The most influential chess books by Nimzowistsch...Found out more about him here
And here comes the good part..the book
Download
And another one here
Saturday, 21 April 2012
My Favourite Band
Born of Osiris is an American deathcore
band, formed in 2003 in Chicago. The group has undergone a number of
name changes including Diminished (2003–2004), Your Heart Engraved
(2004–2006), and Rosecrance (2006–2007) before finally settling with
Born of Osiris in 2007, basing the name off the Egyptian deity Osiris, and the tale of his son Horus.
The group is signed to Sumerian Records and has released two full lengths and one EP on the label. Their album, A Higher Place, reached number 73 on the Billboard 200. Their second full-length album, The Discovery released March 22, 2011, debuted at 87 on the Billboard 200.
The band's musical style is mostly based around deathcore and metalcore, although The Discovery showed elements of progressive metal. The band are unusual among other bands of their style in that they frequently use keyboards, synthesisers and programmed electronics.
For those interested..you can get this album on here...I will be posting musics,chess books,anything worth posting..And not forgotten my ideas...
Download here
The group is signed to Sumerian Records and has released two full lengths and one EP on the label. Their album, A Higher Place, reached number 73 on the Billboard 200. Their second full-length album, The Discovery released March 22, 2011, debuted at 87 on the Billboard 200.
The band's musical style is mostly based around deathcore and metalcore, although The Discovery showed elements of progressive metal. The band are unusual among other bands of their style in that they frequently use keyboards, synthesisers and programmed electronics.
Download here
My Best Games of Chess 1908-1923
Dr. Alekhine selected for inclusion in this volume of 100 of his best games played during the first fifteen years of his career.Nearly every famous master of the period was represented among his opponents and good many leading amateurs.Dr Alekhine was not only one of the greatest player who has ever lived,but also one of the most illuminating and brilliant writers of the game.His books are now chess classics.And now is for free to download in pdf format..
Here
Omnipotence? Would it be possible?
Omnipotence generates an ostensible paradox due to our limited
knowledge, where it appears that the logic of juxtapositional
contraposition, in spite of its justification by the standard truth
tables for propositional logic, becomes deductively invalid via a
semantic twist of fate. Say that entity X is defined as being
"omnipotent". Can X create a rock too heavy for X to lift? If yes, then X
is not omnipotent. If no then X is also not omnipotent. But when
omnipotence is defined as being truly transcendental in nature, that is
to say, omnipotence is the ability to transcend any logical framework,
then the paradox loses its bite. Of course transcendental arguments
then lose coherence because "anything goes".
In order to quantify and qualify transcendence it consequently becomes necessary to stratify transcendence/omnipotence as a system of sequentially related meta logical variables in arbitrary logical order. AKA TIME. The exact relationships need not be precisely defined as long as it is required as a necessary condition that the relands are systematically and comprehensively ordered, even though the complete network is not tabulated down to the last quanta of information.
So we see that the omnipotent entity X, becomes a transcendent quantum superposition of both lifting the rock and not lifting the rock and all possible states in between, and due to its own omnipotence, the being X, can prevent itself from being observed. Thus it can transcend logic and still be logically consistent. Globally transcendent and locally parameterized via the constraints of its own stratified logical framework.
In order to quantify and qualify transcendence it consequently becomes necessary to stratify transcendence/omnipotence as a system of sequentially related meta logical variables in arbitrary logical order. AKA TIME. The exact relationships need not be precisely defined as long as it is required as a necessary condition that the relands are systematically and comprehensively ordered, even though the complete network is not tabulated down to the last quanta of information.
So we see that the omnipotent entity X, becomes a transcendent quantum superposition of both lifting the rock and not lifting the rock and all possible states in between, and due to its own omnipotence, the being X, can prevent itself from being observed. Thus it can transcend logic and still be logically consistent. Globally transcendent and locally parameterized via the constraints of its own stratified logical framework.
Friday, 29 July 2011
Random Mulitverse and Intelligent creator
This is my first post,so would love to talk about something that has been inside for quite a long time.Okay,lets start the journey into the depth of my cognition abyss...
It becomes clear that there is no real conceptual difference between an infinite multiverse of all possible worlds and an ultimate *intelligent creator*. Since by definition all possibilities must exist, therefore an ultimate intelligent creator - God, must exist in at least one universe.
Thus it becomes necessary to eliminate the infinities, in order to ensure that parsimony is well served. We observe one nonlinear universe. We do not observe an infinite "linear" space. Spontaneous events happen. They cannot be truly accidental but must be connected with an overarching purpose[intent] IF spontaneity is not due to acausality. Acausality demands a logical justification, hence there is the explanation of randomness and probability distributions, which ultimately lead to absurdities[multiverse - infinities], therefore the universe cannot be acausal. The only logical choice is the factor of *intelligence* as the basis of ultimate reality.
The multiverse scenario requires large numbers of universes, some are bio-friendly and some are not. Exactly how many universes are bio-friendly? Apparently, the universal constants are different in each universe, where these universes arise by chance, in an eternally ongoing process that has no beginning and no ending. But there is some tentative evidence that the constants of THIS universe have changed, even if only by an extremely small increment. That could be evidence for a type of fine tuning towards some optimal value that gives rise to the genesis of intelligent observers.
Yes, the various multiverse scenarios would have us believe that an infinite number of "copys" of ourselves all co-exist within some gigantic, unverifiable space of all possible worlds. On the other hand, a teleological anthropic principle requires intelligent observers, where each observer is a unique creation.
Randomness is described by large numbers[a universe] of similar things.
A simple example would be the classic "coin toss" where, in the limit of an infinite number[universe] of coin tosses, there are equal numbers of both heads and tails. So there is a 50% probability for each outcome.
But really, it seems that a better explanation in terms of causality - for the H or T coin toss outcome, would be the rotational symmetry of physical space, not the abstract symmetry of large numbers. So it is better to explain the universe in terms of causality itself rather than using randomness.
If it becomes difficult to ponder a transcendental omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent God, asking the question "Well, what caused God?" well, the multiverse is even more incredible to believe. One can also ask: "what caused the *eternal* multiverse?" The multiverse has no intrinsic purpose or intentionality, no reason to exist other than to be a mathematical model used to generate a higher level of symmetry. The symmetry becomes very appealing - because in an infinite ensemble of all possible universes, OUR universe is no longer a special creation, from the perspective of the ensemble, of course. But we also observe broken symmetry in the universe, not just symmetry.
An Intelligent Creator creates with a reason and purpose. If one can accept an *eternal* uncaused multiverse with no reservations, then one can accept an eternal uncaused God. But the "what caused God?" question also assumes an eternal linear time. Time is not necessarily linear in that respect. Note the various interpretations of quantum mechanics that require nonlocality. Einstein's field equations are nonlinear - and - God can create God, with no problem
It becomes clear that there is no real conceptual difference between an infinite multiverse of all possible worlds and an ultimate *intelligent creator*. Since by definition all possibilities must exist, therefore an ultimate intelligent creator - God, must exist in at least one universe.
Thus it becomes necessary to eliminate the infinities, in order to ensure that parsimony is well served. We observe one nonlinear universe. We do not observe an infinite "linear" space. Spontaneous events happen. They cannot be truly accidental but must be connected with an overarching purpose[intent] IF spontaneity is not due to acausality. Acausality demands a logical justification, hence there is the explanation of randomness and probability distributions, which ultimately lead to absurdities[multiverse - infinities], therefore the universe cannot be acausal. The only logical choice is the factor of *intelligence* as the basis of ultimate reality.
The multiverse scenario requires large numbers of universes, some are bio-friendly and some are not. Exactly how many universes are bio-friendly? Apparently, the universal constants are different in each universe, where these universes arise by chance, in an eternally ongoing process that has no beginning and no ending. But there is some tentative evidence that the constants of THIS universe have changed, even if only by an extremely small increment. That could be evidence for a type of fine tuning towards some optimal value that gives rise to the genesis of intelligent observers.
Yes, the various multiverse scenarios would have us believe that an infinite number of "copys" of ourselves all co-exist within some gigantic, unverifiable space of all possible worlds. On the other hand, a teleological anthropic principle requires intelligent observers, where each observer is a unique creation.
Randomness is described by large numbers[a universe] of similar things.
A simple example would be the classic "coin toss" where, in the limit of an infinite number[universe] of coin tosses, there are equal numbers of both heads and tails. So there is a 50% probability for each outcome.
But really, it seems that a better explanation in terms of causality - for the H or T coin toss outcome, would be the rotational symmetry of physical space, not the abstract symmetry of large numbers. So it is better to explain the universe in terms of causality itself rather than using randomness.
If it becomes difficult to ponder a transcendental omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent God, asking the question "Well, what caused God?" well, the multiverse is even more incredible to believe. One can also ask: "what caused the *eternal* multiverse?" The multiverse has no intrinsic purpose or intentionality, no reason to exist other than to be a mathematical model used to generate a higher level of symmetry. The symmetry becomes very appealing - because in an infinite ensemble of all possible universes, OUR universe is no longer a special creation, from the perspective of the ensemble, of course. But we also observe broken symmetry in the universe, not just symmetry.
An Intelligent Creator creates with a reason and purpose. If one can accept an *eternal* uncaused multiverse with no reservations, then one can accept an eternal uncaused God. But the "what caused God?" question also assumes an eternal linear time. Time is not necessarily linear in that respect. Note the various interpretations of quantum mechanics that require nonlocality. Einstein's field equations are nonlinear - and - God can create God, with no problem
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)