Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.programming.threads > #3630 > unrolled thread

About a philosophical problem

Back to article view | Back to comp.programming.threads

Contents

  About a philosophical problem Ramine <toto@toto.net> - 2017-02-22 14:42 -0500

#3630 — About a philosophical problem

Hello,

I am a white arab...

I have explained with 2 + 2 = 4 that the "consciousness"
And "consequence" of "understanding", then once
that you build a hierarchy of ideas and
Logical relations and by also measure, then you will be able to 
understand mathematical equality Of 2 + 2 = 4, and once you understand 
that, at this very precise moment that you understand mathematical 
equality 2 + 2 = 4, then you will be ultimately conscious
Of the mathematical equality of 2 + 2 = 4, that is why I have said that 
the process of consciousness is much simpler than the process of 
intelligence in action, so I hope that my argumentation is clear. Now 
there remains something to be explained is that even if the process of 
intelligence in action has not been easy for humanity, the fact that a 
human being understands the mathematical equality of 2 + 2 = 4, then 
this understanding will greatly reduce complexity and let us see the 
"truth" as it really is, a child who tries initially to understand the 
the mathematical equality of 2 + 2 = 4 will see this process as being 
"difficult", but is that really "truth"? I do not believe because the 
understanding of the essence of what is "truth" tells us that truth can 
only be reached when there is complete comprehension of a process or a 
thing, then the perception of the child who sees in the beginning of the 
process of understanding the mathematical equality of 2 + 2 = 4 as being 
"difficult" is not the truth, it is rather the perception of the one who 
understood "completely" the mathematical equality of 2 + 2 = 4 and which 
tells us that equality is easy which is the truth.

I have spoken of the understanding of the very essence of what is
the truth, for example, when you look at the door of a car, can you say 
that it's a car ? I do not think, it's who looks and understands 
everything that is Car that can say it's a car! do you understand ?
Then, in my opinion, it can be inferred that it is understanding of a 
process or thing that greatly reduce or erase "complexity" and which 
reveals to us the truth, It is like this for the mathematical equality 
of 2 + 2 = 4 If a child in the beginning tries to understand this 
equality, he will say that the mathematical equality is "difficult", but 
is that the truth? I think no, because it's like the example of the car 
which I have just given you, it is once the understanding
of equality is complete that it will greatly reduce or erase the 
"complexity" and will confirm that the equality is truly "easy", and
This is the truth and that is the veridic perception and this is the 
very essence of truth.

So if you have understood what I'm trying to explain,
Is that we could say that mathematics is easy and simple, our universe 
is easy and simple and any thing or process is easy and simple,
But it is because we are limited intellectually or physically that we do 
not understand it, i see this as in an axis of reality, i mean that the 
complexity of mathematics and knowledge of mathematics is 0.1
on a scale of 100, and we are still weaker at 0.001 on a scale of 100 , 
even though knowledge of the universe and mathematics is easy, we feel 
this as difficult.

But my point of view is not complete, I will present my other reasoning:

We can say, for example, that to define what a car is, we have
to "understand" what a car is, then we
can therefore affirm that the completeness of knowledge
of the car brings us to understand in a perfect way
what is a car .. now the important question in logic is: is it possible 
to state the same thing about the variable of the "complexity" of 
comprehension, that is to say: perfect knowledge leads us to understand 
the very nature of the complexity of knowledge, as in the case of the 
car i have just given you above, because it is the one who really knows 
the car who can define the car, can we say the same thing about the 
complexity of understanding? does it is the one who really knows 
knowledge that can say what is the complexity of the understanding of
this knowledge? Do you understand my problem that
use logic effectively to solve this problem?
As in the problem of the car, above, what can we
say about the heaviness or the size of the car which characterizes
the car, we can say that it is the one who has knowledge about the car 
and who understands the car that can accurately state what the heaviness 
or the size of the car, but can we say the same thing about the 
characteristic which is called the "Complexity" of understanding? I mean 
that by analogy, if complexity is the characteristic of the
size of the car and if comprehension is the understanding of the car, 
can we say the same thing and say that the completeness of understanding 
can be defined only when there is more complete understanding and that 
greatly reduce or erase complexity because when you understand more 
fully this leads us to say that understanding is easy? I think that to 
solve this problem it is necessary to look that in the case of the car, 
the size and the heaviness are not of the variables of the 
"comprehension" function, whereas in the case of complexity, 
comprehension is, on the other hand, a variable of the complexity of 
comprehension, so these are two different problems, so that the nature 
of the complexity of Comprehension is relative to comprehension, since 
comprehension is a variable of the complexity of comprehension, so the 
problem is better solved in this way and complexity  should be seen as a 
function of comprehension, and more there is comprehension and more 
there is understand and more there is less complexity of understanding.

And now here is my definitive proof and solution to this problem:

As you noted in my second reasoning, I have concluded that understanding 
is a variable of complexity of understanding, for the more there is 
comprehension the more there is less complexity of understanding. The 
problem is not resolved as we can assert that understanding is the 
theoretical representation of the car example that i have given above, 
but since the more we understand theoretically the car, the more there 
is less complexity of understanding, so we can  say that the theoretical 
representation of the understanding of the car system is easy, but this 
is not true because, first of all, there is a contradiction, since two 
theoretical systems, one which is more complex and another that is less 
complex system, can both become as easy when there is definitive 
understanding, and since the mechanism of awareness of the theoretical 
understanding of the understanding of the car system rely on the speed 
of our brain, that means that when you remember an understanding in your 
brain, the brain is quick in its computation to do it, and This rapidity 
of computation of the brain makes us see  comprehension as easy, for 
example, when
you look at an equality of 2 + 2 = 4, your brain has already understood 
this equality before when you were still a child, but when you look at 
this equality now, the brain brings back the understanding of this 
equality and it does so quickly , and this is what does our brain, you 
do not have to understand the equality yet again, no, the brain makes a 
quick computation and brings you back the understanding of this equality 
quickly, that's what makes it easy to understand the theoretical 
representation of the understanding of the car system,  since the 
theoretical representation of the understanding of the system of a car 
is brought back quickly by the brain in the form of an understanding of 
the parts of the theoretical system of the car, as in the case of 2 + 2 
= 4, and this shows us the theoretical representation of understanding 
of the system of the car as being easy, it is the brain that is fast and 
which facilitates because of its speed of computation  as in the case of 
2 + 2 = 4.. so the ease of understanding is a consequence of the speed 
of computation of the brain, so it is not the theoretical representation 
of the understanding of the car system that is easy. Thus I believe that 
the problem is definitely resolved by my logical and effective reasoning.


Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.

[toc] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.programming.threads

csiph-web