And I will, but you do realize that a person (me) with virtually no programming experience (except for coding an RPG in Qbasic when I was 12) will have a very hard time understanding that WIKI stuff which makes reference to things I've never heard of? I'm not sure why you can't figure out a way to tell your computer to get around the problem. Like, if you know what a given output needs to be, why cant you figure out what the input needs to be? It is based on an algorithm after all. Your computer isn't just guessing values 'randomly,' since randomness is another word for causation (caused by randomness). Why can't you use the algorithm to determine what the relationship is between inputs and outputs such that you can determine why a certain input gives the output that it does? My guess is that when TiagoTiago says "you can't know what effect a change in the input will have in the output," he really means "it's INFEASIBLE to try to know what effect a change in the input will have in the output." It's gotta be possible.
With a hash function there is no discernible pattern between the input and the output. Hash functions were made complicated on purpose. The only way to find out what the output for any given input is, is to run the function on it and see what comes out. By design, even a minor change to the input always results in a drastic change to the output. The algorithm cannot be done in reverse. Google it, find the implementation, and you'll see why. Too many steps "throw away" bits of intermediate information along the way - information you would need to do the algorithm in reverse. This is done repeatedly during each hash, and is intentional. There isn't a way to get the input from an output - except by guessing inputs by trial and error and calculating the output and seeing if it matches the desired result. Finally. Thanks, bro. You're a bro. That's you. |
|
|
|
What's the relationship between the input and the output? Isn't there some kind of determination of a certain output given by a certain input? Will a given input always produce the same output? My apologies, I don't quite get it.
this isn't elementary algebra hmmm... i'm not quite sure about that. our maths prof always goes like "as you've known since grade 9 ..." when talking about some shit you never heard before. for people like him it probably is elementary algebra. Exactly. I'm good at philosophical thinking, which makes me a quick learner. And I'm sure coding has its analogues which will help make it easier to understand (for example, language -- syntax, grammar, content). But the different terminology results in the same type of problem I would have trying to go to Mexico and understand what they're talking about, even if it's about everyday stuff. Even if this was elementary algebra, no hablo Espanol de techno-nerdo (mas o menos). |
|
|
|
like i said, you can't know what effect a change in the input will have in the output; the number you're guessing is part of the input, you can't just say you got an output without showing the inputs you used to get there
Yes, I heard you. I believe 'why?' is a good follow up question. Your questions are rather odd, I believe the suggestions to read up on hashing make sense. Bitcoin relies on SHA256, a strong cryptographic protocol, which wouldn't be very strong if you could simply break it by guessing easy to solve things. The answer to why is more or less answered there, because it was designed to be difficult. And I will, but you do realize that a person (me) with virtually no programming experience (except for coding an RPG in Qbasic when I was 12) will have a very hard time understanding that WIKI stuff which makes reference to things I've never heard of? I'm not sure why you can't figure out a way to tell your computer to get around the problem. Like, if you know what a given output needs to be, why cant you figure out what the input needs to be? It is based on an algorithm after all. Your computer isn't just guessing values 'randomly,' since randomness is another word for causation (caused by randomness). Why can't you use the algorithm to determine what the relationship is between inputs and outputs such that you can determine why a certain input gives the output that it does? My guess is that when TiagoTiago says "you can't know what effect a change in the input will have in the output," he really means "it's INFEASIBLE to try to know what effect a change in the input will have in the output." It's gotta be possible. I don't mean to be a jerk, but cryptography is one of the most complex mathematical subjects on the planet currently. The reason why the wiki is full of difficult to understand terminology is because it's really difficult to understand, even just the concept. It sounds like you are imagining something simple like a code that maps AB...Z:ZY...A, so if you know you're looking for the word banana, you put in abcdef and get zyxwvu, and you can just keep playing with the input until they match up, that is wrong, and probably the first thing cryptographers worked on making sure didn't happen, because brute force would make that a simple process. As I said, your question "why won't it work" is because a lot of incredibly intelligent people worked really hard to make sure that such things wouldn't work. Not quite what I was imagining -- I suspected it wouldn't be that easy. But I was utilizing the forum for quick, to the point, yet general-enough information that it would help narrow my searching. I've been involved with Bitcoin for like 2 weeks. |
|
|
|
And I will, but you do realize that a person (me) with virtually no programming experience (except for coding an RPG in Qbasic when I was 12) will have a very hard time understanding that WIKI stuff which makes reference to things I've never heard of? I'm not sure why you can't figure out a way to tell your computer to get around the problem. Like, if you know what a given output needs to be, why cant you figure out what the input needs to be? It is based on an algorithm after all. Your computer isn't just guessing values 'randomly,' since randomness is another word for causation (caused by randomness). Why can't you use the algorithm to determine what the relationship is between inputs and outputs such that you can determine why a certain input gives the output that it does? My guess is that when TiagoTiago says "you can't know what effect a change in the input will have in the output," he really means "it's INFEASIBLE to try to know what effect a change in the input will have in the output." It's gotta be possible.
*sigh* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avalanche_effector do you want me to explain the entire sha-1 process? Sorry to take up too much of your time Oh Guru of Ultimate Wisdom. You know, it's people like you who will turn people away from Bitcoin. Not everyone is a techno-ultra-nerd extraordinaire. Wait, you aren't a techno-ultra-nerd extraordinaire, and you propose to break one of the world's strongest hash algorithms? I'm utterly confused now. Yes, cause I'm fucking smart. And I'm currently playing DDR for cardio which is why I'm postponing wikisearch  |
|
|
|
And I will, but you do realize that a person (me) with virtually no programming experience (except for coding an RPG in Qbasic when I was 12) will have a very hard time understanding that WIKI stuff which makes reference to things I've never heard of? I'm not sure why you can't figure out a way to tell your computer to get around the problem. Like, if you know what a given output needs to be, why cant you figure out what the input needs to be? It is based on an algorithm after all. Your computer isn't just guessing values 'randomly,' since randomness is another word for causation (caused by randomness). Why can't you use the algorithm to determine what the relationship is between inputs and outputs such that you can determine why a certain input gives the output that it does? My guess is that when TiagoTiago says "you can't know what effect a change in the input will have in the output," he really means "it's INFEASIBLE to try to know what effect a change in the input will have in the output." It's gotta be possible.
*sigh* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avalanche_effector do you want me to explain the entire sha-1 process? Sorry to take up too much of your time Oh Guru of Ultimate Wisdom. You know, it's people like you who will turn people away from Bitcoin. Not everyone is a techno-ultra-nerd extraordinaire. |
|
|
|
like i said, you can't know what effect a change in the input will have in the output; the number you're guessing is part of the input, you can't just say you got an output without showing the inputs you used to get there
Yes, I heard you. I believe 'why?' is a good follow up question. Your questions are rather odd, I believe the suggestions to read up on hashing make sense. Bitcoin relies on SHA256, a strong cryptographic protocol, which wouldn't be very strong if you could simply break it by guessing easy to solve things. The answer to why is more or less answered there, because it was designed to be difficult. And I will, but you do realize that a person (me) with virtually no programming experience (except for coding an RPG in Qbasic when I was 12) will have a very hard time understanding that WIKI stuff which makes reference to things I've never heard of? I'm not sure why you can't figure out a way to tell your computer to get around the problem. Like, if you know what a given output needs to be, why cant you figure out what the input needs to be? It is based on an algorithm after all. Your computer isn't just guessing values 'randomly,' since randomness is another word for causation (caused by randomness). Why can't you use the algorithm to determine what the relationship is between inputs and outputs such that you can determine why a certain input gives the output that it does? My guess is that when TiagoTiago says "you can't know what effect a change in the input will have in the output," he really means "it's INFEASIBLE to try to know what effect a change in the input will have in the output." It's gotta be possible. If you can reverse a cryptographic hash, you will literally win the Internet. Sounds like a hobby worth my time  |
|
|
|
like i said, you can't know what effect a change in the input will have in the output; the number you're guessing is part of the input, you can't just say you got an output without showing the inputs you used to get there
Yes, I heard you. I believe 'why?' is a good follow up question. Your questions are rather odd, I believe the suggestions to read up on hashing make sense. Bitcoin relies on SHA256, a strong cryptographic protocol, which wouldn't be very strong if you could simply break it by guessing easy to solve things. The answer to why is more or less answered there, because it was designed to be difficult. And I will, but you do realize that a person (me) with virtually no programming experience (except for coding an RPG in Qbasic when I was 12) will have a very hard time understanding that WIKI stuff which makes reference to things I've never heard of? I'm not sure why you can't figure out a way to tell your computer to get around the problem. Like, if you know what a given output needs to be, why cant you figure out what the input needs to be? It is based on an algorithm after all. Your computer isn't just guessing values 'randomly,' since randomness is another word for causation (caused by randomness). Why can't you use the algorithm to determine what the relationship is between inputs and outputs such that you can determine why a certain input gives the output that it does? My guess is that when TiagoTiago says "you can't know what effect a change in the input will have in the output," he really means "it's INFEASIBLE to try to know what effect a change in the input will have in the output." It's gotta be possible. |
|
|
|
like i said, you can't know what effect a change in the input will have in the output; the number you're guessing is part of the input, you can't just say you got an output without showing the inputs you used to get there
Yes, I heard you. I believe 'why?' is a good follow up question. |
|
|
|
What's the relationship between the input and the output? Isn't there some kind of determination of a certain output given by a certain input? Will a given input always produce the same output? My apologies, I don't quite get it.
this isn't elementary algebra No shit. |
|
|
|
The output of the hashing is unpredictable, you can't know what will change in the output if you change somthing in the input.
What's the relationship between the input and the output? Isn't there some kind of determination of a certain output given by a certain input? Will a given input always produce the same output? My apologies, I don't quite get it. In another thread that I read, I envisioned it as a 'guess-the-number' game. So, it'd be like if I told you to "guess a number between 1 and a million" where the only acceptable values are 0, 1, 2, and 3, and then after a difficulty increase, the only acceptable numbers are 0, 1, and 2, and so on. There's no way to tell your computer to hash out all 0's for example? |
|
|
|
Hi, I don't know much about coding and therefore do not exactly know how programs like the Bitcoin client and GUIminer operate. So, here is my question... Is there any way to essentially tell your computer to only hash out low values so that it solves the block quickly? So, instead of random guessing, you're narrowing the parameters under which it can guess even further, thereby resulting in a more likely chance to solve the block? By the way, in the odd event that this is possible, that nobody has thought of it yet, and that someone decides to implement it for their gain, I want part of the consistent 50-BTC payout  |
|
|
|
push system works well, just set it up and logged in.
but note in AU our phone number is generally written as 0435223227 but you must enter it as 435223227
(this is not my number)
New security works for me too. Brownie points. |
|
|
|
Sorry I just feel real hostility towards the speculators, its not what bitcoin was designed for.
So you think...if I knew how to code well enough to design my own currency in such a way that I would be the #1 profiteer, I would do it, and it would look like Bitcoin. Just like if I owned the NBA or NFL, I would want my games rigged, such that a team like the Saints would win the superbowl after some natural disaster, and the NBA's most hated team would lose in the 7th finals game to a bunch of old white guys. That is a difficult post to understand. but I think you are saying that anything that doesn't have wild gambling driven speculation is rigged? You are going to have to explain that one. Bitcoin is purported as a better solution than traditional, centralized currency. I agree with this. But that doesn't mean 'Satoshi' didn't also do it to make a quick buck. Even if he's sincere in his motive, its still a fantastic way to make a quick buck while simultaneously doing something he believes is ethical. Much the same reason I'm a social work/psych major. But if I didn't get paid anything, I wouldn't be a social work/psych major; it just happens to be an ethical field in which I can make a lot of money. Rigging NBA and NFL games is another way to make a buck, and, if done right, would actually add excitement for the fans (rigging a series to go to 7 games rather than ending in 4 or 5). I also mine/exchange bitcoins to make a buck. The opportunity is there, and the cost for said opportunity is low (and risk is equally low if you're in the habit of day trading). I'm just talking about opportunity-cost. The opportunity was there for Satoshi to utilize his skills to make a buck. Whether or not that was his intention, I don't know. But I do know that I would do it to make a buck (or million) in an instant. And that's why I have a bid for 200 coins at .02 USD. I want to make a quick buck too. |
|
|
|
As far as samples go, probably your best bet is to just upload them somewhere and post the download link here on the board, that way others who read your thread don't have to specifically PM you for samples.
Regarding the work, that sounds fine but we're a donation funded show so 6btc/m isn't really do-able - I'll touch base with you once we get a bit further in, thanks for the reply.
By the way, I checked out bittalk.tv (your first episode -- congratulations by the way) and I should have no problem providing sound samples for a lower price than I originally listed. |
|
|
|
Sorry I just feel real hostility towards the speculators, its not what bitcoin was designed for.
So you think...if I knew how to code well enough to design my own currency in such a way that I would be the #1 profiteer, I would do it, and it would look like Bitcoin. Just like if I owned the NBA or NFL, I would want my games rigged, such that a team like the Saints would win the superbowl after some natural disaster, and the NBA's most hated team would lose in the 7th finals game to a bunch of old white guys. |
|
|
|
This thread is soo blashphmies, i dont know of any religion thats states that humans have the power to pray to have the choice to where they go. Oh wait mormans....thats it OP must be morman.  When you think, "I want to move my arm," and then you do it, that is a mental thought having influence on physical reality. Mental stuff affects physical stuff all the time. It's not blasphemous. It's logical that thoughts have direct influence on physical reality and vice versa. In the book, "The Intention Experiment," a professor hooked up a plant to a polygraph machine. He then had the intention (in the form of a thought) to burn one of the plants leaves. This caused the plant to register a spike on the polygraph. This experiment was repeated and tested...the difference was, the plant only registered a spike on the polygraph when the experimenter had true intention (as opposed to false intention -- thinking he was going to burn the plant's leaves but was not actually going to do so). In a similar experiment, a plant was again hooked up to a polygraph machine. This time, a machine was put in place that would, at a random time, release a tub of brine shrimp into a vat of boiling water. Despite the randomness of the release time, the plant registered a spike on the polygraph immediately prior to the machine releasing the brine shrimp. In other words, it appears as though somehow, the plant was "aware" that the machine was about to release the brine shrimp into a vat of boiling water. Reality is stranger than fiction What does reality of physical have to do with anything with the reality of the spiritual world? its two different planes of existence. and don't spouting off about string theory because yes I believe based off of true experiences the spiritual world is real; its just out side of the time-stream there fore we must die to transcend into a timeless infinite point of nothingness(nothingness is a metaphor in comparison to physical reality, I only use nothingness because its the based way to be described with human language). Don't think you know everyone Peace Spiritual world? The real universe is the set of all that is real. If heaven is real, and if hell is real, then they are part of the real universe. Since logic is distributed syntactically across -- and embedded within -- the real universe, then what I said applies to heaven and hell if real. Just look at Tronlet's happy, and might I add ADORABLE, face! Don't make the same mistake Descartes did, creating an inseparable chasm between the set of mental reality and the set of physical reality (or, in your case, spiritual and physical). The principle of syndiffeonesis implies that any 2 relands 'x' and 'y' occupy and share some medium, even if those relands are said to be absolutely different (thus being included within the medium of absolute difference). I was agreeing with you BTW, I was simply stating my beliefs, have and hell is a real place... but its the SAME place. To me when you die, depending on your state of consciousness upon death is how you will view the world that you are sent to for eternity. If your a good moral person you will perceive death/spritual world in a good perspective, and if your a person with bad morals you'll think your lost for ever because that's what you thought you were in the physical world but still in the same place.. This is how all religion can make sense together. Some religions say that we will be in different domination/levels of heaven(or hell). but it is all the same place I kinda get that vibe too...that heaven and hell are the same 'place' depending on perspective. However, it's hard to think about one's 'perspective' after death. Truth is intellectualized through ratio (root word of 'rationale') and, with the lack of a clear after-death ratio between subject and object, it is hard to imagine how one can 'perceive' goodness or badness. But, ya never know. You know i didn't think about that actually about perspective could possibly not being existent after death. I guess i was sub-consciously going off of what some scientists are claiming to prove. Which is the only thing we can prove is our consciousness our self and that they think all matter is a hologram since all matter is just "light that has been slowed down in time exponentially" as they described it light slowed down in time exponentially...hmmm I'll hafta give that one some thought! |
|
|
|
Man, if only I believed in the devil. wasn't an atheist.
Also: are there any Bible/Quran passages against this?
Well, you could change your nomological definition of god. Just set truth = god, set illusion = the devil, and you're back in the same ballpark! Besides, Jesus was a jew. That's pretty much atheist. Minus the god part. And, since I began this service, camels have been FLYING through the eyes of needles. I like the way you think, i think you are the first person i would think that would even know wtf i'm talking about when i get into religious debates about the truth of who/what god really is. and between me and you(and bitcoin forums) god = infinite. Probably self explanatory but the more i think about infinity the more I think that infinity is energy and energy is love and its that infinite love that keeps the universe going with those High vibrations. (Didn't mean to sound all "hippy" on everybody, but I think about this and truly believe it, then I see scientists proving it everyday that energy is ultimate form of love; science is a different type of religion its a religion that doesn't stand for one word answers to solve problems such as "God made it that way" which is true but that doesn't help us solve anybody current situation, and i think just think its redick-ulas that people soley believe one or the other when everything is the truth and truth can only be infinite scince nobody is perfect which also means that nobody can know everything, again the answer is infinite) //End Spritual Rant Haha interesting. I agree/believe god = infinite (beyond a simple definition) where infinite = undefined, and perhaps is the limit of science/induction. A side note about energy...I think that energy is time, given that any change in the configuration of the content of the universe requires time. It seems that the sum of all possible configurations of content would require all of time, so it also seems that time itself may be energy and may be responsible for observable change. Love this stuff... YEAH!! You know what i'm talking about Here's a little equation I made for fun when thinking about this stuff. Let me know what you think, I'd be interested... (it is (x)) + (it is (all - x)) = (it is) all In this equation, 'it is' is a distributed property of being, and 'x,' 'all - x,' and 'all' are conditional properties. so like "it is" (property of being) an apple (conditional). But, since 'it is' distributes to all conditional properties, it can be removed from the equation, such that simply... (x) + (all - x) = all Easy enough right? Well, to me, this implies some weird stuff. It seems to imply that the distributive property of being (a constant -- 'being cannot not be') has both little and everything to do with the conditional properties. On one hand, it seems as though the conditional nature of things as we recognize them blinds us from the ever-pervasive property of 'being' that is all around is. A property that is undefined because it is not related to any specific condition. On the other hand, This property of being also seems responsible for allowing us to intellectualize about, and establish ratio between, conditional elements. This is obviously a good thing for us who try to navigate the world successfully day to day. Thoughts? |
|
|
|
This thread is soo blashphmies, i dont know of any religion thats states that humans have the power to pray to have the choice to where they go. Oh wait mormans....thats it OP must be morman. When you think, "I want to move my arm," and then you do it, that is a mental thought having influence on physical reality. Mental stuff affects physical stuff all the time. It's not blasphemous. It's logical that thoughts have direct influence on physical reality and vice versa. In the book, "The Intention Experiment," a professor hooked up a plant to a polygraph machine. He then had the intention (in the form of a thought) to burn one of the plants leaves. This caused the plant to register a spike on the polygraph. This experiment was repeated and tested...the difference was, the plant only registered a spike on the polygraph when the experimenter had true intention (as opposed to false intention -- thinking he was going to burn the plant's leaves but was not actually going to do so). In a similar experiment, a plant was again hooked up to a polygraph machine. This time, a machine was put in place that would, at a random time, release a tub of brine shrimp into a vat of boiling water. Despite the randomness of the release time, the plant registered a spike on the polygraph immediately prior to the machine releasing the brine shrimp. In other words, it appears as though somehow, the plant was "aware" that the machine was about to release the brine shrimp into a vat of boiling water. Reality is stranger than fiction What does reality of physical have to do with anything with the reality of the spiritual world? its two different planes of existence. and don't spouting off about string theory because yes I believe based off of true experiences the spiritual world is real; its just out side of the time-stream there fore we must die to transcend into a timeless infinite point of nothingness(nothingness is a metaphor in comparison to physical reality, I only use nothingness because its the based way to be described with human language). Don't think you know everyone Peace Spiritual world? The real universe is the set of all that is real. If heaven is real, and if hell is real, then they are part of the real universe. Since logic is distributed syntactically across -- and embedded within -- the real universe, then what I said applies to heaven and hell if real. Just look at Tronlet's happy, and might I add ADORABLE, face! Don't make the same mistake Descartes did, creating an inseparable chasm between the set of mental reality and the set of physical reality (or, in your case, spiritual and physical). The principle of syndiffeonesis implies that any 2 relands 'x' and 'y' occupy and share some medium, even if those relands are said to be absolutely different (thus being included within the medium of absolute difference). I was agreeing with you BTW, I was simply stating my beliefs, have and hell is a real place... but its the SAME place. To me when you die, depending on your state of consciousness upon death is how you will view the world that you are sent to for eternity. If your a good moral person you will perceive death/spritual world in a good perspective, and if your a person with bad morals you'll think your lost for ever because that's what you thought you were in the physical world but still in the same place.. This is how all religion can make sense together. Some religions say that we will be in different dominiations/levels of heaven(or hell). but it is all the same place I kinda get that vibe too...that heaven and hell are the same 'place' depending on perspective. However, it's hard to think about one's 'perspective' after death. Truth is intellectualized through ratio (root word of 'rationale') and, with the lack of a clear after-death ratio between subject and object, it is hard to imagine how one can 'perceive' goodness or badness. But, ya never know. |
|
|
|
Man, if only I believed in the devil. wasn't an atheist.
Also: are there any Bible/Quran passages against this?
Well, you could change your nomological definition of god. Just set truth = god, set illusion = the devil, and you're back in the same ballpark! Besides, Jesus was a jew. That's pretty much atheist. Minus the god part. And, since I began this service, camels have been FLYING through the eyes of needles. I like the way you think, i think you are the first person i would think that would even know wtf i'm talking about when i get into religious debates about the truth of who/what god really is. and between me and you(and bitcoin forums) god = infinite. Probably self explanatory but the more i think about infinity the more I think that infinity is energy and energy is love and its that infinite love that keeps the universe going with those High vibrations. (Didn't mean to sound all "hippy" on everybody, but I think about this and truly believe it, then I see scientists proving it everyday that energy is ultimate form of love; science is a different type of religion its a religion that doesn't stand for one word answers to solve problems such as "God made it that way" which is true but that doesn't help us solve anybody current situation, and i think just think its redick-ulas that people soley believe one or the other when everything is the truth and truth can only be infinite scince nobody is perfect which also means that nobody can know everything, again the answer is infinite) //End Spritual Rant Haha interesting. I agree/believe god = infinite (beyond a simple definition) where infinite = undefined, and perhaps is the limit of science/induction. A side note about energy...I think that energy is time, given that any change in the configuration of the content of the universe requires time. It seems that the sum of all possible configurations of content would require all of time, so it also seems that time itself may be energy and may be responsible for observable change. Love this stuff... |
|
|
|
This thread is soo blashphmies, i dont know of any religion thats states that humans have the power to pray to have the choice to where they go. Oh wait mormans....thats it OP must be morman. When you think, "I want to move my arm," and then you do it, that is a mental thought having influence on physical reality. Mental stuff affects physical stuff all the time. It's not blasphemous. It's logical that thoughts have direct influence on physical reality and vice versa. In the book, "The Intention Experiment," a professor hooked up a plant to a polygraph machine. He then had the intention (in the form of a thought) to burn one of the plants leaves. This caused the plant to register a spike on the polygraph. This experiment was repeated and tested...the difference was, the plant only registered a spike on the polygraph when the experimenter had true intention (as opposed to false intention -- thinking he was going to burn the plant's leaves but was not actually going to do so). In a similar experiment, a plant was again hooked up to a polygraph machine. This time, a machine was put in place that would, at a random time, release a tub of brine shrimp into a vat of boiling water. Despite the randomness of the release time, the plant registered a spike on the polygraph immediately prior to the machine releasing the brine shrimp. In other words, it appears as though somehow, the plant was "aware" that the machine was about to release the brine shrimp into a vat of boiling water. Reality is stranger than fiction What does reality of physical have to do with anything with the reality of the spiritual world? its two different planes of existence. and don't spouting off about string theory because yes I believe based off of true experiences the spiritual world is real; its just out side of the time-stream there fore we must die to transcend into a timeless infinite point of nothingness(nothingness is a metaphor in comparison to physical reality, I only use nothingness because its the based way to be described with human language). Don't think you know everyone Peace Spiritual world? The real universe is the set of all that is real. If heaven is real, and if hell is real, then they are part of the real universe. Since logic is distributed syntactically across -- and embedded within -- the real universe, then what I said applies to heaven and hell if real. Just look at Tronlet's happy, and might I add ADORABLE, face! Don't make the same mistake Descartes did, creating an inseparable chasm between the set of mental reality and the set of physical reality (or, in your case, spiritual and physical). The principle of syndiffeonesis implies that any 2 relands 'x' and 'y' occupy and share some medium, even if those relands are said to be absolutely different (thus being included within the medium of absolute difference). |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
