@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:
Several of the main stream theory´s in Physic nowadays support the idea of the existence of several parallel Universes alternate to the one we actually live with step by step small variations of every decision/diverse path that we or any X takes along a contextual space/time frame...on that account it is acceptable and actually conceivable to stablish an innumerable probability of variations of X, in which X1, X2, X 3, and so on although not equal can be taken as a larger frame of the Identity of X...
...now of course the stupid display of ignorance that you just showed above cannot account for such implications...
You has most of those around you cannot but grasp the obvious in a linear frame of mind...one just has to read the pathetic high regard in which you take yourself on your ridiculous postings.
Yes, I have a very constrained mind. In fact, very similar to some ancient Greeks, who were not that bright either. You see, they believed that for language to be possible, you had to agree upon terms, i.e. a standard. Now that standard is the standard from which each could abstract on. This way their words were grounded in reality. In fact, this is the foundation of all logic, well defined terms. Which means, if you cannot name that which is abstractable, in your environment and mine, and anyone else who wants to monkey around, you are talking out your ass. . . . . in fact, by definition, unless there is something present before us both, you cannot even use the word belief.
Language is conventional. No way around it.
Further more, I see most people speaking of these theories who cannot even do things that are right in front of their face. Convince me that they can do the very difficult, but not something easy.
The fact that I can do what they could not and said impossible in Geometry, testifies to my stupid pragmatic nature.
