Why is it so hard to prove that e+pi or e*pi is irrational/rational?

The reason why it is so hard to prove is actually very easy to answer. These constants, identities, and variations being referred to in this post, and others like it, all lay embedded in a far deeper substrate than current mathematics has yet explored.

Mathematics has been, and always shall be my ‘first love’, and it has provided for me all of these years. I am not criticising mathematics in any way. It is my firm belief that mathematics will overcome this current situation and eventually be quite able to examine these kinds of questions in a much more expansive and deeper way.

We need to extend our examination of mathematical knowledge, both in depth and in scope, out farther and in deeper than numbers (sets and categories as well – even more below) have yet done. I’ll introduce you to a pattern you may have already noticed in the current stage of our mathematical endeavour.

We all know there are numbers which lay outside of Q which we call Irrational numbers. There are also numbers which lay outside of R which we call Imaginary numbers. They have both been found, because the domain of questioning exceeded the range of answers being sought within the properties each of those numbers. This pattern continues in other ways, as well.

We also know there are abstractions and/or extensions of Complex numbers where the ‘air starts to get thin’ and mathematical properties start to ‘fade away’: Quaternions, Octonians, Sedenions,…

This pattern continues in other ways: Holors, for example, which extend and include mathematical entities such as Complex numbers, scalars, vectors, matrices, tensors, Quaternions, and other hypercomplex numbers, yet are still capable of providing a different algebra which is consistent with real algebra.

The framing of our answers to mathematical questions is also evolving. Logic was, for example, limited to quite sophisticated methods that all were restricted to a boolean context. Then we found other questions which led to boundary, multi-valued, fuzzy, and fractal logics, among a few others I haven’t mentioned yet.

Even our validity claims are evolving. We are beginning to ask questions which require answers which transcend relationship properties such as causality, equivalence, and inference in all of their forms. Even the idea of a binary relationship is being transcended into finitary versions (which I use in my work). There are many more of these various patterns which I may write about in the future.

They all have at least one thing in common: each time we extend our reach in terms of scope or depth, we find new ways of seeing things which we saw before and/or see new things which were before not seen.

There are many ‘voices’ in this ‘mathematical fugue’ which ‘weaves’ everything together: they are the constants, variations, identities, and the relationships they share with each other.

The constants e, π, i, ϕ, c, g, h  all denote or involve ‘special’ relationships of some kind. Special in the sense that they are completely unique.

For example:

• e is the identity of change (some would say proportion, but that’s not entirely correct).
• π is the identity of periodicity. There’s much more going on with $\pi$ than simply being a component of arc or, in a completely different context, a component of area

These relationships actually transcend mathematics. Mathematics ‘consumes’ their utility (making use of those relationships), but they cannot be ‘corralled in’ as if they were ‘horses on the farm’ of mathematics. Their uniqueness cannot be completely understood via equivalence classes alone.

• They are ubiquitous and therefore not algebraic.
• They are pre-nascent to number, equivalence classes, and validity claims and are therefore not rational.

These are not the only reasons.

It’s also about WHERE they are embedded in the knowledge substrate compared to the concept of number, set, category…. They lay more deeply embedded in that substrate.

The reason why your question is so hard for mathematics to answer is, because our current mathematics is, as yet, unable to decide. We need to ‘see’ these problems with a more complete set of ‘optics’ that will yield them to mathematical scrutiny.

Question on Quora

Knowledge Representation – Holographic Heart Torus

Holographic Heart Torus by Ryan Cameron on YouTube

Which questions does Category Theory help us answer?

Another chapter in my attempt to help break the ‘spell’ of the category theoretical ‘ontologicisation’ of our world.

This may seem to many as a purely academic question, but we all need to realise that all of what we consider a modern way of thinking rests upon ‘mental technologies’ such as Category Theory.

Academics are literally taking the ‘heart’ out of how our world is being defined!
If we don’t pay attention, humanity will continue losing its way.

Category theory is a wonderful and powerful tool; nevertheless category theory, with all of its utility, is purely ontological. It can masterfully answer questions such as ‘Who?’, ‘What?’, and ‘How?’.

However; it is regretfully inadequate to form a comprehensive representation of knowledge, for it lacks expression of epistemological value, which are the very reasons for is use. Epistemology is about answering the questions of ‘Why?’, ‘What does it mean?’, ‘What is my purpose?’,…
Answers to questions of this kind are implicitly supplied by us during our consumption of the utility afforded by category theory. We often are so beguiled by this power of categorical expression that we don’t realise that is we ourselves who bring the ‘missing elements’ to what it offers as an expression of knowledge.
It does a wonderful job with exteriority (ontology), but cannot sufficiently describe nor comprehensively access interiority (epistemology). Therefore, it has limited metaphysical value with respect to philosophy in general.

Philosophies of mind, of language, or of learning are not comprehensive using only category theoretical tools.
Categorical structures are highly portable, but they can describe/express only part of what is there. There are structures, dynamics, and resonance that the ontology and functionalism in category theory completely turns a blind eye to.
More general than category theory is knowledge representation. It includes and surpasses category theory in many areas, both in scope and depth, but in particular: knowledge representation includes not just the ontological aspects of what we know, it goes further to describe the epistemological as well.
The qualities of Truth, Goodness, Beauty, Clarity,… can be defined and identified within a knowledge representation if the representation is not restricted to ontology. When category theory is used for the purpose of defining qualia, the objects must first be ontologised and functionally reduced. Trying to grasp them with tools restricted to category theory (or even semiotics) is like grasping into thin air.

Category theory, although very powerful, is no match for the challenge of a complete representation of knowledge. Category theory will tell you how to tie your shoes, but it can’t tell you why you are motivated to do so.

Does Division By Zero Have Meaning?

Yes, in knowledge representation, the answer is the interior of a holon.

Ontologies go ‘out of scope’ when entering interiority. The common ontological representation via mathematical expression is 1/0.

When we ‘leave’ the exterior ontology of current mathematics by replacing number with relation, we enter the realm of interiority.

In the interior of relation, we access the epistemological aspects of any relation.

As an aide to understanding – Ontology answers questions like: ‘What?’, ‘Who?’, ‘Where?’, and ‘When?’. Epistemology answers questions like: ‘Why?’ and ‘How do we know?’

In vortex mathematics 1/0 is known as ‘entering the vortex’.

There are other connections to some new developments in mathematics involving what is called ‘inversive geometry’.

Example: (oversimplified for clarity)

If we think of say… the point [x, y, z] in space, we may assign x, y, and z any number value except where one of these coordinates gets involved in division where 0 is not allowed (up to this point in common mathematics) as a denominator. x/z is not allowed when z=0, for example.

Now, if we are dealing with interiority, numbers are replaced by relationships, such as [father, loves, son].

What if the son has died? Is the relationship still valid?

The answer to this question lies within the interior of those involved in the relation.

Limits of Category Theory and Semiotics

They are wonderful tools to explain much of our world, but lack ‘The Right Stuff’ to handle the metaphysical underpinnings of anything near a Philosophy of Mind, Philosophy of Language , or a Philosophy of Learning.

This is, because Category Theory specialises on roughly half of the Noosphere. It does a wonderful job on exteriority, but cannot sufficiently describe nor comprehensively access interiority.

Therefore, as is the case with Semiotics, has limited metaphysical value with respect to philosophy in general.

For example: philosophies of mind, language, or learning are not possible using only category theoretical tools and/or semiotics.

Here is an example of one attempt which fails in this regard: http://nickrossiter.org.uk/proce…

(and here: VisualizationFoundationsIEEE)

Here are two problems (of many) in the paper:

4.4.2 Knowledge is the Terminal Object of Visualisation states:

“The ultimate purpose of the visualisation process is to gain Knowledge of the original System. When this succeeds (when the diagram commutes) then the result is a ‘truth’ relationship between the Knowledge and the System. When this process breaks down and we fail to deduce correct conclusions then the diagram does not commute.”

I want to also comment on Figure 3 (which also exposes missing or false premises in the paper), but I will wait until I have discussed the assertions in the quote above which the authors of this paper reference, accept, and wish to justify/confirm.

1) The purpose of a representation is NOT to gain knowledge; rather, to express knowledge. Also, truth has nothing to do with knowledge except when that value is imposed upon it for some purpose. Truth value is a value that knowledge may or not ‘attend’ (participate in).

1a) The ‘truth value’ of the System (‘system’ is a false paradigm [later, perhaps] and a term that I also vehemently disagree with) does not always enter into the ‘dialogue’ between any knowledge that is represented and the observer interpreting that knowledge.

2) The interpretation of a representation is not to “deduce correct conclusions”; rather, to understand the meaning (semantics and epistemology) of what is represented. ‘Correct’ understanding is not exclusive to understanding nor is it necessary or sufficient for understanding a representation, because that understanding finds expression in the observer.

2a) ‘Correct’, as used in this paragraph, is coming from the outside (via the choice of which data [see Fig. 3] is represented to the observer) and may have no correspondence (hence may never ever commute) whatever to what that term means for the observer.

The authors are only talking about ontologies. That is a contrived and provincial look at the subject they are supposing to examine.

There may (and usually are) artefacts inherent in any collection and collation of data. The observer is forced to make ‘right’ (‘correct’) conclusions from that data which those who collected it have ‘seeded’ (tainted) with their own volition.

‘System’ (systematising) anything is Reductionism. This disqualifies the procedure at its outset.

They are proving essentially that manipulation leads to a ‘correct’ (their chosen version) representation of a ‘truth’ value.

I could tie my shoelaces into some kind of knot and think it were a ‘correct’ way to do so if the arrows indicate this. This is why paying too much attention to a navigation system can have one finding themselves at the bottom of a river!

The paper contains assumptions that are overlooked and terms that are never adequately defined! How can you name variables without defining their meaning? They then serve no purpose and must be removed from domain of discourse.

Categorical structures are highly portable, but they can describe/express only part of what is there. There are structure, dynamics, and resonance that ontology and functionalism completely turns a blind eye to.

The qualities of Truth, Goodness, Beauty, Clarity,… (even Falsehood, Badness, Ugliness, Obscurity,…) can be defined and identified within a knowledge representation if the representation is not restricted to ontology alone.

In order to express these qualities in semiotics and category theory, they must first be ontologised funtionally (reduced). Trying to grasp them with tools restricted to semiotics and category theory is like grasping into thin air.

That is actually the point I’m trying to make. Category Theory, and even Semiotics, each have their utility, but they are no match for the challenge of a complete representation of knowledge.

Universal Constants, Variations, and Identities #19 (Inverse Awareness)

Universal Constants, Variations, and Identities
#19 The Inverse Awareness Relation

The Inverse Awareness Relation establishes a fundamental relationship in our universe:

Micro Awareness = $\dfrac{1}{scope}$ and Macro Awareness = $\dfrac{1}{depth}$ or $\dfrac {Micro Awareness}{Macro Awareness} = \dfrac{depth}{scope}$ Which essentially state: The closer awareness is in some way to an entity, the more depth and the less scope it discerns. The farther awareness is in some way to an entity, the more scope and the less depth it discerns. (Be careful, this idea of closeness is not the same as distance.) 
 May 15, 2017 | Categories: Discernment, Holons, Holors, Hyperbolic Geometry, Identities, Insight, Knowledge, Knowledge Representation, Language, Learning, Linguistics, Mathesis Generalis, Mathesis Universalis, Metamathematics, Metaphysics, Philosophy, Philosophy of Language, Philosophy of Learning, Philosophy Of Mind, Semantic Web, Semantics, Understanding, Universal Constants, Variations, and Identities, Variations, Wisdom | Tags: knowledge, Language, learning, Linguistics, LogicaUniversalis, Mathesis Universalis, Philosophia Universalis, Philosophy, Philosophy of Language, Philosophy of Learning, Philosophy Of Mind, understanding | Leave a comment 
 Is Real World Knowledge More Valuable Than Fictional Knowledge? No. Here an excerpt from a short summary of a paper I am writing that provides some context to answer this question: What Knowledge is not: Knowledge is not very well understood so I’ll briefly point out some of the reasons why we’ve been unable to precisely define what knowledge is thus far. Humanity has made numerous attempts at defining knowledge. Plato taught that justified truth and belief are required for something to be considered knowledge. Throughout the history of the theory of knowledge (epistemology), others have done their best to add to Plato’s work or create new or more comprehensive definitions in their attempts to ‘contain’ the meaning of meaning (knowledge). All of these efforts have failed for one reason or another. Using truth value and ‘justification’ as a basis for knowledge or introducing broader definitions or finer classifications can only fail. I will now provide a small set of examples of why this is so. Truth value is only a value that knowledge may attend. Knowledge can be true or false, justified or unjustified, because knowledge is the meaning of meaning What about false or fictitious knowledge? [Here’s the reason why I say no.] Their perfectly valid structure and dynamics are ignored by classifying them as something else than what they are. Differences in culture or language even make no difference, because the objects being referred to have meaning that transcends language barriers. Another problem is that knowledge is often thought to be primarily semantics or even ontology based. Both of these cannot be true for many reasons. In the first case (semantics): There already exists knowledge structure and dynamics for objects we cannot or will not yet know. The same is true for objects to which meaning has not yet been assigned, such as ideas, connections and perspectives that we’re not yet aware of or have forgotten. Their meaning is never clear until we’ve become aware of or remember them. In the second case (ontology): collations that are fed ontological framing are necessarily bound to memory, initial conditions of some kind and/or association in terms of space, time, order, context, relation,… We build whole catalogues, dictionaries and theories about them: Triads, diads, quints, ontology charts, neural networks, semiotics and even the current research in linguistics are examples. Even if an ontology or set of them attempts to represent intrinsic meaning, it can only do so in a descriptive ‘extrinsic’ way. An ontology, no matter how sophisticated, is incapable of generating the purpose of even its own inception, not to mention the purpose of the objects to which it corresponds. The knowledge is not coming from the data itself, it is always coming from the observer of the data, even if that observer is an algorithm. Therefore ontology-based semantic analysis can only produce the artefacts of knowledge, such as search results, association to other objects, ‘knowledge graphs’ like Cayley,… Real knowledge precedes, transcends and includes our conceptions, cognitive processes, perception, communication, reasoning and is more than simply related to our capacity of acknowledgement. In fact knowledge cannot even be completely systematised; it can only be interacted with using ever increasing precision. [For those interested, my summary is found at: A Precise Definition of Knowledge – Knowledge Representation as a Means to Define the Meaning of Meaning Precisely: http://bit.ly/2pA8Y8Y May 11, 2017 | Categories: Consciousness, Insight, Knowledge, Language, Learning, Linguistics, Mathesis Generalis, Mathesis Universalis, Metamathematics, Metaphysics, Philosophy, Philosophy of Language, Philosophy of Learning, Philosophy Of Mind, Semantic Web, Semantics, Understanding, Wisdom | Tags: Big Data, Characteristica Universalis, insight, knowledge, Knowledge Representation, Language, learning, Linguistics, Logica Universalis, Mathematica Universalis, Mathesis Universalis, Metaphysica Universalis, Metaphysics, Philosophia Universalis, Philosophy, Philosophy of Language, Philosophy of Learning, Philosophy Of Mind, Scientia Universalis, Semantic Web, Semantics, understanding, wisdom | Leave a comment Does Knowledge Become More Accurate Over Time? Change lies deeper in the knowledge substrate than time. Knowledge is not necessarily coupled with time, but it can be influenced by it. It can be influenced by change of any kind: not only time. Knowledge may exist in a moment and vanish. The incipient perspective(s) it contains may change. Or the perspective(s) that it comprises may resist change. Also, knowledge changes with reality and vice versa. Time requires events to influence this relationship between knowledge and reality. Knowledge cannot be relied upon to be a more accurate expression of reality, whether time is involved or not, because the relationship between knowledge and reality is not necessarily dependent upon time, nor is there necessarily a coupling of the relationship between knowledge and reality. The relationships of ‘more’ and ‘accurate’ are also not necessarily coupled with time. Example: Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the Earth long before Copernicus published. The ‘common knowledge’ of the time (Copernicus knew about Eratosthenes, but the culture did not) was that the Earth was flat. May 10, 2017 | Categories: change, Consciousness, Insight, Knowledge, Knowledge Representation, Learning, Mathesis Universalis, Metamathematics, Metaphysics, Philosophy, Philosophy of Language, Philosophy Of Mind, Semantic Web, Semantics, Understanding, Wisdom | Tags: Awareness, Characteristica Generalis, Characteristica Universalis, Discernment, insight, knowledge, Knowledge Representation, learning, Logica Generalis, Logica Universalis, Mathematica Generalis, Mathematica Universalis, Mathesis Generalis, Mathesis Universalis, Metaphysica Generalis, Metaphysica Universalis, Metaphysics, Philosophia Generalis, Philosophia Universalis, Philosophy of Language, Philosophy of Learning, Philosophy Of Mind, Scientia Generalis, Scientia Universalis, understanding, wisdom | Leave a comment Universal Constants, Variations, and Identities #18 (Dimension) Universal Constants, Variations, and Identities (Dimension) #18 Dimension is a spectrum or domain of awareness: they essentially build an additional point of view or perspective. We live in a universe of potentially infinite dimension. Also, there are more spatial dimensions than three and more temporal dimensions than time (the only one science seems to recognize). Yes, I’m aware of what temporal means; Temporal is a derived attribute of a much more fundamental concept: Change. One important caveat: please bear in mind that my little essay here is not a complete one. The complete version will come when I publish my work. The idea of dimension is not at all well understood. The fact is, science doesn’t really know what dimension is; rather, only how they may be used! Science and technology ‘consume’ their utility without understanding their richness. Otherwise they would have clarified them for us by now. Those who may have clarified what they are get ignored and/or ridiculed, because understanding them requires a larger mental ‘vocabulary’ than Physicalism, Reductionism, and Ontology can provide. Our present science and technology is so entrenched in dogma, collectivism, and special interest, that they no longer function as they once did. The globalist parasites running our science and technology try their best to keep us ‘on the farm’ by restricting dimension, like everything else, to the purely physical. It’s all they can imagine. That’s why many of us feel an irritation without being able to place our finger on it when we get introduced to dimension. We seem to ‘know’ that something just doesn’t ‘rhyme’ with their version. Time and space may be assigned dimensionality, in a purely physical sense if necessary, but there are always underlying entities much deeper in meaning involved that are overlooked and/or remain unknown which provide those properties with their meaning. This is why the more sensitive among us sense something is wrong or that something’s missing. Let us temporarily divorce ourselves from the standard ‘spatial’ and ‘temporal’ kinds of ‚dimension’ for a time and observe dimension in its essence. Definitions are made from them: in fact, dimensions function for definitions just as organs do for the body. In turn, dimension has its own set of ‘organs’ as well! I will talk about those ‘organs’ below. Dimension may appear different to us depending upon our own state of mind, level of development, kind of reasoning we choose, orientation we prefer, expectations we may have,… but down deep… Everything, even attributes of all kinds, involve dimension. We must also not forget partial dimension such as fractals over complex domains and other metaphysical entities like mind and awareness which may or may not occupy dimension. Qualia (water is ‘wet’, angry feels like ‘this’, the burden is ‘heavy’) are also dimensional. Dimensions are ‘compasses’ for navigating conceptual landscapes. We already think in multiple dimension without even being aware of it! Here’s is an example of how that is: [BTW: This is simply an example to show how dimension can be ‘stacked’ or accrued. The items below were chosen arbitrarily and could be replaced by any other aspects.] ♦ Imagine a point in space (we are already at 3d [x,y,z]) – actually at this level there are even more dimensions involved, but I will keep this simple for now. ♦ it moves in space and occupies a specific place in time (now 4d) 3d + 1 time dimension ♦ say it changes colour at any particular time or place (5d) ♦ let it now grow and shrink in diameter (6d) ♦ if it accelerates or slows its movement (7d) ♦ if it is rotating (8d) ♦ if it is broadcasting a frequency (9d) ♦ what if it is aware of other objects or not (10d) ♦ say it is actively seeking contact (connection) with other objects around it (11d) ♦ … (the list may go on and on) As you can see above, dimensions function like aspects to any object of thought. Dimensionality becomes much clearer when we free ourselves from the yoke of all that Physicalism, Reductionism, and Ontology. Let’s now look at some of their ‘organs’ as mentioned above as well as other properties they have in common: They precede all entities except awareness. Awareness congeals into them. They form a first distinction. They have extent. They are integrally distributed. They have an axial component. They spin. They vibrate. They oscillate. They resonate. They may appear as scalar fields. Their references form fibrations. They are ‘aware’ of self/other. Their structural/dynamic/harmonic signature is unique. They provide reference which awareness uses to create perspective meaning. Holons are built from them. http://mathesis-universalis.com Sacred Geometry 29 by Endre @ RedBubble: http://www.redbubble.com/people/endre/works/6920405-sacred-geometry-29?p=poster Sep 7, 2016 | Categories: Constants, Holons, Holors, Knowledge, Knowledge Representation, Language, Learning, Linguistics, Mathematics, Mathesis Generalis, Mathesis Universalis, Meta Logic, Metamathematics, Metaphysics, Perspective, Philosophy, Scalars, Semantics, Understanding, Variations, Wisdom | Tags: BigData, First Distinction, insight, knowledge, Knowledge Representation, learning, Logica Universalis, Mathesis Universalis, Metalogic, Metaphysics, Philosophia Universalis, Scalar Field, Scalars, Scientia Universalis, Semantics, understanding, Universal Constants, Variances, wisdom | Leave a comment Universal Constants, Variations, and Identities – #17 (Representation) #17 Interiority and Exteriority arise together. (Representation) For every interior representation there is always an exterior representation that compliments it. For every exterior representation there is always a corresponding interior one. Sep 6, 2016 | Categories: Constants, Identities, Mathesis Generalis, Mathesis Universalis, Meta Logic, Metamathematics, Semantics, Understanding, Variations, Wisdom | Tags: insight, knowledge, Knowledge Representation, learning, Logica Universalis, Mathesis Universalis, Metalogic, Philosophia Universalis, Philosophy, Scientia Universalis, understanding, Universal Constants, Universalis, Variances | Leave a comment HUD Fly-by Test Link to video. Don’t take this as an actual knowledge representation; rather, simply a simulation of one. I’m working out the colour, transparent/translucent, camera movements, and other technical issues. In any case you may find it interesting. The real representations are coming soon. Aug 21, 2016 | Categories: Big Data, Holons, Holors, Hyperbolic Geometry, Knowledge, Knowledge Representation, Language, Learning, Linguistics, Logic, Long Data, Mathesis Generalis, Mathesis Universalis, Meta Logic, Metamathematics, Metaphysics, Philosophy, Understanding, Wisdom | Tags: BigData, Constants, Hyperbolic Geometry, insight, knowledge, Knowledge Representation, learning, Logica Generalis, Logica Universalis, Mathesis Generalis, Mathesis Universalis, Metalogic, Metamathematics, Metaphysics, Philosophia Generalis, Philosophia Universalis, Philosophy, Philosophy of Language, Philosophy of Learning, Philosopohy of Mind, Scientia Universalis, understanding, Universal Constants, Universalis, wisdom | Leave a comment A New Kind of Knowledge Representation Is Coming to Be! Link to video The project is now coming to conclusion (finally). In this video I show an example knowledge molecule being ‘examined’ by the knowledge representation. I’ve hidden the other actors in this demonstration and have simplified the instrumentation to preserve my priority on my work. Be patient! It won’t be long now… I have the theoretical underpinnings already behind me. Now it’s only about the representation of that work. Aug 12, 2016 | Categories: Big Data, Holons, Holors, Knowledge, Knowledge Representation, Language, Learning, Linguistics, Long Data, Mathematics, Mathesis Generalis, Mathesis Universalis, Meta Logic, Metamathematics, Metaphysics, Philosophy, Semantics, Understanding, Wisdom | Leave a comment Men And Their Semantics – Turning Meaning into Legos Semantically speaking: Does meaning structure unite languages? This work is a dead end waiting to happen. Of course it will attract much interest, money, and perhaps even yield new insights into the commonality of language, but there’s better ways to get there. What’s even more sad is that they, who should know better, will see my intentions in making this clear as destructive criticism instead of a siren warning regarding research governed/originating through a false paradigm. These people cannot see or overlook the costs humanity pays for the misunderstandings research like this causes and is based upon. It’s even worse in the field of genetic engineering with their chimera research. The people wasting public money funding this research need to be gotten under control again. I don’t want to criticize the researcher’s intentions. It’s their framing and methodology that I see as primitive, naive, and incomplete. I’m not judging who they are nor their ends; rather, their means of getting there. “Quantification” is exactly the wrong way to ‘measure/compare semantics; not to mention “partitioning” them! 1) The value in this investigation that they propose is to extrapolate and interpolate ontology. Semantics are more than ontology. They possess a complete metaphysics which includes their epistemology. 2) You cannot quantify qualities, because you reduce the investigation to measurement; which itself imposes meaning upon the meaning you wish to measure. Semantics, in their true form, are relations and are non-physical and non-reducible. 3) Notice also, partitioning is imposed upon the semantics (to make them ‘measurable/comparable’). If you compare semantics in such a way then you only get answers in terms of your investigation/ontology. 4) The better way is to leave the semantics as they are! Don’t classify them! Learn how they are related. Then you will know how they are compared. There’s more to say, but I think you get the idea… ask me if you want clarification… Feb 5, 2016 | Categories: Artificial Intelligence, Bad Logic, Bad Science, Big Data, Consciousness, Education, Humanity, Insight, Knowledge, Knowledge Representation, Language, Learning, Linguistics, Logic, Mathesis Generalis, Mathesis Universalis, Philosophy, Psyence, Semantics, Understanding, Wisdom | Tags: BadScience, insight, knowledge, learning, Mathesis Universalis, understanding, wisdom | Leave a comment Organic VS. Artificial and Weaponized Culture Video on YouTube Organic VS. Artificial and Weaponized Culture The parasitic banksters need to force an artificial and pre-mature form of globalism upon us instead of allowing a natural and organic evolution. Everywhere nationalism tries to take hold, it is attacked and marginalized. We MUST be allowed to maintain our individual and collective identities when we evolve. If we don’t, we move too fast and without wisdom. Feb 2, 2016 | Categories: Artificial Diversity, Banksters, Cultural Marxism, Culture Shock, Humanity, Mathesis Universalis, Premature Globalism, Premature Globalism, Propaganda, Social Marxism, Understanding, Wisdom | Tags: Artificial Culture, Artificial Diversity, Cultural Marxism, Culture of fear and control, Culture Shock, Evolution, Individualism, Sovereignty, Weaponized Culture | Leave a comment ‘Trust’ For Sale ‘Trust’ For Sale More of Google’s attempt to become the ‘clearing house’ of truthful, ‘trustful’, and important facts and therewith create a ‘truthful tribe’. I thought we wanted to rid ourselves of tribalism? So many talented people will never be known, because they work ‘under the radar’ or for being ignored (exiled) as ‘heretics’. Here is a question: how can even truth, not to mention trust, be systematized when we cannot know all of it as well as its many sources of origination? Google is creating its own demise with this. It will go down or cause a vast migration of awakened (and non-evangelists) to move to, create, or participate in other search engines. True research must make it’s own decisions upon what is truthful, trustworthy, and valuable. If we allow a corporation to manage these values, we will enter an age of ‘privatized credibility’. They will be able to keep people out of the debate (social discourse) by making them non-authoritative. If they can establish metrics then everyone must conform to them. It’s like believing Marx, Engels, and Lenin were philosophers when they were really children playing with snake-oil in order to sell the idea that a tyranny of Communism was the solution to humanity’s problems. Jan 15, 2016 | Categories: Authoritarianism, BigData, Cultural Marxism, Humanity, Language, Learning, Linguistics, Mathesis Universalis, Social Marxism, Sovereignty - The Right to Own Yourself, Technology run amok, Understanding, Wisdom | Tags: Authoritarianism, Cultural Marxism, fraud, Humanity, insight, KBT, knowledge based trust, learning, Search, Semantics, social engineering, technology, Technology Run Amok, Totalitarianism, Trust, Truth, Tyranny, understanding, wisdom | 1 Comment Scarcity Fetish Served Hot and Dry Image Credit: © Cecilia Lim / Fotolia (see original source) Scarcity Fetish Served Hot and Dry More artificial scarcity. Why don’t we try ridding ourselves of just one medium sized weapons system. Then we could feed everyone in the world. Then we could stop suppressing free energy. When we do that we could harvest water out of the air, use it for fuel and drink the exhaust! This is simply another attempt to get us to accept the privatization of water! We are the living Earth, but if we continue, we’ll all be renters on our own home! Did we suffer from a shortage of electricity before Tesla showed us how to make use of it? The parasitic banksters who fund our science (i.e. how we are taught to frame things) have been harping about overpopulation for over 5 centuries (it started during the time of Machiavelli). If they wanted a solution, we would have had one by now. They don’t want a solution to an artificial problem until they can sell us an artificial solution. We should learn to see through this crap! They’re framing everything now in terms of scarcity and we lap it up like trendy mainstream pablum! We are suffering from a shortage of humans in the universe. Do your share by having many children who don’t hoard like banksters. http://overpopulationisamyth.com/ Mar 25, 2015 | Categories: Agenda 21, Banksters, Culture of Fear and Control, Discernment, Fear and Control Paradigm, Fraud, Insight, Knowledge, Learning, Premature Globalism, Science and Technology Run Amok, Science run amok, Understanding, Wisdom | Tags: Agenda 21, AwakenNow, Corruption, fraud, insight, knowledge, learning, Premature Globalism, Propaganda, ScienceRunAmok, SocialEngineering, understanding, wisdom | Leave a comment Rationally Bayesian Doesn’t Help You See The Elephant! Here a proven social engineering device ‘conspiracy theory’ is being used to contrast Bayesian logic and fails miserably in discovering truth by doing so. The example used for ‘conspiracy thinking’ was the ignorance of an elected official during WW2, California Governor Earl Warren https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Warren Who interestingly enough, got placed on the Supreme Court by the parasitic class later in his career! We literally swim in a world of conspiracies (look up LIBOR scandal, for just one example: http://www.liborscandal.org/index.html), yet we are supposed to marginalize each other with ridicule like ‘nut job’ and ‘conspiracy theorist’ to keep us in the ‘safe’ and ‘permissible’ trendy mainstream dominant social memes. The criminal banksters and their corporations get to hide in plain sight and we police each other for crossing boundaries they have set for us! They can wreak havoc on our planet and blame humanity for their deeds. Note however, that Bayesian Logic can’t even grasp this structure and dynamics. This shows how a statistical and frequency-oriented approach to looking at our world is no guarantee of even seeing the proverbial ‘elephant in the room’! Mar 24, 2015 | Categories: Bad Logic, Discernment, Fraud, Insight, Knowledge, Learning, Mathesis Universalis, Understanding, Wisdom | Tags: bad logic, conspiracy theory, conspiracy thinking, fraud, Governor Earl Warren, insight, knowledge, knowledge based trust, learning, understanding, wisdom | Leave a comment Hoarding Can Be Cancer Too Hoarding Can Be Cancer Too This short video’s symbolism and message is paradigm changing. The video stems from a religious message and also contains a bit of idealism, but has meaning even to agnostics and atheists alike. The Universe is suffering from a shortage of humans right now. Please do your share to rectify this situation by having many children who do not need to hoard. The true measure of the value of a society finds expression in how it treats its weakest members: the old, infirm, and children.   Mar 17, 2015 | Categories: Ethics, Fortitude, Humanity, Insight, Knowledge, Learning, Mathesis Universalis, Understanding, Wisdom | Tags: AwakenNow, Cancer, Ethics, Hoarding, Humanity, insight, knowledge, learning, understanding, wisdom | Leave a comment Universal Constants, Variations and Identities – #16 (Creation/Discovery) Universal Constants, Variations and Identities #16 Creation and discovery compliment each other and are the means in which the Universe fundamentally unfolds and enfolds itself (Creation/Discovery) We tend not to identify them, because there are so many variations in their harmony. Please do overestimate your thoughts… as you will see they are the beginning of your expression to and of the world. Both Creation and Discovery will work in unison, if we allow them. Discovery is to recognize/relate what is in your world. Creation is to transform/synthesize it too. Each is alone without the other. Creation=Right ‘brain’ (right+mind) Discovery=Left ‘brain’ (left+mind) Their ‘magick’ (sic.) manifests not when you synchronize them; rather, when you harmonize them. (Please take the time to watch the 4 minute video.) Feb 24, 2015 | Categories: Constants, Insight, Knowledge, Learning, Understanding, Wisdom | Tags: change, Creation, Identities, insight, knowledge, learning, Logica Universalis, Mathesis Universalis, Metalogic, Metamathematics, Metaphysics, Metascience, Philosophia Universalis, Philosophy, Scientia Universalis, understanding, Universal Constants, Universalis, Variances, wisdom | Leave a comment Universal Constants, Variations and Identities – #15 (Change/Time) #15 Time is a temporally ‘linear’ (directed) form of change that is not limited by dimension. (Change/Time) Time has been arbitrarily and wrongly assigned to dimension. Change is not restricted to any dimension: therefore time is also not limited to it. I know it’s trendy to see time as a dimension, but dimension is something completely different. Stay tuned to find out what and why. Update: There are many reasons why time needs a proper definition. Here are a few of them: The chemical reactions in the vessel are not really effected by some mysterious thing called time, but by the number of contacts or collisions that take place in the soup of atoms or molecules. That is what the factor ‘T’ really stands for. 1) Eternity may be a somewhat mystical overarching reality outside of the physical universe, but time is not. Nor is time a thing that anybody can do anything to. In other words: it cannot be reified. 2) The universe doesn’t exist in time, but time exists in the universe. 3) The proper definition of time is exactly:  the sequence of events in the material universe. Feb 7, 2015 | Categories: Constants, Insight, Knowledge, Learning, Understanding, Wisdom | Tags: change, insight, knowledge, learning, linear, Logica Universalis, Mathesis Universalis, Metalogic, Metamathematics, Metaphysics, Metascience, Philosophia Universalis, Philosophy, Scientia Universalis, temporal, understanding, Universal Constants, Universalis, Variances, wisdom | Leave a comment Universal Constants, Variations and Identities #13 (Knowledge) Universal Constants, Variations and Identities #13 Knowledge is what awareness does. (Knowledge) I’ve published this before elsewhere, but it must be restated now for what is to follow (I’m starting a new octave). #Knowledge #Wisdom #Understanding #Learning #Insight #Constants #Variances #Metaphysics #Philosophy #MathesisUniversalis #ScientiaUniversalis #PhilosophiaUniversalis #LogicaUniversalis #MetaMathematics #MetaLogic #MetaScience #MetaPhysics #MetaPhilosophy #Awareness Feb 3, 2015 | Categories: Big Data, BigData, Identities, Knowledge, Knowledge Representation, Learning, Logic, Mathematics, Mathesis Universalis, Metamathematics, Metaphysics, Philosophy, Science, Understanding, Wisdom | Tags: Awareness, Constants, Identities, insight, knowledge, learning, Logica Universalis, Mathesis Universalis, Metalogic, Metamathematics, MetaPhilosophy, Metaphysics, Metascience, Philosophia Universalis, Philosophy, Scientia Universalis, understanding, Universal Constants, Variances, wisdom | Leave a comment Science As a New Tower of ‘Babble’ Complexity – a patchwork quilt of misunderstanding and confusion tied together ‘by hook or by crook’. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/By_hook_or_by_crook Complex systems are the result of our collective blindness to the simple interconnectedness of our universe. Why is the emerging view of our universe – no longer a Cosmological and Cosmogonic garden of the good, true and beautiful – now turning into this phantasm of complexity? Where did we go wrong? Was it the creation and maintaining of the expectation that we could comprehend and grasp the whole of our Cosmos within one perspective? Were the applications of the science we created so profit bearing that we began to take more than our fare share? Was it the tempo at which our scientists – not even slowed down by the ethical and moral considerations which constitute our navigation systems down the roads of evolution – that have brought us to this place much too soon and with so much needless suffering (for animals and humans)? Are we to continue abandoning our organic (and real) ascendancy for artificial (and synthetic) correlates? The ends are NOT justified by their means! They are determined by them. Image1: Hiroki Sayama, D.Sc. – Created by Hiroki Sayama, D.Sc., Collective Dynamics of Complex Systems (CoCo) Research Group at Binghamton University, State University of New York Image2: By Brian Castellani (Own work) [CC BY-SA 3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)%5D, via Wikimedia Commons Feb 3, 2015 | Categories: Fraud, Insight, Knowledge, Learning, Philosophy, Psyence, Science, Science and Technology Run Amok, Science run amok, Technology run amok, Understanding, Wisdom | Tags: ai, Artificial Intelligence, awaken, AwakenNow, Collective Dynamics of Complex Systems, communication, Complex systems, Hiroki Sayama, insight, knowledge, learning, oi, organic intelligence, Science Run Amok, Technology Run Amok, trendy, wisdom | Leave a comment Universal Constants, Variations and Identities       Universal Constants, Variations and Identities #12 The ends are determined by their means. (Integrity of purpose) (Dispelling the lie of: “The ends justify their means.” The truth is that ends are inextricably tied to the means used to achieve them. If we employ destructive means, then only destructive ends can result. Intention means nothing with regard to means… those who believe that learn: “The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.” See http://mathesis-universalis.com for more information. Feb 3, 2015 | Categories: Constants, Identities, Insight, Knowledge, Learning, Mathesis Universalis, Understanding, Wisdom | Tags: communication, Constants, Identities, insight, knowledge, learning, Logica, Logica Universalis, Mathematical Universe, Mathesis Universalis, Metamathematics, Metaphysics, Metascience, Philosophia Universalis, Philosophy, Philosophy of Language, Philosophy Of Mind, Real Science, Scientia Universalis, Universal Constants, Universalis, Variances, wholeness, wisdom | Leave a comment Universal Constants, Variations and Identities Universal Constants and Variances #11 Observation is communication between its participants (observer and observed). (Reference) See http://mathesis-universalis.com for more information. Feb 1, 2015 | Categories: Constants, Identities, Insight, Knowledge, Learning, Mathesis Universalis, Understanding, Wisdom | Tags: communication, Constants, Identities, insight, knowledge, learning, Logica, Logica Universalis, Mathematical Universe, Mathesis Universalis, Metamathematics, Metaphysics, Metascience, Philosophia Universalis, Philosophy, Philosophy of Language, Philosophy Of Mind, Real Science, Scientia Universalis, Universal Constants, Universalis, Variances, wholeness, wisdom | Leave a comment « Older Entries 
 
 
 Blog at WordPress.com. //<![CDATA[ var infiniteScroll = JSON.parse( decodeURIComponent( '%7B%22settings%22%3A%7B%22id%22%3A%22content%22%2C%22ajaxurl%22%3A%22https%3A%5C%2F%5C%2Fheurist.me%5C%2F%3Finfinity%3Dscrolling%22%2C%22type%22%3A%22click%22%2C%22wrapper%22%3Atrue%2C%22wrapper_class%22%3A%22infinite-wrap%22%2C%22footer%22%3A%22page%22%2C%22click_handle%22%3A%221%22%2C%22text%22%3A%22Older%20Posts%22%2C%22totop%22%3A%22Scroll%20back%20to%20top%22%2C%22currentday%22%3A%2201.02.15%22%2C%22order%22%3A%22DESC%22%2C%22scripts%22%3A%5B%5D%2C%22styles%22%3A%5B%5D%2C%22google_analytics%22%3Afalse%2C%22offset%22%3A1%2C%22history%22%3A%7B%22host%22%3A%22heurist.me%22%2C%22path%22%3A%22%5C%2Fcategory%5C%2Funderstanding-2%5C%2Fpage%5C%2F%25d%5C%2F%22%2C%22use_trailing_slashes%22%3Atrue%2C%22parameters%22%3A%22%22%7D%2C%22query_args%22%3A%7B%22category_name%22%3A%22understanding-2%22%2C%22error%22%3A%22%22%2C%22m%22%3A%22%22%2C%22p%22%3A0%2C%22post_parent%22%3A%22%22%2C%22subpost%22%3A%22%22%2C%22subpost_id%22%3A%22%22%2C%22attachment%22%3A%22%22%2C%22attachment_id%22%3A0%2C%22name%22%3A%22%22%2C%22pagename%22%3A%22%22%2C%22page_id%22%3A0%2C%22second%22%3A%22%22%2C%22minute%22%3A%22%22%2C%22hour%22%3A%22%22%2C%22day%22%3A0%2C%22monthnum%22%3A0%2C%22year%22%3A0%2C%22w%22%3A0%2C%22tag%22%3A%22%22%2C%22cat%22%3A34971386%2C%22tag_id%22%3A%22%22%2C%22author%22%3A%22%22%2C%22author_name%22%3A%22%22%2C%22feed%22%3A%22%22%2C%22tb%22%3A%22%22%2C%22paged%22%3A0%2C%22meta_key%22%3A%22%22%2C%22meta_value%22%3A%22%22%2C%22preview%22%3A%22%22%2C%22s%22%3A%22%22%2C%22sentence%22%3A%22%22%2C%22title%22%3A%22%22%2C%22fields%22%3A%22%22%2C%22menu_order%22%3A%22%22%2C%22embed%22%3A%22%22%2C%22category__in%22%3A%5B%5D%2C%22category__not_in%22%3A%5B%5D%2C%22category__and%22%3A%5B%5D%2C%22post__in%22%3A%5B%5D%2C%22post__not_in%22%3A%5B%5D%2C%22post_name__in%22%3A%5B%5D%2C%22tag__in%22%3A%5B%5D%2C%22tag__not_in%22%3A%5B%5D%2C%22tag__and%22%3A%5B%5D%2C%22tag_slug__in%22%3A%5B%5D%2C%22tag_slug__and%22%3A%5B%5D%2C%22post_parent__in%22%3A%5B%5D%2C%22post_parent__not_in%22%3A%5B%5D%2C%22author__in%22%3A%5B%5D%2C%22author__not_in%22%3A%5B%5D%2C%22lazy_load_term_meta%22%3Afalse%2C%22posts_per_page%22%3A24%2C%22ignore_sticky_posts%22%3Afalse%2C%22suppress_filters%22%3Afalse%2C%22cache_results%22%3Afalse%2C%22update_post_term_cache%22%3Atrue%2C%22update_post_meta_cache%22%3Atrue%2C%22post_type%22%3A%22%22%2C%22nopaging%22%3Afalse%2C%22comments_per_page%22%3A%2250%22%2C%22no_found_rows%22%3Afalse%2C%22order%22%3A%22DESC%22%7D%2C%22query_before%22%3A%222021-01-19%2010%3A40%3A34%22%2C%22last_post_date%22%3A%222015-02-01%2004%3A50%3A19%22%2C%22body_class%22%3A%22infinite-scroll%22%2C%22loading_text%22%3A%22Loading%20new%20page%22%2C%22stats%22%3A%22blog%3D43301192%26v%3Dwpcom%26tz%3D1%26user_id%3D0%26subd%3Dheurist%26x_pagetype%3Dinfinite-click%22%7D%7D' ) ); //]]> var WPGroHo = {"my_hash":""}; // Initialize and attach hovercards to all gravatars ( function() { function init() { if ( typeof Gravatar === 'undefined' ) { return; } if ( typeof Gravatar.init !== 'function' ) { return; } Gravatar.profile_cb = function ( hash, id ) { WPGroHo.syncProfileData( hash, id ); }; Gravatar.my_hash = WPGroHo.my_hash; Gravatar.init( 'body', '#wp-admin-bar-my-account' ); } if ( document.readyState !== 'loading' ) { init(); } else { document.addEventListener( 'DOMContentLoaded', init ); } } )(); window.addEventListener( "load", function( event ) { var link = document.createElement( "link" ); link.href = "https://s0.wp.com/wp-content/mu-plugins/actionbar/actionbar.css?v=20201002"; link.type = "text/css"; link.rel = "stylesheet"; document.head.appendChild( link ); var script = document.createElement( "script" ); script.src = "https://s0.wp.com/wp-content/mu-plugins/actionbar/actionbar.js?v=20201002"; script.defer = true; document.body.appendChild( script ); } ); Add your thoughts here... (optional) Post to Cancel Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use. To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy var jetpackCarouselStrings = {"widths":[370,700,1000,1200,1400,2000],"is_logged_in":"","lang":"en","ajaxurl":"https:\/\/heurist.me\/wp-admin\/admin-ajax.php","nonce":"2f7f3a8266","display_exif":"1","display_comments":"1","display_geo":"1","single_image_gallery":"1","single_image_gallery_media_file":"","background_color":"black","comment":"Comment","post_comment":"Post Comment","write_comment":"Write a Comment...","loading_comments":"Loading Comments...","download_original":"View full size <span class=\"photo-size\">{0}<span class=\"photo-size-times\">\u00d7<\/span>{1}<\/span>","no_comment_text":"Please be sure to submit some text with your comment.","no_comment_email":"Please provide an email address to comment.","no_comment_author":"Please provide your name to comment.","comment_post_error":"Sorry, but there was an error posting your comment. Please try again later.","comment_approved":"Your comment was approved.","comment_unapproved":"Your comment is in moderation.","camera":"Camera","aperture":"Aperture","shutter_speed":"Shutter Speed","focal_length":"Focal Length","copyright":"Copyright","comment_registration":"0","require_name_email":"1","login_url":"https:\/\/heurist.wordpress.com\/wp-login.php?redirect_to=https%3A%2F%2Fheurist.me%2F2018%2F04%2F25%2Fwhy-is-it-so-hard-to-prove-that-epi-or-epi-is-irrational-rational%2F","blog_id":"43301192","meta_data":["camera","aperture","shutter_speed","focal_length","copyright"],"local_comments_commenting_as":"<fieldset><label for=\"email\">Email (Required)<\/label> <input type=\"text\" name=\"email\" class=\"jp-carousel-comment-form-field jp-carousel-comment-form-text-field\" id=\"jp-carousel-comment-form-email-field\" \/><\/fieldset><fieldset><label for=\"author\">Name (Required)<\/label> <input type=\"text\" name=\"author\" class=\"jp-carousel-comment-form-field jp-carousel-comment-form-text-field\" id=\"jp-carousel-comment-form-author-field\" \/><\/fieldset><fieldset><label for=\"url\">Website<\/label> <input type=\"text\" name=\"url\" class=\"jp-carousel-comment-form-field jp-carousel-comment-form-text-field\" id=\"jp-carousel-comment-form-url-field\" \/><\/fieldset>","reblog":"Reblog","reblogged":"Reblogged","reblog_add_thoughts":"Add your thoughts here... (optional)","reblogging":"Reblogging...","post_reblog":"Post Reblog","stats_query_args":"blog=43301192&v=wpcom&tz=1&user_id=0&subd=heurist","is_public":"1","reblog_enabled":""}; // <![CDATA[ (function() { try{ if ( window.external &&'msIsSiteMode' in window.external) { if (window.external.msIsSiteMode()) { var jl = document.createElement('script'); jl.type='text/javascript'; jl.async=true; jl.src='/wp-content/plugins/ie-sitemode/custom-jumplist.php'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(jl, s); } } }catch(e){} })(); // ]]> (function() { var extend = function(out) { out = out || {}; for (var i = 1; i < arguments.length; i++) { if (!arguments[i]) continue; for (var key in arguments[i]) { if (arguments[i].hasOwnProperty(key)) out[key] = arguments[i][key]; } } return out; }; extend( window.infiniteScroll.settings.scripts, ["postmessage","mobile-useragent-info","jquery-core","jquery","wpcom-actionbar-placeholder","grofiles-cards","wpgroho","devicepx","the-neverending-homepage","eu-cookie-law-script","wpcom-masterbar-tracks-js","jetpack-carousel","tiled-gallery","swfobject","videopress"] ); extend( window.infiniteScroll.settings.styles, ["wpcom-smileys","the-neverending-homepage","wp-block-library","jetpack-layout-grid","jetpack-ratings","coblocks-frontend","wpcom-core-compat-playlist-styles","wpcom-bbpress2-staff-css","modularity","modularity-screen","modularity-print","eu-cookie-law-style","geo-location-flair","reblogging","h4-global","modularity-ie","modularity-ie-nav","jetpack-global-styles-frontend-style","jetpack-carousel","tiled-gallery"] ); })(); _tkq = window._tkq || []; _stq = window._stq || []; _tkq.push(['storeContext', {'blog_id':'43301192','blog_tz':'1','user_lang':'en-gb','blog_lang':'en-gb','user_id':'0'}]); _stq.push(['view', {'blog':'43301192','v':'wpcom','tz':'1','user_id':'0','subd':'heurist'}]); _stq.push(['extra', {'crypt':'UE40eW5QN0p8M2Y/RE1TaVhzUzFMbjdWNHpwZGhTayxPSUFCMGRVYVNrSFguN3FwSmQ5RGtNX3VQcj1yVzhiflM1THQtLGFdQ2toOXYlSElFQnVKXXBjVCU0Ly1jbnxTSVhrOCUrLFJYV0U9RURiV3drWTA4Ml1SYzguRlU4ZW5WbmwmbEt5aHFRJU1dTS1QdUMmT19VXytHP0hlRDJoQ0dZV2N4VDFbUFFkYmU0fmovSnhMNndZTnhdTUNSSjROMk5kSTYzcndnb1RkRnlYS1M2eU1YJlA/JkJybk5abXZDWWkrL0F4PX5tZDc5ZGMxWn50N3JQMnlLU0ZxSHd0X01YN0lPUEF3UjRHVF13OGVRcE8tLSZaTmIuZUpnR3YyVlRf'}]); _stq.push([ 'clickTrackerInit', '43301192', '0' ]); if ( 'object' === typeof wpcom_mobile_user_agent_info ) { wpcom_mobile_user_agent_info.init(); var mobileStatsQueryString = ""; if( false !== wpcom_mobile_user_agent_info.matchedPlatformName ) mobileStatsQueryString += "&x_" + 'mobile_platforms' + '=' + wpcom_mobile_user_agent_info.matchedPlatformName; if( false !== wpcom_mobile_user_agent_info.matchedUserAgentName ) mobileStatsQueryString += "&x_" + 'mobile_devices' + '=' + wpcom_mobile_user_agent_info.matchedUserAgentName; if( wpcom_mobile_user_agent_info.isIPad() ) mobileStatsQueryString += "&x_" + 'ipad_views' + '=' + 'views'; if( "" != mobileStatsQueryString ) { new Image().src = document.location.protocol + '//pixel.wp.com/g.gif?v=wpcom-no-pv' + mobileStatsQueryString + '&baba=' + Math.random(); } }