Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Roy Perry

do you believe illusions?

22 posts in this topic

God of nothing, God of something, and God of everything first

The illusion of math has we been taught!

03-16-2013

Math is a illusion that have been one and one can be elven or two but it is only a illusion when we add one plus one we get two because of the illusion we believe to be so. But if place the one beside another one we get elven a number greater than two otherwise some teacher or parent place this illusion in our head. Is the any thing that proves one plus one is two No there nothing that proves it is elven either nor is there anything to prove a “A” is a it is a illusion that we have been taught.

Jesus Christ in a book under Gnostic titles question his teacher why is a “A” a “A” and not some other letter otherwise Jesus Christ understand it was a illusion that made us able to understand it meaning. All our words are just illusions to help us understand things more clearer just our numbers and our gods they are the illusions that we been taught to help us understand what is real. But what is the illusion is real and God is real because we believe in Math and words and they are illusions too.

So I show you that you believe in illusions because you been taught but do not believe in the illusion of God are you delusion is your mind working correct or not. Are you mad, crazy, or something because your believing illusion but not all or have you proved in your mind there is no God but proven there is math and letters I do not think so. Believing in illusions is un-rational thinking and it points you toward having a illness of Schizoaffective a mental disorder of the mind. A mental illness is a psychological pattern or anomaly, potentially reflected in behavior, that is generally associated with distress or disability, and which is not considered part of normal development in a person's culture otherwise you are ill.

Seeing things that have been proven to be illusions but believing them is even worse even that you may not believe all illusions are real believing one is making you crazy delusional person. Now because I believe in God that I can not prove does not make more delusion than you we share the sickness together because one illusion dose not made it not there it still a delusion. Thank you with love of my illusions and a holy kiss of my illusions unto you from Roy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You make an interesting point: grand deal of our technological advance has come from illusions. I agree with you in that those are tools to understand.. we can give them more corporeal, physical forms, like we can to anything that goes between our ears. Neptune = illusions like that, Mars = giving them a corporeal form. You gave me an interesting insight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are illusions and there are delusions.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh, math operations here. 1+1=2, 11 is not the same. Mathematics is an abstract system that helps us understand and discover more about the world around us, although many if not most people don't understand the abstract nature of it. As for believing illusions, I've seen many things that others would and have said are illusions; however, after much reading & studying & thinking, I concluded that my experiences are "real", and I am in no way going to let others define my reality. Words & numbers are simply systems we use to describe our reality, not reality itself, just a photo is an image of something, not the thing itself.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the any thing that proves one plus one is two

Yes.

P1. 1 is in N.

P2. If x is in N, then its "successor" x' is in N.

P3. There is no x such that x' = 1.

P4. If x isn't 1, then there is a y in N such that y' = x.

P5. If S is a subset of N, 1 is in S, and the implication

(x in S => x' in S) holds, then S = N.

Then you have to define addition recursively:

Def: Let a and b be in N. If b = 1, then define a + b = a'

(using P1 and P2). If b isn't 1, then let c' = b, with c in N

(using P4), and define a + b = (a + c)'.

Then you have to define 2:

Def: 2 = 1'

2 is in N by P1, P2, and the definition of 2.

Theorem: 1 + 1 = 2

Proof: Use the first part of the definition of + with a = b = 1.

Then 1 + 1 = 1' = 2 Q.E.D.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes.

P1. 1 is in N.

P2. If x is in N, then its "successor" x' is in N.

P3. There is no x such that x' = 1.

P4. If x isn't 1, then there is a y in N such that y' = x.

P5. If S is a subset of N, 1 is in S, and the implication

(x in S => x' in S) holds, then S = N.

Then you have to define addition recursively:

Def: Let a and b be in N. If b = 1, then define a + b = a'

(using P1 and P2). If b isn't 1, then let c' = b, with c in N

(using P4), and define a + b = (a + c)'.

Then you have to define 2:

Def: 2 = 1'

2 is in N by P1, P2, and the definition of 2.

Theorem: 1 + 1 = 2

Proof: Use the first part of the definition of + with a = b = 1.

Then 1 + 1 = 1' = 2 Q.E.D.

Geez, I love you smart people! I wish my mind & brain would work like that, but that kind of information seems to trickle out my ears at night while I'm sleeping.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Geez, I love you smart people! I wish my mind & brain would work like that, but that kind of information seems to trickle out my ears at night while I'm sleeping.

Haha wish I could take credit. I live with final year maths student. I follow most of it but couldn't come up with something like that myself. Now languages and science, those are my gifts :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

God first

thanks Mikko-kun and Frank Merton and Beany and Setton

thank you all my dear friends

with love of truth what even that is to you and holy kiss from the child like Roy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

God of nothing, God of something, and God of everything first

The voices I hear and illusion I see are they real or a dream!

03-17-2013

I wrote the voices I hear as sounds from the phone the wires above me and when no wire above me I wrote them off has own mind but some could be the sounds of the passed. The sound that travels through time and space the sound in our own DNA where God is in the spiritual spark of life itself. The soul that lives has the man in the image of God the less than truth and more than truth itself the image that lives in me.

With my eyes closed I still see the visions of the spark of life the white light, purple light, green light eating all light even the black lights because the color of darkness is not black. It takes light to see the color black planes with mountains of light being ate by the greater light. The dogs of light barking the end is near has I see myself risen above own self has I done so many time before in my body or out of my body I do not know.

I believe that are many returns of Christ and my personal return into a new life kind will not happen until 2027 AD so all of you do not worry yet because I am not leaving yet. The word “born again” could better be translated “conceive from with in” the spark of God is in the DNA of each of us and outside the DNA of us that how I get God more than our minds can understand and less than our minds could all time itself. Time only means what our image of time to be otherwise time means nothing and everything just math it self it only is the illusions we give it.

I have justified the sounds and illusions that I witness as God teaching things that come from inside out and from the space that my body in sounds, body heat, reflections, gasses, smells, and everything other than I understand. I hear the wind it talk to me as do lives that have passed when I long to talk to them I spoke face to face with Adam, Cain, my mother, George Muller, Peter Marshall, Martin Luther, Gladys Aylward, John Huss, and others like Jesus Christ.

Yes I talk to the dead but not just people I had a lot of animals that have die I once sat with a full house of animals that had passed you could say like a zoo of die animals. When the word says even eye shall see Christ coming back for then so guess what animals have eyes I even believe oxygen have eyes just because we do no see them does not mean there not there. Water and dust are two things dust takes water in and water cast dust out the change is back and forth.

The water dries dust into mud than dust and than the water changes into water and back even the water on the moon change happens to mater what percent of dust or even what percent of water. Science has proven there is water on the noon so why not on the sun otherwise liquid fire is form of water that we all can witness if we dare. My mind is spinning so fast I can not stop all I can do is write things that some might think I am crazy but am I with love of truth what even that is I just to read the bible cover to cover in two weeks but now I can only listen to it but I plan to have glasses soon and holy kiss of the illusion I walk in from Roy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Truth hides behind the greatest of illusions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I talk to the dead but not just people I had a lot of animals that have die I once sat with a full house of animals that had passed you could say like a zoo of die animals. When the word says even eye shall see Christ coming back for then so guess what animals have eyes I even believe oxygen have eyes just because we do no see them does not mean there not there. Water and dust are two things dust takes water in and water cast dust out the change is back and forth.

That part, the oxygen.. I've had this idea that maybe, just maybe the atoms would be planets. And maybe planets, both the big things we look to into the sky and the one we're standing on, as well as those countless mini-planets we're made of, are living entities, ones pulsing with life. What life is anyhow?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Yes.

P1. 1 is in N.

P2. If x is in N, then its "successor" x' is in N.

P3. There is no x such that x' = 1.

P4. If x isn't 1, then there is a y in N such that y' = x.

P5. If S is a subset of N, 1 is in S, and the implication

(x in S => x' in S) holds, then S = N.

Then you have to define addition recursively:

Def: Let a and b be in N. If b = 1, then define a + b = a'

(using P1 and P2). If b isn't 1, then let c' = b, with c in N

(using P4), and define a + b = (a + c)'.

Then you have to define 2:

Def: 2 = 1'

2 is in N by P1, P2, and the definition of 2.

Theorem: 1 + 1 = 2

Proof: Use the first part of the definition of + with a = b = 1.

Then 1 + 1 = 1' = 2 Q.E.D.

This is a mental construct. It requires an education in algebra to even begin to understand. It proves nothing unless you believe it does, and/or have the knowledge to understand and appreciate it. Unless you believe algebra is real and workable and that one can substitute letters for numbers and make them equate and balance out, then it, again, proves nothing.

Here is a simpler constuct. Here is one pea. Look at it and observe it. See how it is sitting by itslef Now I will add another pea. Look at the two peas together. That grouping is what humans call two. Now pull the peas apart again. See how we have one, and then another one? Push them together again. There is the configuration we call two. Do this as many times as you like, and you will always observe the same pattern of groupings. One, one, then two.

Hence we can observe that, when we place one pea with another one pea, we have what we call in English two peas.

Does this explanation also require belief? Sure to accpet it as PROOF, you have to believe me when I say that pushing two singular peas together will AWAYS give you two peas. But it something anyone can experiment with and find true for themselves.

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a mental construct. It requires an education in algebra to even begin to understand. It proves nothing unless you believe it does, and/or have the knowledge to understand and appreciate it. Unless you believe algebra is real and workable and that one can substitute letters for numbers and make them equate and balance out, then it, again, proves nothing.

Here is a simpler constuct. Here is one pea. Look at it and observe it. See how it is sitting by itslef Now I will add another pea. Look at the two peas together. That grouping is what humans call two. Now pull the peas apart again. See how we have one, and then another one? Push them together again. There is the configuration we call two. Do this as many times as you like, and you will always observe the same pattern of groupings. One, one, then two.

Hence we can observe that, when we place one pea with another one pea, we have what we call in English two peas.

Does this explanation also require belief? Sure to accpet it as PROOF, you have to believe me when I say that pushing two singular peas together will AWAYS give you two peas. But it something anyone can experiment with and find true for themselves.

Algebra does not take belief. If it didn't work, we wouldn't be able to work out how fast things fall etc. This is the only way to prove 1+1=2. Playing with peas just shows that 1+1 is sometimes 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Algebra does not take belief. If it didn't work, we wouldn't be able to work out how fast things fall etc. This is the only way to prove 1+1=2. Playing with peas just shows that 1+1 is sometimes 2.

No. For most human beings and thus, in practice, algebra proves nothing in itslef. You have been conditioned to believe it does, through the lenght breadth and direction of your education. And it works. But you have to believ the theory and workings of algebra AND/ OR you have to have a full and detailed understanding of it to accepet any proofs deriving from it . Very few huma beings have the required level of knowledge and thus either have to take algebra on faith or the word of a mathematician on faith.

The peas works just as well, is a lot simpler and observable, goes to the heart of the symbolic construct/visualisation of the nature of numbers, BUT also requires belief. AND yes, it does work every time, or at least as often as an algebraic equation does. When does placing one pea with another pea NOT give two peas? (within our mathematics and language system) I know/believ it always does and always will, as powerfully as i know/believe an algegraic solution to the problem will always give the same result. Algegbra merely represents a mathematical model of an observable truth. If putting two singular peas together did not always give two peas in practice, then the algebraic solution would not work consistently either.

Ps algebra DOESN'T work in practical terms if you do not believe/have faith in, the answers it provides, and apply them. It also doesn't work if you do not know the quite complex theory behind its operations and the procedures to be followed in applying it. That is, you cant use it, so it cant work for you.

Edited by Mr Walker
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

This is a mental construct. It requires an education in algebra to even begin to understand. It proves nothing unless you believe it does, and/or have the knowledge to understand and appreciate it. Unless you believe algebra is real and workable and that one can substitute letters for numbers and make them equate and balance out, then it, again, proves nothing.

Here is a simpler constuct. Here is one pea. Look at it and observe it. See how it is sitting by itslef Now I will add another pea. Look at the two peas together. That grouping is what humans call two. Now pull the peas apart again. See how we have one, and then another one? Push them together again. There is the configuration we call two. Do this as many times as you like, and you will always observe the same pattern of groupings. One, one, then two.

Hence we can observe that, when we place one pea with another one pea, we have what we call in English two peas.

Does this explanation also require belief? Sure to accpet it as PROOF, you have to believe me when I say that pushing two singular peas together will AWAYS give you two peas. But it something anyone can experiment with and find true for themselves.

MW, I would add that you don't have to believe in the properties/axioms of arithmetic and algebra, you have to know/learn them, it's in knowing them-- you apply them; it is in the application they prove themselves.

You would use the natural number axiom(basic assumptions we hold to be true/that have been proven to be true) which allows for one to logically induce that all natural numbers follow in an order.(The variable n represents all natural numbers in this case.) Then you would use addition property, then the property of equality and so on and so on.

You are representing the fact that 1 +1 = 2 by using the symbols(language)/rules/laws of Mathematics.

It is not unlike--Bonjour means hello regardless if it's in English or French it's just a different representation of the same thing. It still holds true that both are ways(facts)of saying hello.

Edited by Sherapy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MW, I would add that you don't have to believe in the properties/axioms of arithmetic and algebra, you have to know/learn them, it's in knowing them-- you apply them; it is in the application they prove themselves.

You would use the natural number axiom(basic assumptions we hold to be true/that have been proven to be true) which allows for one to logically induce that all natural numbers follow in an order.(The variable n represents all natural numbers in this case.) Then you would use addition property, then the property of equality and so on and so on.

You are representing the fact that 1 +1 = 2 by using the symbols(language)/rules/laws of Mathematics.

It is not unlike--Bonjour means hello regardless if it's in English or French it's just a different representation of the same thing. It still holds true that both are ways(facts)of saying hello.

Precisely. Th e latter part of what I posted said exactly this. But one still needs to chose to believe (or disbelieve) anything not known by personal experience. So a person unfaniliar with the theory and practices of algebra MUST accept its accuracy in faith or belief.

The two types of proof are the same, but one is more accessible to everyone than the other. Mathematics and language are both human constructs representing physical truths or realities. MAthematics indeed IS a form of language.

PS i did pre university double maths in a time when there were no calculators or computers. We learned first as young children how to do mental arithmetic, such as our times tables and simple and long division and mulitlication, in our heads, and second how to use slide rules and logarithmic tables for calculations. Thus we had to have the knowledge and discipline to understand the very basic and more complex building blocks of mathemeatics. We had to memorise, and hold in our heads, all the mathematical and geometric formulae/processes used in maths, and work out complex questions in our heads, or on paper, in a few minutes under test conditions. At the end of our final year we had two, state set and assessed, three hour exams, one on each maths subject, in order to assess our state ranking. Maths wasn't my strong suite but I achieved in the top 25% of the state's students in both exams.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Some like visual illusions, so if you still like toys, get yourself a hologram chamber ha ha!

Neat visual mathematics!

[media=]

[/media] Edited by monk 56

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes.

P1. 1 is in N.

P2. If x is in N, then its "successor" x' is in N.

P3. There is no x such that x' = 1.

P4. If x isn't 1, then there is a y in N such that y' = x.

P5. If S is a subset of N, 1 is in S, and the implication

(x in S => x' in S) holds, then S = N.

Then you have to define addition recursively:

Def: Let a and b be in N. If b = 1, then define a + b = a'

(using P1 and P2). If b isn't 1, then let c' = b, with c in N

(using P4), and define a + b = (a + c)'.

Then you have to define 2:

Def: 2 = 1'

2 is in N by P1, P2, and the definition of 2.

Theorem: 1 + 1 = 2

Proof: Use the first part of the definition of + with a = b = 1.

Then 1 + 1 = 1' = 2 Q.E.D.

yes, but this does not make a cup of tea?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes, but this does not make a cup of tea?

Give them a while.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Freetoroam & Frank Merton,

Including me, thats 3 that are waiting for a cup of tea, one more and we get a T(ea) Square Ha Ha!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-square

My math interest is Mandelbrot Set, Fractals and PHI, different strokes for different folks!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

God first

thanks you all my friends

with love and a holy kiss of friendship friom Roy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like math!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.