Set theory, new maths and ontology of space

If NASA faked the moon landings, does the agency have any credibility at all? Was the Space Shuttle program also a hoax? Is the International Space Station another one? Do not dismiss these hypotheses offhand. Check out our wider NASA research and make up your own mind about it all.

Set theory, new maths and ontology of space

Postby fubarfuthark on March 10th, 2016, 5:46 pm

Thinking about the new maths (of the sputnik crisis) and 'set theory' brought some other connections to mind, quite apart from the empty set as mathematical ontology of space. I have posted this piece of 'set theory' before as a sort of 'mathematics of space'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empty_set#Philosophical_issues
Darling (2004) explains that the empty set is not nothing, but rather "the set of all triangles with four sides, the set of all numbers that are bigger than nine but smaller than eight, and the set of all opening moves in chess that involve a king."

The 'New Maths' refers to the changes in maths education and America brought about by the notion that 'the soviet union were pulling ahead in the space-race'. At this point 'Set theory' was introduced into the curriculum and maths was 'reconfigured'. I will post this horrific piece of ideological terrorism once more.
http://www.math.rochester.edu/people/faculty/rarm/smsg.html

One thing that even non-mathematical people know (especially social scientists) is that the Zermano-Fraenkl version of set theory, known as ZFC, allows a person to reconstruct 'the entirety of mathematics' on the basis of sets (how convenient if you happen to belong to one of those sets. Tough luck if you dont.)

Here is 'set theory' and its Zermano-Fraenkl form.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zermelo%E2%80%93Fraenkel_set_theory
ZFC is intended to formalize a single primitive notion, that of a hereditary well-founded set, so that all entities in the universe of discourse are such sets. Thus the axioms of ZFC refer only to pure sets and prevent its models from containing urelements (elements of sets that are not themselves sets).

What does wikipedia mean when it says 'all entities in the universe of discourse are such sets'?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_of_discourse
In the formal sciences, the domain of discourse, also called the universe of discourse, universal set, or simply universe, is the set of entities over which certain variables of interest in some formal treatment may range. Thanks, wiki.

(Is this where we live now? In the domain of discourse?
or in the Von Neumann universe?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann_universe)

What is very strange is that, in the context of 'the space-race', the powers that be were able to present 'set theory' as a step forward, as a progression, the objective movement of history. In some respects, at least in its public presentation, it was suggested to be supplanting other axiomatic systems, like Euclidean geometry or basic number theory.

I am deeply uncomfortable about this notion: As I said in another thread, I am fairly uncomfortable about set theory in general. I think that there is a lot that has to be said about Georg Cantor and his 'transfinite numbers' (this notion that infinity is a mathematical matter, as opposed to also a metaphysical one and, dare I say it, a theological one), as well as the more general questions about trying to uncover the ultimate teleology of a given piece of mathematical abstraction. Is it meaningful to say that 'all mathematics can be reconstructed from x'? Is this any different (or more meaningful than an argument between, say Thales saying 'its all made of water' and Heraclitus saying it is all made of fire? All mathematics has already been 'reconstructed' on the principle of logical axioms by Betrand Russell, is it even a noteworthy idea to say that it can be once more reconstructed through observations (because observations are all they are) about given 'mathematical objects' belonging to some or other set or superset, or set of all sets? Is it desirable? Is it progress?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principia_Mathematica

Incidentally, Gödel did not believe that such a general operation is possible, or logically meaningful.

I personally do not really take a position on Gödel's incompleteness theorem, but I suspect that he was on our side.

A simple paraphrase.
Any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. In particular, for any consistent, effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic truths, there is an arithmetical statement that is true,[2] but not provable in the theory.

Georg Cantor, originator of set theory (even wikipedia is willing to call him a quack, as was Wittgenstein.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Cantor

As I said before, I dont accept his theory of transfinite numbers. I think they are a psyop aimed at God.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfinite_number
Tell me this is not just a bunch of metaphysical gobbledegook dressed up in fancy verbiage and symbolic notation that the layman, or even maths student, is terrified to criticise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleph_number
I think that Aleph numbers are quite literally the formal expression of asking how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Back to the general subject of set theory, its relationship to formal logic and the universe (the real one, not the Von Neumann one) at large. Consider this. it is a time honoured trick to see if a political speech consists of truistic, empty nonsense by reversing the meaning - 'we should leave our children a filthy, unsafe, economically devastated non-country, in which different ethnicities live together in mutual hatred and suspicion, divided by shared anti-values of disrespect, intolerance, enforcement of pop-cultural-homogeneity, arbitrary violence, meaningless continental abstraction and the good old satanic principle of 'persecute thy neighbour', because children are NOT the future.' This is nevertheless a linguistically meaningful statement. It merely illustrates the difference between form and content, specifically in the field of normative ethics and the linguistics of political rhetoric. If we apply this 'reversal' to the idea that all mathematics can be reconstructed on the basis of Zermano-Fraenkel set-theory, what do we have? We have the idea of reconstructing all mathematics on the basis of any given mathematical object's 'non-belonging' to any kind of higher, abstract, unifying classes, as well as the non-existence of such classes. One would be left discussing the 'fiveness' of five, possibly counting on our fingers or toes, forbidden as we would be from considering individual numbers as belonging to a higher-class called, indeed numbers. Six, and seven and so on would probably be talked about with the number of petals of specific flowers, geometry would be, by necessity grounded in real, existing forms made by the hands (this is basically a glib description of Waldorf education). Such a could very quickly however, go too far and end up as either monadology (discussing mathematical and, by extension, logical and real-world problems as a series of unconnected atomistic 'truth-statements' with no logical or semantic connections between each other, in other words, the news!) or pure negation (forbidding, say for example, the logical categories of true and false as representative of a kind of 'set theory through the back door', in other words answering the famous question of Hamlet with a resounding 'not to be' and promptly drinking the hemlock.) In this sense, it is quite obvious that this Zermano-Fraenkl set theory idea is a metaphysical statement dressed up in the emperor's new clothes of symbolic logic, and not even an original one, who first spoke of objects belonging to higher classes of transcendental, analogical forms? Plato. With regards to ontology, you can run the transcendental logic of 'the higher categories' in either direction, either ending up with the forms as emanations of god and the world as mere copy, imperceptible to the limited human senses (this is basically gnosticism, or the hekhaloth) or viewing any existing 'mere thing' as belonging to an infinite hierarchy of higher classes of thing and category, eventually arriving at God, the unity. This is William Blake seeing the entire universe in a grain of sand.

Set theory is not, however, mere abstraction, or nothing more than philosophy and therefore, useless. It is the mathematical-metaphysical counterpart of Object Oriented Programming. It is not for me to go into an explanation of exactly what OOP is. Any layman can see the connection.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-oriented_programming#Composition.2C_inheritance.2C_and_delegation

If we think of the changes in programmer mentality that were brought about by the paradigm shift from procedural to OOP, it is analogous to the difference between waiting for the pronouncement of the vatican and being given permission, by Luther, to interpret the bible oneself. Even in the case of OOP's object-inheritance model, there is nothing fixed about this. It is not 'the answer', it is just a 'way of doing things', more than anything in to avoid having to reinvent the wheel. A development situation in reverse can very easily arise whereby one would begin with the idea of an object as specific instance and then work the way back up the inheritance class the other way round, arriving at rather than emanating from the 'transcendental' class Object (with its methods, arguments etc Note the language that is used here 'method' and 'argument' are terms more associated with philosophy). There also exist programming paradigms in which completely other notions are foregrounded (LISP based languages, for example) and these are good for different things. Hell, around the time of the Millennium bug nonsense, it came out that a hell of a lot of business architecture still ran on Cobol. So it all basically comes down to pragmatism, which is not surprising. Unlike, in say mathematical speculation, or philosophy, in programming you have a time limit and an actual goal: the production of usable software.

Philosophical pragmatism is the 'American philosophy'. Common-sense, down to earth, Terra Firma, not 'lost in space' or 'head in the clouds'! (wink)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatism
Consider the practical effects of the objects of your conception. Then, your conception of those effects is the whole of your conception of the object.

In other words, any conception of a given object contains a pragmatic a consideration, a practical and teleological consideration of the matter at hand. To quote V.I. Lenin, What is to be done?
[url]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology[/url]

Speaking of pragmatism as a political and moral philosophy (what works, in other words), what were the 'pragmatic' reasons for the introduction of set-theory mathematics (and for that matter, set-theory ontology and ethics, i am sure you know what i am getting at) into education, in the context of the fake space-race? I have a theory. In introducing set theory into mathematical teaching in America, the perps introduced not just abstraction, but a specific, platonism-in-reverse metaphysical way of seeing the world. One that is associated with higher-level-computing and the logic of the computer age, with virtual reality, with our fake world-worldliness and, by extension with belief in our fake moon voyage and our fake pictures of the earth. It not only robbed children and adults of their common-sense reasoning, leaving them to have their intellects raped in every imaginable way by the high-priests of science, it actually introduced a form of new religious-perception through the backdoor, a kind of worship of the demiurge, the material deceiver, that is to say, Satan. The funny thing is that the people who are most deceived by all this go around proclaiming their atheism, as if this shows how clever and 'enlightened and freethinking' they are.

I cite here Gershom Scholem in his 'major trends in jewish mysticism', the second lecture, on merkabah mysticism (very important subject if you want to get some sense of the symbology of space travel, in fact I recommend this whole book as essential reading).

'As is well known, the anti-Jewish gnostics of the second and third centuries drew a sharp distinction between the unknown 'strange' good God, and the Creator, whom they identified with the God of Israel'

(There is more to be said about the role of things like 'empiricism' (in BIG quote marks), figures like David Hume and the scottish enlightenment clusterfuck, Rudolf Carnap and Logical Positivism, the 'falsifiablity' principle of Karl Popper and the way that such things as 'rationalism vs. empiricism' are portrayed as historically necessary dialectical movements rather than complete psyops set in motion and controlled from the middle in creating this situation. I dealt with this a little in the 'hegelian dialectics' thread, along with the sokal hoax, which along with the 'johann hari psyop' deserves its own thread. I would write and publish a book about my ideas but I am just a skint, angry, scottish, state-educated, down-on-his luck layman in his late twenties who can type fast and has read too many books but possesses no real motivation or agenda other than feeling it to be a major fucking inconvenience to have been obliged to incarnate into such a nightmarish fake world. My own mother even called me a racist the other day for attempting to apply the Kantian categorical imperative to the relatively inocuous question of free speech. I did not even articulate any specific ideas! Racist indeed! I would not know how to advance my ethnic interests even if I wanted to. Which I don't, I barely even want to be alive. But while I am, I speak for myself and myself alone.)

The thing about, say, christian gnosticism, neoplatonism or any of these transcendental world views is that they have always regarded 'the demiurge' as the adversary. It is not for nothing that true christians are accused of 'hating the world' and wishing for the next one. real Muslims also. They believe that they are being lied to in every way by the deceiver (whether he be called Iblis, Satan, Ahriman or the demiurge), that the combination of their senses and reason is not enough to get them to a transcendental truth about the nature of the 'world' (I have said it before, but if you ever feel like you are getting drawn into a stupid, go-nowhere flat vs.round dialectic, READ THE CRITIQUE OF PURE REASON BY IMMANUEL KANT! Or The World As Will and Idea by Schopenhauer.) True Buddhists (unlike our plastic Dalai Lama) just dismissed the material world as maya and did not, for a long time, make massive technical or material progress. The christian west, and indeed the muslim world (and others, this is not an ethnocentric matter, Japan's departure from Shintoism and Emperor-worship for example, into the world of Honda motorcycles, robotics and pokemon), cut a kind of deal with the devil, took the material world at a sort of 'empirical face value', as it were, and set about changing it, getting to know it and in due time, inventing everything from musical instruments to sanitation to recipes for foods to transport to, yes, computers, they gave the world nearly everything that they have now in terms of prosperity and progress but thereby lost their soul.

And you are never allowed to say 'ENOUGH'!

This is what Goethe's Faust is about and we are all living through it and this is also why Goethean Science is one of the answers to our problems.

http://wn.rsarchive.org/Books/GA001/Eng ... index.html

(As far as I can tell this is being put freely online by the publishers, although it is copyright. Mods feel free to remove it if you have a problem with it.)
fubarfuthark
Member
 
Posts: 60
Joined: February 15th, 2016, 1:20 pm

Re: Set theory, new maths and ontology of space

Postby fubarfuthark on March 11th, 2016, 1:04 pm

Yesterday while with friends for dinner, i started thinking about the teaching of venn diagrams in British primary schools. These, at least at my school, were taught endlessly. I can certainly remember one occasion, aged around 8, being obliged to draw three interlocking circles, these representing, in turn, green things, animals and things which have wheels. In the intersection of these three circles i had drawn a green duck on rollerskates.

On the basis of such thinking, Britain built a world empire!
fubarfuthark
Member
 
Posts: 60
Joined: February 15th, 2016, 1:20 pm

Re: Set theory, new maths and ontology of space

Postby sharpstuff on March 11th, 2016, 1:46 pm

My Dear ' fubarfuthark'.

In litotes of expletives, what on earth are you talking about?

I have a deal of history upon you and nowhere have I read any of your posts that make any real sense.

I am trying to be kind here.

This site is about fakery. That may be a loose definition and possibly rightly so. My own posts have tried to keep to this definition.

I won't go on.

For my own purposes of enlightenment I will endeavour to 'scout' your replies to various topics on this forum.

I am sad to say this but (in my humble view) it must be said.

This forum should not devolve into a Wikipaedian dimension of absurdity.

requiescat in pace
sharpstuff
Member
 
Posts: 79
Joined: February 4th, 2015, 2:31 pm

Re: Set theory, new maths and ontology of space

Postby fubarfuthark on March 11th, 2016, 3:12 pm

Fine sharpstuff, point taken.

I probably went way too far with how I see the 'new maths'. I also understand that ultimately it IS about fakery.

But simultaneously, when fake planes hit CGI towers and people think its real, this is because of fake physics, fake philosophy, fake logical axioms, fake reasoning and this from the ground up, in the schools. Fake intellectual paradigms, fake academic discussions, useless and meaningless concepts, fake epistemology.

Fake world.

You can, however, limit everything to pointing out the specifics of the media fakery, there is a kind of logic to that. You are thus avoiding why, who, what the aims are, what anything has in common. just saying 'this is fake, and so is this'. And thats fine.
fubarfuthark
Member
 
Posts: 60
Joined: February 15th, 2016, 1:20 pm

Re: Set theory, new maths and ontology of space

Postby fubarfuthark on March 11th, 2016, 4:40 pm

sharpstuff wrote:My Dear ' fubarfuthark'.

In litotes of expletives, what on earth are you talking about?

I have a deal of history upon you and nowhere have I read any of your posts that make any real sense.

I am trying to be kind here.

This site is about fakery. That may be a loose definition and possibly rightly so. My own posts have tried to keep to this definition.

I won't go on.

For my own purposes of enlightenment I will endeavour to 'scout' your replies to various topics on this forum.

I am sad to say this but (in my humble view) it must be said.

This forum should not devolve into a Wikipaedian dimension of absurdity.

requiescat in pace


I have changed my mind.

As I see it, the modern science/NASA paradigm has not just taken on the characteristics of a religion. It IS a religion. And a worldview, and a metaphysics and a set of assumptions about mankind and why they are here. Although you might see the above text as extreme or convoluted, I was trying to figure out what kind of 'religion' this actually is. I think there is evidence that the perps are pushing a kind of inverted gnosticism, that is to say, worship of the material, of the fake-world, of the 'demiurge' and I think that set theory is part of the metaphysics of this religion. Any person who takes the time to think about it can see this. It even feeds into our 'victim group points' social sciences and is EVEN itself utilised in these very same social sciences.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alain_Bad ... s_ontology

I see from your 'wikipedia' post you dont like Zionist information sources, but what about Zionist maths like those of Abraham Fraenkl, or, indeed Zionist epistemology masquerading as maths like Manhattan-project perp John Von Neumann's 'von neumann's universe' and its relationship to the set theory 'domain of discourse' (not to mention this 'domain of discourse' then having, obviously, nothing to do with other 'discourses' like 'feminist' or 'transgender' discourse)? Or do you simply think that these things are not within the remit of a site dealing with fakery? Do you think that Alain Badiou's 'set theory as ontology' has nothing at all to do with the 'new maths' that was introduced during the socalled 'sputnik crisis'? Do you think the Sokal hoax should not be re-examined in light of our understanding that a lot of modern science is just as much nonsense as the social sciences that Sokal was apparently setting out to satirise and indeed, actually reuses some of the same meaningless tropes? Do you think that Popper's theory of falsifiability is of any use to YOU personally, as a reasoning agent, in trying to determine real science from fake? I can tell you one thing. BARELY ANYBODY on this planet (or whatever it is) is looking at Karl Popper's or Logical Positivism's contribution to setting the scene for the Moon Hoax.

Let us not forget that Albert Einstein also wrote a non-science text called 'Why socialism?'!

We can sit and point at specific pictures and say 'wait, i think the BBC might be lying to me'. Where does that get a person? I dont know if you have noticed but with every new false flag that comes out now, the controlled alternative-media put out their own conspiracy 'media fakery' videos at exactly the same time. For all I know, clues forum is part of this dialectical strategy.

Do you not see that the perps have so mashed our reason and our way of seeing things that even trying to pick apart the real from the fake is now almost impossible, that trying to understand the nature of the mess they have made now involves using THEIR sources, possibly even turning their ways of reasoning back on themselves? Whether that be by critiquing the pictures in the newspapers or pointing out the lunacy of the ideas proposed in a wikipedia article. Either way, there does not exist anything like a clear vantage point of 'realness' outside the fakery, without drawing in transcendental religious or metaphysical ideas, which was precisely why I was suggesting, for example, Kant as a solution for any person vexed by the dialectic between fake ball earth photos and ridiculous 'discrediting by association' flat earth youtube spam.

Now I will admit it, I probably have a rather 'different' way of presenting things and this is probably not to everybody's taste. My only intention is to get some connections going, get people thinking a bit, create a bit of heat and light. It is also very difficult, when one is trying to point out the overlap between various varieties of crap that are foisted on us, to do so in a totally linear, narrative-based or even conventional-reasoning type way. The fact of the matter: history, culture, science, religion are marching in a kind of lockstep; it is not easy to explain the points of congruity, let alone to try to build a conventional argument or narrative around them. The perps love narratives, everything fitting together into a nice story that makes (absolutely no) sense. Apart from anything else, there is more than one way to skin a cat.

Its not like I have any kind of problem with dialling it down or sticking to the rules. I will certainly try to be more careful with editing and proofreading my posts.

Peace.

But before I go, one last thing...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKk2It4FwCc
fubarfuthark
Member
 
Posts: 60
Joined: February 15th, 2016, 1:20 pm

Re: Set theory, new maths and ontology of space

Postby Surface on March 11th, 2016, 8:20 pm

sharpstuff wrote:My Dear ' fubarfuthark'.

In litotes of expletives, what on earth are you talking about?

I have a deal of history upon you and nowhere have I read any of your posts that make any real sense.

I am trying to be kind here.

This site is about fakery. That may be a loose definition and possibly rightly so. My own posts have tried to keep to this definition.

I won't go on.

For my own purposes of enlightenment I will endeavour to 'scout' your replies to various topics on this forum.

I am sad to say this but (in my humble view) it must be said.

This forum should not devolve into a Wikipaedian dimension of absurdity.

requiescat in pace


I understand what you are suggesting regarding his posts but I must admit I came here with almost exactly his thoughts on my mind. Probably in the future you need to recon with people thinking and talking like him here. Actually that is what I hope.
We are not living in a world with just a little bit of fakery. Our entire world view is manipulated. Even a simple fact as globe shape of our Earth is manipulated into a big mystery! The little truth that is out there is mixed and distorted among mountains of lies.
He is absolutely right about the point of "new math". This new math now refers to Discrete Mathematics, which in turn deals with all topics that have integers as their base entities as opposed to real numbers or complex numbers. This includes legitimate topics like probability and statistics, though real number and transcendental functions have actually been later introduced into this Discrete Mathematics to confuse scholars even more!
But at school level, this abstract pointless approach towards mathematics as opposed to pragmatic, functional, and empirical calculus, analytical geometry, sequences and series, transcendental functions, trigonometry, has made a very fundamental impression on the minds of devoted mathematics students like myself.
Disregarding probability and statistics, which are viable fields, this set theory and formal logic is pointedly a big hoax. It tries to give mathematics the appearance of an all-encompassing, self-explanatory but yet completely abstract, and at the same time ultimately incomprehensible subject. They are very obviously formulated as a religion BY religious people! This has already been done in higher mathematics in the form of "general mathematical analysis" which starts with analyzing the supposed properties of real numbers. Abstract algebra, again a senseless play with symbols. These topics are beyond the grasp of high school students, maybe except the beginnings of abstract algebra, but the new mathematics taught at schools is clearly aimed at teaching this senseless abstraction to as many people as possible, making it mainstream.
Just because these very critical matters don't make sense to you doesn't mean they are pointless. If this forum is not a place for discussing these crucial subjects, then consider this fact that I as an Iranian have been thinking almost exactly about what fubarfuthark was thinking 10000 km away all at the same time. This must ring a bell for you.
Surface
Member
 
Posts: 20
Joined: February 20th, 2016, 7:03 pm

Re: Set theory, new maths and ontology of space

Postby JLapage on March 12th, 2016, 2:28 am

fubarfuthark wrote:Yesterday while with friends for dinner, i started thinking about the teaching of venn diagrams in British primary schools. These, at least at my school, were taught endlessly. I can certainly remember one occasion, aged around 8, being obliged to draw three interlocking circles, these representing, in turn, green things, animals and things which have wheels. In the intersection of these three circles i had drawn a green duck on rollerskates.

On the basis of such thinking, Britain built a world empire!


Learning Venn diagrams and set theory in general is a good exercise in abstract and logical thinking. Set theory and especially Venn diagram is a symbolic way to train the student to view the solution of a question/problem using a finite number of sets. Sets with special characteristics themselves belong to a larger set called the universal set or 'universe'. The sets inside the 'universe' may have attributes in common in that case it is said that they intersect. If they don't have common attributes it is said that they are disjoint. Members of a set belong to one or possibly more subsets of the universe or to the universe itself i.e. the universe of discourse. In the space exploration example, the universal set could be the entities (both natural and man-made) that are capable of traveling to space or to exist in space. Space itself would probably have to be defined in two divisions: the first as everything above earth with height h>0 and less than low earth orbit. The second will be the height beyond low earth orbit. Birds, bats, insects, helicopters, planes, rockets are examples of things that fly in our atmosphere (first division of space). Are there any crafts that fly beyond low earth orbit? NASA and their ilk in Europe and elsewhere claim that they can and do in fact explore that part of space.

How could the teaching of set theory enable the PTB to better control the population? I stated earlier that Venn diagrams and set theory are useful tools for anyone who wishes to develop better logical skills. How can someone with better logical and thinking skills be fooled by NASA? It's possible due to the planned indoctrination (education) by the Department of Education. A part of the problem are the poorly trained teachers who are themselves incapable of mastering the subject that they are supposed to teach. Another significant and pervasive factor in the dumbing down of the population is the "Education System" itself, as well as the brainwashing tools of TV and movies, and the MSM. Hollywood plays a major role.
The 'dumbing down' is real.
"An elementary Social Studies program called Man: A Course of Study(MACOS).
In the Congressional Record, April 9, 1975, page H2585, Arizona Congressman John Conlan said this about MACOS:
“ The course was designed by a team of experimental psychologists under Jerome S. Bruner and B.F. Skinner to mold children’s social attitudes and beliefs along lines that
set them apart and alienate them from the beliefs and moral values of their parents and local community.” For those who may not know, MACOS was suppose to help children understand what made them human by exploring in depth the lifestyle of an obscure Eskimo tribe. In reality, the purpose of MACOS (which is still being used) is, as Congressman Conlan indicated, to “mold the children’s social attitudes and beliefs...” For example, parents were outraged that their fifth grade children were required to read ugly stories which promoted infanticide, cannibalism, incest and senilicide—the deliberate shoving of aged relatives out on the ice to die alone."
http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/MomsPDFs/Back%20to%20Basics%20Reform_Iserbyt_book.pdf


The above quote is from the eighties. However the dumbing down process is ongoing. Set Theory in the curriculum is only a piece of the whole planned system of Education (indoctrination is more appropriate) which intended goal is to treat the students as animals being trained for specific responses. A student who graduates from such a system enters life after graduation with major handicaps. He/she has to deal with survival first. He/she must first worry about getting a job. He/she does not have as a priority the exposition of the lies/hoaxes made by the PTB. It is exactly such a graduate that the PTB expect.

Here at cluesforum we are aware of the mind games played by NASA and other space agencies. If your mind is trained to view the alleged firing of a rocket and you are trained to connect the dots you will believe that the rocket is going into space. There is a thread here at cluesforum that deals with the question of whether it is possible for rockets to fly in the alleged vacuum that supposedly exists out there. As far as I can comprehend, it's not possible for rockets to fly/move in the alleged vacuum of space. Satellites: there is a claim by NASA and others that man made objects could fly in orbits as do celestial bodies like the moon for example. Cluesforum and others have shown that satellites do not in fact exist. There is a claim made by NASA and others that man walked on the moon. :D :D :D :D :D :D . The most fun I ever had in my life is when I found out that NASA is full of shit. :puke: :puke: :puke:

Can a graduate of the education system learn the reality that we are all being lied to? I believe it's possible however it will depend on the motivation of the learner.
Last edited by JLapage on March 12th, 2016, 6:21 am, edited 3 times in total.
JLapage
Member
 
Posts: 115
Joined: April 23rd, 2013, 2:38 pm

Re: Set theory, new maths and ontology of space

Postby JLapage on March 12th, 2016, 2:49 am

fubarfuthark wrote:
sharpstuff wrote:My Dear ' fubarfuthark'.

In litotes of expletives, what on earth are you talking about?

I have a deal of history upon you and nowhere have I read any of your posts that make any real sense.

I am trying to be kind here.

This site is about fakery. That may be a loose definition and possibly rightly so. My own posts have tried to keep to this definition.

I won't go on.

For my own purposes of enlightenment I will endeavour to 'scout' your replies to various topics on this forum.

I am sad to say this but (in my humble view) it must be said.

This forum should not devolve into a Wikipaedian dimension of absurdity.

requiescat in pace


I have changed my mind.

As I see it, the modern science/NASA paradigm has not just taken on the characteristics of a religion. It IS a religion. And a worldview, and a metaphysics and a set of assumptions about mankind and why they are here. Although you might see the above text as extreme or convoluted, I was trying to figure out what kind of 'religion' this actually is. I think there is evidence that the perps are pushing a kind of inverted gnosticism, that is to say, worship of the material, of the fake-world, of the 'demiurge' and I think that set theory is part of the metaphysics of this religion. Any person who takes the time to think about it can see this. It even feeds into our 'victim group points' social sciences and is EVEN itself utilised in these very same social sciences.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alain_Bad ... s_ontology


Do you not see that the perps have so mashed our reason and our way of seeing things that even trying to pick apart the real from the fake is now almost impossible, that trying to understand the nature of the mess they have made now involves using THEIR sources, possibly even turning their ways of reasoning back on themselves? Whether that be by critiquing the pictures in the newspapers or pointing out the lunacy of the ideas proposed in a wikipedia article. Either way, there does not exist anything like a clear vantage point of 'realness' outside the fakery, without drawing in transcendental religious or metaphysical ideas, which was precisely why I was suggesting, for example, Kant as a solution for any person vexed by the dialectic between fake ball earth photos and ridiculous 'discrediting by association' flat earth youtube spam.

Now I will admit it, I probably have a rather 'different' way of presenting things and this is probably not to everybody's taste. My only intention is to get some connections going, get people thinking a bit, create a bit of heat and light. It is also very difficult, when one is trying to point out the overlap between various varieties of crap that are foisted on us, to do so in a totally linear, narrative-based or even conventional-reasoning type way. The fact of the matter: history, culture, science, religion are marching in a kind of lockstep; it is not easy to explain the points of congruity, let alone to try to build a conventional argument or narrative around them. The perps love narratives, everything fitting together into a nice story that makes (absolutely no) sense. Apart from anything else, there is more than one way to skin a cat.

Its not like I have any kind of problem with dialling it down or sticking to the rules. I will certainly try to be more careful with editing and proofreading my posts.

Peace.

But before I go, one last thing...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKk2It4FwCc


I believe you are making very valid and substantive points. Please do not get discouraged.
JLapage
Member
 
Posts: 115
Joined: April 23rd, 2013, 2:38 pm

Re: Set theory, new maths and ontology of space

Postby sharpstuff on March 12th, 2016, 3:32 pm

Fubarfuthark wrote:

‘I probably went way too far with how I see the 'new maths'. I also understand that ultimately it IS about fakery.’


What do you mean by ‘it IS’? That ‘new maths’ is about fakery, or this forum?

‘Old’ maths and any ‘new’ maths bring about the fakery this forum is about, for goodness sake. Like the English language (for example) , Mathematical language has brought us the fakery we hear every day!

I think that we may, many of us, agree this is a fake World (capital ‘W’). I wrote essays about this thirty years ago or more.

I am not sure I said, or even intimated your:

Quote: ‘You can, however, limit everything to pointing out the specifics of the media fakery, there is a kind of logic to that. You are thus avoiding why, who, what the aims are, what anything has in common. just saying 'this is fake, and so is this'. And that's fine.’


Are you addressing me? If so, are you putting words into my mouth?

You then go on to say:

Quote:

I have changed my mind.

About what exactly?

You then go on interminably about a whole bunch of stuff that makes no sense to me at all. Invoking the intellectually-challenged plagiarist and thief Einstein, for goodness sake renders you suspect upon other things.

Quote:

I don't know if you have noticed but with every new false flag that comes out now, the controlled alternative-media put out their own conspiracy 'media fakery' videos at exactly the same time.

‘I don’t know if you…’ Are you speaking to me?


Quote:

For all I know, clues forum is part of this dialectical strategy.

Then why are you posting here? Are you ‘testing the ground’?


And what do you know about me? That I have no interest in mathematics apart from calculations relevant to survival and that teaching bearable arithmetic to my deprived students so that they may be aware of ‘value for money’ when they buy products or that they can make something of value that might work for them. All your fancy mathematics and all your ‘sets’ and other stuff draws no pictures of reality; they are an academic exercise to get a ‘high’ upon.

Quote:

Now I will admit it, I probably have a rather 'different' way of presenting things and this is probably not to everybody's taste.


With that statement, I wholly concur. I appear to have a similar ‘problem’.

However, it would be good to explain to those of us who are not mathematically ‘literate’ some of your statements.

I, for one, am a 7 x10 +2 male individual. My major subject is the English language which I try to treat as one would a paint-brush in the hands of an artist. I appreciate a mathematical paintbrush but cannot necessarily appreciate the picture.

No harm done. I will refrain from posting on your topic.

By the way, your link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKk2It4FwCc

Was a disgusting piece of filth not suited for human consumption. If you value such you have a serious problem.

You might also pursue the fact that there are many readers of this forum not quite so erudite in your mathematical shenanigans and are merely looking for answers to their thoughts and something they might understand without a degree at some nameless ‘university.

‘Getting onto a high-horse’ is one matter. Getting down from it may be a problem.’ Sharpstuff

Primum non nocere
sharpstuff
Member
 
Posts: 79
Joined: February 4th, 2015, 2:31 pm

Re: Set theory, new maths and ontology of space

Postby CluedIn on March 12th, 2016, 9:35 pm

sharpstuff wrote:
Fubarfuthark wrote:

By the way, your link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKk2It4FwCc

Was a disgusting piece of filth not suited for human consumption. If you value such you have a serious problem.


Sharpstuff, I totally agree with your comment on fubarfuthark linking to that youtube video. I was actually shocked that a member (a newbie as am I) would treat another member in that manner no matter how bad the disagreement got.

I thought it was in bad taste and below the standards of this forum, not to mention that, musically speaking, it was impossible to listen to.
CluedIn
Member
 
Posts: 230
Joined: December 1st, 2015, 1:15 pm

Re: Set theory, new maths and ontology of space

Postby Critical Mass on March 13th, 2016, 5:19 pm

fubarfuthark wrote: For all I know, clues forum is part of this dialectical strategy.

WTF?

Its not like I have any kind of problem with dialling it down or sticking to the rules. I will certainly try to be more careful with editing and proofreading my posts.

Peace.

But before I go, one last thing...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKk2It4FwCc

You continue to make many errors within your posts & I honestly don't have the time, or even the inclination, to continue to tidy them up.

I also agree with CluedIn & Sharpstuff that it's a filthy link... this & the "Penis Envy" thread mean I think it may be best if we part ways.

I wish you well.
Critical Mass
Member
 
Posts: 544
Joined: July 8th, 2014, 11:33 pm

Re: Set theory, new maths and ontology of space

Postby simonshack on March 13th, 2016, 8:53 pm

fubarfuthark wrote: For all I know, clues forum is part of this dialectical strategy.


Yeah, right.

Good grief... What more are we to be suspected of? :rolleyes:

Thanks CM - you beat me to it - coz' I've been way too busy this week (sorting out personal affairs) to moderate the forum.
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6351
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy


Return to Apollo, and more space hoaxes

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests