Agreed, behind the supposed mathematical symbolism are apparently meaningless nonsense words. And as Einstein once said “If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.” In this case it’s obvious that there’s nothing TO understand.
The claimant appears to be a very poor, inaccurate researcher, as well as a very poor, innaccurate reader – e.g., not even able to tell the difference between the term *“contra-*Boolean Algebra”, and his, apochryphal, rendering *“anti-*Boolean algebra”.
I’m not sure I’m going to waste any more time on his inaccuracies.
Aoristos Dyosphanithos does, indeed, have his own postings, as already noted above, e.g. –
http://www.dialectics.org/dialectics/Vignettes_files/Aoristos%20Dyosphainthos,%20F.E.D.%20Vignette%20%231,%20%27%27Two%20Interpretations%20of%20the%20F.%20E.%20D.%27%27,%2022JUN2012.pdf
I apologize for mistaking one imaginary nonsense term for the other.
Not outside of a an organization and website you seem to be the soul promoter of, he doesn’t.
edited to add: Can you cite just one person with a real name instead of a pseudonym?
[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
Do you understand that Asimov’s fictional Psychohistory only worked because there was a hyperintellectual robot manipulating things behind the scenes for thousands of years.
[/quote]
Of course! It all makes sense now! R. Daneel Olivaw *was *Asimov! (runs off to start a new religion…)
The links in my earlier post show, precisely, Aoristos Dyosphainthos promoting the F.E.D. discoveries in mathematical psychohistory, etc.
As noted earlier, the name “Aoristos Dyosphainthos” is a monastic name – not a given name, but a name taken upon entry into the order.
Thus, obviously, this name would not appear as the author’s name for any writings written by this individual prior to entry into the order.
I have been asked, by the F.E.D. General Council, as myself a new entrant into the order, to assist Aoristos Dyosphainthos in his work as the F.E.D. “Public Liaison Officer”.
I had already begun promoting the F.E.D. discoveries in the mathematics of psychohistory on the internet prior to my admission into membership, and that prior work was one of the reasons for my qualification for membership, so I was allowed to retain the *“nom de plume” *that I had used prior to membership, for the purposes of continuity in the authorship name of my F.E.D. promotional work, before and after my entry into the order.
At this point – given the relentless consistency in inaccuracy, and in off-topic posting, of this usurpatory claimant, who, “without election”, also purports to speak for all participants in this thread – I think that I shall cease wasting time on this claimant.
I remain open to any real questions about the F.E.D psychohistorical equations.
[I plan get to a few previous real such questions, already posted here, as my schedule allows].
Some people on the internet try hard not to understand communications of content – they delight only in denouncing the real content communicated, with their contentless denunciations – automatic denunciations that have only name-calling, negative “content”.
Such narcississtic, “coprophilic”, self-exhibitionist ignoramuses are best left to wallow in their own, self-imposed ignorance, until they tire of so wallowing – if ever!
I’m going to hazard a guess that you’re not someone with any kind of rigorous academic background since if you were, you would understand that any so-called system of metamathematics, which is what I assume this purports to be, would have people in all corners of academia familiar with its tenets who would also be actively contributing to journals and other publications in an attempt to increase knowledge and understanding in that field.
All you’ve provided are reference after endless reference to dialectics.org - for which by the way I can’t even find a wikipedia entry. As far as I can tell, there isn’t even a published journal, let alone one that would be peer-reviewed. So this ‘mathematics’ or whatever you choose to call it, has all the indicia of snake oil and will be regarded as such until you provide clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.
And btw, simply tossing walls of text and symbols at us will be regarded as being about as meaningful as the random assemblage of characters that they so far appear to be.
That is one strange monastic name to take, seeing as how it’s just some nonsense syllables made to sound Greek. It wound be like a monk, surrounded by other monks with names like “Mathew”, “Paul” and “Christopher”, taking the name of “Peterboyo Misthemphalee”.
Ooo! Looks like the “Czar” has a rival for the role of self-appointed / unelected dictator!
Maybe the two will “kill each other off”, and leave this thread a better place!
Some people need to learn to speak for themselves, not for others, who have not consented to any such representation.
I, for one, wash my hands of this would-be “dictator 2”, who evidently has nothing of substance to contribute to this discussion itself* / himself / herself – having only “boiler-plate” attacks on others to offer – and deeply resents others who do have substance to contribute.
I always counsel compassion for intellectual invalids.
*P. S. I include the “itself” possibility explicitly because, rumor has it, the NSA is running “software robots” on the internet, to try to suppress any “pro-the-people” content. These “software robots” are colloquially called “snotbots”.
Yes, I would expect you to resort immediately to an ad hominem attack since you have nothing else at your disposal. But that’s ok. The curtain has already been drawn back. 
edit: I also don’t think the audience needs to be reminded of the fact that you completely glossed over any discussion of your academic credentials or lack thereof and the fact that this “theory” seems to only exist in the splendid isolation of dialectics.org, a virtually unknown “organization” somewhere in cyberspace - allegedly.
Miguel, do you mind if I call you Miguel, is it your hope that you’ll marginalize us and that you’ll then get back to proselytizing? Because although I’ve only been here a few months, I’m pretty sure that’s not going to be a safe assumption.
I don’t think it’s so much that he’s in charge as it is him giving you a fair chance (and chance after chance) to answer some very basic questions about your ‘system’. Which, of course, you haven’t.
Another simple question which, by your non-answers, use of aliases (please don’t insult us by denying it), and circuitous self-referential cites, you have made abundantly clear that he can’t. No such ‘class’ exists.
Enough of this ANTI-boolen algebra, where’s the PRO-boolean stuff?
Moderator Warning
MiguelDetanacciones, insults are not permitted in General Questions. This is an official warning. Do not do this again.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
PS. Since we have long ago entered Great Debates country, and things have gotten excessively contentious, I’m closing this. A new thread can be started in Great Debates if you must.