(This blog is only a helper one; general blog are currently on the Wordpress platform due its clarity of usage for writers as I)
•Genetics’ recursively enumerable set (basics of metamatematics: highly inductive (meta)theory, sequencing (almost as polymers) – have strict commonness (=>induction) of predicates applying to variable’s values
(✓more precisely, in relation: as chromosomes, as genes – independently to the level of objects „we” think or work at – all is mathematics)
•Induction reasoning can generate deduction – sometimes it is OK but in some circumstances... helper predicate P as Kurt's consequence about nature formal systems (sets – one of such set is human neocortical places inside brain)
P - „variable/constant” (context-sticky) predicate
Introducing helper var d, d∈N, d>0
(P can contain Goedel’s consequence predicate part) – this will be adressed later)
❚P(1) ^ P(2) … P(N) [<]=>
P(N) ^ P(N+1) ^ P(N+2)… ^ P(d)…
d variable can be in various ranges, even practically simultaneously << , or >>N – according to the further formal (also known as meta-logic) statement❟
we have VERY interesting, surprising mathematical phenomenon when
❚Let N=2, and P = „ability to thought”, P ∈ some neuroscience
(For substitution of N var to form of N=2, as the more concrete case, thus P predicate meaning became visible as below ::)
•One neuron can’t think by itself, by MATHEMATICAL INDUCTION REASONING two neurons can’t think…(generalization eq.= to= induction) from fact X neurons can’t think, inference=>x+1 also CAN’T THINK –> MIND=SOUL, AND BRAIN IS NOT MIND (that is, full dualism)
✐NOTES / OBSERVATIONS
P can be freely large, quantifier that’d be inserted in such reasoning would be G-E-N-E-R-A-L, & „greedy”.
P can point also to variable bound being indexed of very small value —
Greedy quantifiers are known to computer programmers. BOTH Windows / .NET platform, & Linux
E X P L A N A T I O N
Translating it to natural („human”) language, by computer machine language & whole of engineering, fuzzy „logic” aberRATions, we can’t prove the everything (we need extra /other!/ axioms added in such situations). Discourse, as analogy, form of – statements, verbs, or instruction set, can’t be …. finite, as consequence. Kurt Goedel theorems shows not relativity, but „rather”, infinity, applied as co-layer to popular scientific discoveries. Structure of science, as in form of mutually, highly inter-analogy, does NOT encloses itself in mechanical–computational domain. The philosophy, directly speaking, religion – does is needed. You can’t avoid it. The questions about human brain are -NOT- technical questions, they are philosophical and mathematical questions. Main concern remains in blocks building discourse: Math exceeds over the statistics, math is not limited to statistical approach usage (economy, etc.!!!), or, more deeply, statistics is not so scientific as it can appear.
Thoughts can’t prove thoughts... common point is too-fractality fallacy...:
– again, the circular fallacy occurring. This is sign, that we have some error. The theory must NOT have circular references. It is simple?
Look how it is simple. Unethical sphere of almost whole society is proven by mathematical means. If you believe human can be machine, then this strict reasoning patterns of proving if for you. Personally, it is very frustrating to see people across whole (?) world believing (be-LIE-ving) in human-matter monism (ids).
Because, assembler-like languages, NOR higher O’Reilly (C++, even very practical Python), can’t prove itself by itself!! We need some metalanguage (that is, language **but diff. it from grammar!** — being of „rank” >1 .
»They can’t prove their genetics when they aren’t linking it to metamaths (=metalogic) & rebuild it by extending in places of unavoidable logical conflicts.
Academic math suggests there may be undefined sequence of potential problems, using set theory — but in reality, I have concern of quantum-granulation theory. ZFC, set of all sets theories of paradox – &etc. are „top of iceberg”.
„Greater than one... look like solipsistic - communism relation problem”. Not fully – it is firstly, debunking of archetype – religion isn't sufficient to prove people's crimes.
I mean by this esp., so-called finite system (in disciplines like physics, biology, general chemistry and biochemistry, bioinformatics, cybernetics and many, many more...
The SUM OF whole ↓
PHYS, BIOL, … as •ALL-SCI [brain-computer interface (neuralink) as enumeration fragment) can’t prove itself practically. It must exceed the academic and IT/ajti dictionary!!! You try goyim to avoid philosophy, but it begins to be necessary nowadays to relieve neurosis!
I try to introduce some „crazy” thesis: Criminal nature of society consists of lack of... everything possible – as several decades ago, it is not stuck to history-only – as whole range of epochs after epoch treated humans as computers [monism] and it was real crime of almost whole society, bipedal beings, as-is.
Lack of everything at ultimate war – despite any historical booms of currency, they didn't even know real happiness. Invention of computers didn't helped to the metalogical problem. PC usage, as of IBM devices, machines – was a trick, a bad bluff (needless to say... falsehood of any kind is worst war „on the globe”. Direct contact with programming has not renewed (almost) anything in human history. Have you known to which applications IBM computers was used in history? You have.... read further at NWO pages. I stand at clause that proper direction to leave human deadlock is restudying (remember: non-defeatism) scientific heritage – contrary to the popular belief: take a pill/hemisphere synchronization & follow gurus.
In set theory, Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory, named after mathematicians Ernst Zermelo and Abraham Fraenkel, is an axiomatic system that was proposed in the early twentieth century in order to formulate a theory of sets free of paradoxes such as Russell's paradox. Today, Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory, with the historically controversial axiom of choice (AC) included, is the standard form of axiomatic set theory and as such is the most common foundation of mathematics. Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory with the axiom of choice included is abbreviated ZFC, where C stands for "choice", and ZF refers to the axioms of Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory with the axiom of choice excluded.
Despite war after war, you haven't exhausted academic heritage!! The evil can be used to mutate itself to the good, some sequence of good.
Science is, in other shortened words, inprovable (!!), esp. in less-„strict”, popular, „fuzzy” domains.
*) Even mathematic DIScourse often’s too recurrent.
Computer programming of simple, „syntactical”, „blank+et / blank form” (template/in polish language „blankietowe” – we in Poland name some of legal laws by it) // problems can be OK, but NOT the more.
•We begin to see it on daily basis.
•Nowadays, at this epoch, things can be seen in clarification. You have easy access to the knowledge. Do something good for you.
•They lied you.
•You also lied yourself... if you can start Wisdom, you would find freedom from it. America was built by descendants of Jewish nation, ASHER was present in history in a very long-time duration fashion – then what is your next problem, rally? Take care of yourself!! Respect yourself and perform solution, not next narcissism/buffoonishm!
Milestone: Computer is syntactics, but soul & mind is semantics!
---------Supplement-------------
My Youtube description – this findings can be reshaped, expressed in other words.
My meta-science reasoning system, based exhaustively on Kurt Goedel's — INTERlinking genetics with formal mathematics and computer assembly language. (I used sometimes great mathematician's name spelling as Kurt G«O»edel – in objective of simplifying #kiss approach: Write it simply, without overhead of foreign „hash/bushes” – too much of stupid syntactical issues can overshadow sometimes all bigger study... don't let to „robotize” you then!). Science isn't fully robotizable. Syntactics MUST contain semantics. • I added some predicate to Kurt's theorem — shown immediately after the cover page on #presentation. •Linked to the previous part about topic domain – in the suggestion controls. It does is linked, despite possibility of some chaos of titles. What experience in science do you have? •Computerization of biological discourse about human mind remains core problem of humanity. You have great mainframes, supercomputers, and you can't understand superiority of soul above neurons?? In XXI century you don't feel the difference, still? •Approach: Do not your science control you! •In reasoning presented, you can replace neurons with atoms, ... also with quants, gluons (to some point, but axioms are the same!), and any other parts of brain anatomy. Milestone point is that laws of maths are very strict. You can apply metalogical laws on neuro structure, on single & grouped neurons. All this stuff defines: mind IS NOT COMPUTER. Trash all this f...k r u s s i a n narratives that creates constant condemnation of human nature, so popular in America and almost whole world, fixation present as disastrous error of modern humanity – at daily talks, at lifestyle, at „scientific” style of life. If brain would be «thought», then r u s s i a would be ok. But it isn't the case!!!