rami17

2017-05-10 21:42:36 UTC

Permalink

Hello...Raw Message

I have explained with 2 + 2 = 4 that the "consciousness"

is the "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.