nature to math paradoxically results in certain axioms not being accepted as the subjective is relative thus necessitating true/false values for everything depending upon the angle of observation. I don't accept the axioms of math and the 'self'-evidential nature of these axioms is further proof I don't have to.
At no point do you say what these axioms are even said to be. Which are you even disagreeing with?
Because a mind has a subjective distortion to it, its always better to use two quite distinct math processes to answer any question.
The odds of the same identical error occurring,
in two entirely different processes is virtually zero.
Its why having two eyes is virtually infinitely superior to having one.
I don't have to apply an example as the premise of the argument is about self-evidentiality thus is not limited to math but many things in general. But to humor you:
Here is an example that applies broadly.
1+1=2
1+1 can result in 3 phenomena, the one, the other one, and the set of both ones as one.
Dually adding points together results in one point as there is no difference within one point from another; observing two drops of water merge as one is a metaphorical example of this. Adding x number of points together results in the points merging as one. Dually to subtract a point from a point results in the same point. To divide points is to multiply points, to multiply points is to divide points.
|
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Mar 22, 2023 21:18:18 GMT
At no point do you say what these axioms are even said to be. Which are you even disagreeing with?
Because a mind has a subjective distortion to it, its always better to use two quite distinct math processes to answer any question.
The odds of the same identical error occurring,
in two entirely different processes is virtually zero.
Its why having two eyes is virtually infinitely superior to having one.
I don't have to apply an example as the premise of the argument is about self-evidentiality thus is not limited to math but many things in general. But to humor you:
Here is an example that applies broadly.
1+1=2
1+1 can result in 3 phenomena, the one, the other one, and the set of both ones as one.
Dually adding points together results in one point as there is no difference within one point from another; observing two drops of water merge as one is a metaphorical example of this. Adding x number of points together results in the points merging as one. Dually to subtract a point from a point results in the same point. To divide points is to multiply points, to multiply points is to divide points.
The reason why philosophers use axiomatic math as a foundation of reason, is that it is self-evident to those who make the reasonably small effort to comprehend it.
Geometry is not self-evident to infants, or at least up until the age of about 10-ish they go about banging their heads on their false assumptions about how the world works.
When you catch a ball, you are really subconsciously doing advanced trigonometry as well as evolutionary Newtonian physics, somehow without even realizing it.
The reason why philosophers seek such a foundation, is that in order to begin more in-depth problems like cosmology and medicine, there needs to be that fundamental set of assumptions that prevents
those that are compulsively argumentative from disrupting that foundation.
No discussion can operate without assumptions. We assume here, that we are speaking english and not va simplement passer à une variété de langues comme
le français ou le japonais uniquement pour essayer de
"gagner" l'argument du point de vue de l'ego.
Math certainly cannot describe everything. That does not make it 'relative'.
But if you refuse to accept math, then what IS the foundational philosophical assumptions that you propose in its place?
The only other candidate would be the 10 commandments.
|
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Mar 22, 2023 21:27:09 GMT
I don't have to apply an example as the premise of the argument is about self-evidentiality thus is not limited to math but many things in general. But to humor you:
Here is an example that applies broadly.
1+1=2
1+1 can result in 3 phenomena, the one, the other one, and the set of both ones as one.
Dually adding points together results in one point as there is no difference within one point from another; observing two drops of water merge as one is a metaphorical example of this. Adding x number of points together results in the points merging as one. Dually to subtract a point from a point results in the same point. To divide points is to multiply points, to multiply points is to divide points.
The reason why philosophers use axiomatic math as a foundation of reason, is that it is self-evident to those who make the reasonably small effort to comprehend it.
Geometry is not self-evident to infants, or at least up until the age of about 10-ish they go about banging their heads on their false assumptions about how the world works.
When you catch a ball, you are really subconsciously doing advanced trigonometry as well as evolutionary Newtonian physics, somehow without even realizing it.
The reason why philosophers seek such a foundation, is that in order to begin more in-depth problems like cosmology and medicine, there needs to be that fundamental set of assumptions that prevents
those that are compulsively argumentative from disrupting that foundation.
No discussion can operate without assumptions. We assume here, that we are speaking english and not va simplement passer à une variété de langues comme
le français ou le japonais uniquement pour essayer de
"gagner" l'argument du point de vue de l'ego.
Math certainly cannot describe everything. That does not make it 'relative'.
But if you refuse to accept math, then what IS the foundational philosophical assumptions that you propose in its place?
The only other candidate would be the 10 commandments.
If everything is an assumption then you are assuming foundations are needed. My foundation is no-thing as no-thing is without change. |
|
