Tratamentul Cancerului

Tratament naturist cu 37 de preparate

Clinica Nova Vita funcţionează de şapte ani, iar tratamentele oferite sunt cu extracte minerale şi din plante aduse din jungla amazoniană. Specialiştii de aici susţin că au însănătoşit sute de pacienţi care aveau cancer în diferite faze.

„Terapia noastră activează sistemul imunitar al pacientului pe o cale nonspecifică, activând celulele NK (n.r. - natural killers, care «omoară» celulele canceroase), creând mai multe enzime în celulele canceroase, ceea ce duce la distrugerea lor. Cele mai bune rezultate le avem în organe cu ţesuturi bine irigate de vase, în cazuri de cancer localizat la sân ori în sistemul digestiv, urinar, genital sau respirator”, a spus dr. Marija Kozomara. Tratamentul se face cu 37 de preparate naturiste (capsule, tablete, soluţii sau granule din plante şi minerale).

Românii diagnosticaţi cu cancer pulmonar, interesaţi să se trateze naturist, îşi pot aduce dosarele medicale la sediul Farmaciilor Vlad din Timişoara, cu care Nova Vita a început un parteneriat (strada Timotei Cipariu nr. 9 tel./fax 0256.49.28.66).

Documentele vor fi traduse în limba sârbă şi vor fi trimise clinicii belgrădene, după care le vor urma şi pacienţii. O altă variantă este să trimită actele la Belgrad, la adresa Ul. Patrijarha Dimitrija 3611000 Beograd, Srbija, tel.: +381 (0)11.356.52.10 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting +381 (0)11.356.52.10 end_of_the_skype_highlighting, e-mail: researchinstitute@novavita.net.yu, novavita@net.yu.

Managerul clinicii Nova Vita, Milomir Kandic, a declarat că nu se va face o selecţie propriu-zisă a cazurilor, ci bolnavii vor fi preluaţi pe măsura depunerii actelor. „Acolo unde este şi cea mai mică şansă de reuşită, vom interveni”, a declarat managerul.

Dieta Daneza

Cica slabesti si schimbi si metabolismul. Adica nu mai pui la loc. HMMM


Ziua 1:
Dimineata: Cafea + 1 cub de zahar
Pranz: 2 oua fierte tare + 400 gr de spanac + 1 rosie
Seara: 200 gr friptura vita + salata verde + ulei, lamaie (friptura)

Ziua 2:
Dimineata: Cafea + 1 cub de zahar
Pranz: 250 gr sunca + 1 iaurt natural
Seara: 200 gr friptura vita + salata verde + ulei, lamaie (friptura)

Ziua 3:
Dimineata: Cafea + 1 cub de zahar + 1 felie de paine prajita
Pranz: 2 oua fierte tare + 1 felie de sunca + salata verde
Seara: 1 telina fiarta + 1 rosie + 1 fruct

Ziua 4:
Dimineata: Cafea + 1 cub de zahar + 1 felie de paine prajita
Pranz: 200 ml zeama de fructe + 1 iaurt
Seara: 1 ou fiert tare + 1 morcov ras + 250 gr fructe

Ziua 5:
Dimineata: 1 morcov mare ras + lamaie
Pranz: 200 gr peste cod fiert + lamaie
Seara: 200 gr friptura vita + unt + telina rasa

Ziua 6:
Dimineata: Cafea + 1 cub de zahar + 1 felie de paine prajita
Pranz: 2 oua tari + morcov ras
Seara: 1/2 pui + salata verde cu ulei; lamaie

Ziua 7:
Dimineata: ceai gol
Pranz: apa chioara
Seara: 200 g cotlet de miel + mar

Ziua 8:
Dimineata: Cafea + 1 cub de zahar
Pranz: 2 oua fierte tare + 400 gr de spanac + 1 rosie
Seara: 200 gr friptura vita + salata verde + ulei, lamaie (friptura)

Ziua 9:
Dimineata: Cafea + 1 cub de zahar
Pranz: 250 gr sunca + 1 iaurt natural
Seara: 200 gr friptura vita + salata verde + ulei, lamaie (friptura)

Ziua 10:
Dimineata: Cafea + 1 cub de zahar + 1 felie de paine prajita
Pranz: 2 oua fierte tare + 1 felie de sunca + salata verde
Seara: 1 telina fiarta + 1 rosie + 1 fruct

Ziua 11:
Dimineata: Cafea + 1 cub de zahar + 1 felie de paine prajita
Pranz: 200 ml zeama de fructe + 1 iaurt
Seara: 1 ou fiert tare + 1 morcov ras + 250 gr fructe

Ziua 12:
Dimineata: 1 morcov mare ras + lamaie
Pranz: 200 gr peste cod fiert + lamaie
Seara: 200 gr friptura vita + unt + telina rasa

Ziua 13:
Dimineata: Cafea + 1 cub de zahar + 1 felie de paine prajita
Pranz: 2 oua tari + morcov ras
Seara: 1/2 pui + salata verde cu ulei; lamaie


Mai multe info:
http://forum.oneden.com/topic/1192-dieta-daneza-de-schimbare-a-metabolismului/

Despre Fructe

Fructele sunt recomandate in curele de slabire, dar nu ca desert! Sa nu uiti niciodata aceasta regula. Daca combini fructele cu alte feluri de mancare sau daca le consumi ca desert, nu vor face altceva decat sa retina in corp toate glucidele consumate la masa respectiva, vor intarzia procesul de digestie, vor duce la fementarea celorlalte alimente si, in final, la ingrasare.

Fructele se mananca fie ca masa de sine statoare (cel mai indicat, dimineata, la micul dejun), fie cu o ora inainte de masa, fie dupa 3 ore de la masa de pranz sau de la cina. Chiar si daca bei doar un suc de fructe, aceste intervale orare trebuie respectate!

Pentru acest sezon, iti recomand fructele exotice, in curele tale de slabire. Intaresc imunitatea, accelereaza digestia si reduc colesterolul.

LAMAIA – tonic cardiac si un diuretic excelent

Desi se spune ca iti creeaza aciditate gastrica si ca nu e bine sa o mananci pe stomacul gol, acesta este doar un mit. In realitate, lucrurile stau exact invers. Lamaia scade aciditatea gastrica. Specialistii recomanda sa bei, pe stomacul gol, un pahar cu apa calduta, in care ai stors 3,4 felii de lamaie. Si, dupa fiecare masa, este recomandata o limonada, in acelasi scop. Continutul mare de vitamina C, face ca lamaia sa creasca imunitatea, sa previna si sa trateze racelile. Este un tonic cardiac si un diuretic excelent.

ANANASUL – miraculos in curele de slabire

Ananasul este un excelent antiadipos, antiedematos si tonic digestiv. Accelereaza metabolismul si sustine remodelarea corporala, reducerea tesutului adipos si a celulitei. Ajuta la eliminarea surplusului de apa din organism, reduce edemele si previne umflarea picioarelor. Contine o enzima asemanatoare celor digestive umane, care ajuta la o digestie buna si rapida.

GRAPEFRUIT – un tonic excelent

Grapefruit-ul scade nivelul grasimilor din sange (colesterolul si trigliceridele, cele vinovate de depunerile de pe vasele de sange, care duc, in timp, la infarct). Ajuta in curele de slabire, ca orice aliment amar, pentru ca determina digerarea salivara si gastrica. Este un tonic excelent.

MANGO – contine fibre, vitamina C si caroten. Consumul frecvent de mango poate preveni aparitia afectiunilor cancerigene. Il poti minca simplu sau cu iaurt sau muesli.

PORTOCALELE – contin vitamina C, care ajuta la intarirea sistemului imunitar si la prevenirea racelilor. Ele iti sunt recomandate si in probleme circulatorii.

KIWI - este singurul fruct care contine doza de vitamina C necesara zilnic unui adult. Contine, de asemenea, vitamina E si fibre. Ajuta la intarirea sistemul imunitar, in vindecarea problemelor digestive si la mentinerea unui aspect frumos al pielii.

AVOCADO – bogat in vitamina E, te ajuta sa-ti mentii sanatatea pielii si are efecte antioxidante, antiinflamatoare, de protejare a ficatului si de scadere a nivelului glicemiei şi colesterolului. Ajuta la cicatrizarea mai usoara a ranilor. Poate fi consumat ca atare sau poate fi inclus in diverse retete (miezul lui, pus in maioneza, ii confera acesteia un gust special).

PAPAYA – bogat in fibre, reduce nivelul colesterolului din singe. Este indicat si pentru stomac, deoarece contine enzime care grabesc procesul de digestie. Feliile de papaya se pot adauga si in salate de legume.

POMELO are proprietati diuretice, ajutand la tratarea obezitatii. Are doar 42 calorii la 100 g pulpa. Este un stimulator digestiv ideal. Multi sustin efectele sale impotriva stresului. Este bogat in vitamina C. Contine luteina, betacaroten, potasiu, fier, magneziu si calciu, vitaminele B1, B2, B3, B5 si B9.

RODIA – contine antioxidantii (mai puternici ca cei din vinul rosu), care ne protejeaza de diverse forme de cancer. Rodia elimina virusurile din organism si ne fereste de raceli, in sezonul rece. Previne imbatranirea pielii si reduce ridurile deja existente. Contine vitaminele B si C, acid folic si acid pantotenic.

Demonstratia existentei lui Dumnezeu

GODEL'S THEOREMS AND TRUTH
By Daniel Graves, MSL
Summary

Famed mathematician Kurt Godel proved two extraordinary theorems. Accepted by all mathematicians, they have revolutionized mathematics, showing that mathematical truth is more than logic and computation. Does Godel's work imply that someone or something transcends the universe?


Truth and Provability

Kurt Godel has been called the most important logician since Aristotle.(1) Such praise is evidence of how seriously Godel's ideas are taken by mathematicians. His two famous theorems changed mathematics, logic, and even the way we look at our universe. This article explains what Godel proved and why it matters to Christians. But first we must set the stage.

There are many systems of math and logic. One kind is called a formal system. In a formal system there are only a few carefully defined symbols and rules. Examples of commonly used symbols are a, +, x, y, <, and so forth. Following strict rules, symbols are combined into new patterns (proofs). The symbols are actually little more than place-holders. Some represent operations such as addition. Others represent slots that can be filled with numbers or sentences. The reason that empty symbols are used is so that we can be sure that proofs are created without the mistakes that human emotion and misinterpreted words can cause. After a proof is made in a formal system, statements or numbers can be substituted for the symbols, and we then know that the results on the last line of the proof are one hundred percent logical. Serious math often uses formal systems. A very simple formal system cannot support number theory but such a system is easily proven to be self-consistent. All we have to do is to show that it can't make a silly proof such as A=Non-A, which would be like saying 2=17. To handle number theory a complex formal system is needed. But as systems get more complex, they are harder to prove consistent. One result is that we don't know if our number theories are sound or if there are contradictions hidden in them. Godel worked with such problems. He especially studied undecidable statements. An undecidable statement is one which can neither be proven true nor false in a formal system. Godel proved that any formal system deep enough to support number theory has at least one undecidable statement.(2) Even if we know that the statement is true, the system cannot prove it. This means the system is incomplete. For this reason, Godel's first proof is called "the incompleteness theorem". Godel's second theorem is closely related to the first. It says no one can prove, from inside any complex formal system, that it is self-consistent.(3) Hofstadter says, "Godel showed that provability is a weaker notion than truth, no matter what axiomatic system in involved."(4) In other words, we simply cannot prove some things in mathematics (from a given set of premises) which we nonetheless know are true. Shaking up geometry

Godel's work really goes all the way back to Greek geometry. Euclid showed that in geometry a few statements, called axioms, could be made at the start and a vast system of sophisticated proofs derived from them. Axioms are ideas which are too obvious to be proven. They just seem as if they must be true. An example is the idea that you can add one to any number and get a bigger number. When a system needs as many axioms as number theory does, doubts begin to arise. How do we know that the axioms aren't contradictory?

Until the 19th century no one was too worried about this. Geometry seemed rock solid. It had stood as conceived by Euclid for 2,100 years. If Euclid's work had a weak point, it was his fifth axiom, the axiom about parallel lines. Euclid said that if you were given a straight line, you could draw only one other straight line parallel to it through a set point somewhere outside it.

first line

second line

Around the mid-1800s a number of mathematicians began to experiment with different definitions for parallel line. Lobachevsky, Bolyai, Riemann and others created new geometries by saying that there could be two parallel lines through the outside point or no parallel lines. These geometries weren't mere games. In fact, it turns out that Riemann's geometry is better at describing the curvature of space than Euclid's. Consequently Einstein incorporated Riemann's ideas into relativity theory.

These new geometries became known as non-Euclidean. They worried mathematicians. Euclid had been like Gibraltar. Now one of his axioms had been changed. Since arithmetic is more complex than geometry, how could they be sure its axioms were trustworthy? In a bit of brilliant work, a masterful German mathematician, David Hilbert, converted geometry to algebra, showing that if algebra was consistent, so was geometry. This served as a useful crosscheck but wasn't proof positive of either system. The reason is that modern theories are forced to assume that the number line is infinite. Since no one understands infinity, we are naturally uncertain about the systems based on it. Hilbert was confident he had found a way to overcome this difficulty. He laid out a program to do just that.


Paradox in set theory

Uneasy mathematicians hoped that Hilbert's plan would fulfill its promise because axioms and definitions are based on commonsense intuition but intuition was proving to be an unreliable guide. Not only had Riemann created a system of geometry which stood commonsense notions on its head, but the philosopher-mathematician Bertrand Russell had bumped into a serious paradox for set theory.

A set is one of the easiest ideas to understand in mathematics and logic. It is any collection of items chosen for some characteristic which is alike for all its elements. For instance, there is the set of all numbers {1,2,3,4,5.....} or the set of planets which circle our sun {Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars...}. Handling sets seemed fairly simple.

Russell's paradox was this: Let there be two kinds of sets, he said--normal sets, which do not contain themselves, and non-normal sets, which are sets that do contain themselves. The set of all apples is not an apple. Therefore it is a normal set. The set of all thinkable things is itself thinkable, so it is a non-normal set.

Let ÔN' stand for the set of all normal sets. Is N a normal set? If it is a normal set, then by the definition of a normal set it cannot a member of itself. That means that N is a non-normal set, one of those few sets that actually are members of themselves. But hold on! N is the set of all normal sets; if we describe it as a non-normal set, it cannot be a member of itself, because its members are, by definition, normal, not non-normal.

Russell did not feel that this paradox was insurmountable. By redefining the meaning of Ôset' to exclude awkward sets, such as "the set of all normal sets," he felt that he could create a single self-consistent, self-contained mathematical system. Using improved symbolic logic, he and Alfred North Whitehead set out to do just that. The result was their masterful three volume Principia Mathematica. However, even before it was complete, Russell's expectations were dashed.


Enter Godel

The man who showed once and for all that Russell's aim was impossible was, of course, Kurt Godel. His revolutionary paper was titled "On Formally Undecidable Propositions of Principia Mathematica and Related Systems." In it he showed that a statement in a system could be made to refer to itself in such a way that it said about itself that it was unproveable. His proof was very complicated involving the mapping of prime numbers onto statements. For example, Godelese for (x)(x=x) is the unique prime number code 28 X 311 X 58 X 78 X 1111 X 135 X 1711 X 199.

A Godelian proof

Here is a simpler proof that no number system can generate all the statements which might be true within it. This proof is based on the writings of A. W. Moore and Roger Penrose.

#1. POINT TO PROVE: IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DERIVE ALL MATHEMATICAL TRUTH FROM ANY SET OF SELF-EVIDENT AXIOMS.

#2. IF ALL MATHEMATICAL TRUTHS CAN BE DERIVED FROM A CHOSEN SET OF AXIOMS, THEN, IN PRINCIPLE, AN ALGORITHM "A" CAN BE CREATED TO TEST WHETHER OR NOT ANY GIVEN THEOREM DERIVES FROM THE CHOSEN AXIOMSÑI.E.: WHETHER OR NOT IT IS TRUE OR FALSE.

#3. AT PRESENT WE DO NOT HAVE SUCH AN ALGORITHM. IF A CAN BE SHOWN TO BE IMPOSSIBLE, THEN #1 IS ESTABLISHED.

#4. LIST THE FACTUAL STATEMENTS WHICH CAN BE MADE ABOUT NUMBERS. EXAMPLES OF SUCH STATEMENTS ARE "X IS EVEN," "X IS ODD," "X IS PRIME","X IS LESS THAN 100," ETC.

#5. CREATE A TABLE OF SUCH STATEMENTS, BEGINNING WITH THE SIMPLEST AND MOVING TO THE MORE COMPLEX. WE WILL CALL OUR STATEMENTS 1, 2, 3, 4... NOW WE NOTE THAT OUR TABLE CAN REFER TO ITS OWN STATEMENTS. SUPPOSE STATEMENT 0 MEANS: "X IS EVEN", STATEMENT 1 "X IS ODD" ETC... WE LET THE VERTICAL AXIS REPRESENTS THE STATEMENT NUMBER. THE HORIZONTAL AXIS REPRESENTS ALL NUMBERS FROM 0 TO INFINITY. WE THEN ASK OURSELVES FOR EACH NUMBER IN THE HORIZONTAL AXIS, "IS THE VERTICAL STATEMENT TRUE OF THIS NUMBER?" WE WRITE Y BELOW IT IF IT IS TRUE, AND N IF IT ISN'T:

0 1 2 3 ....

0 (EVEN) N N Y N...

1 (ODD) N N Y Y

2 (PRIME) N N Y Y...

3 (x<100 ) Y Y Y Y.... ... .................. #6. FOR ANY NATURAL NUMBER (HORIZONTAL LINE) WE NOW HAVE A METHOD OF DECIDING IF THE VERTICAL STATEMENT IS TRUE. SINCE EVERY POSSIBLE STATEMENT OF THE SYSTEM CAN APPARENTLY BE LISTED AND SINCE EVERY NATURAL NUMBER CAN ALSO BE LISTED, IT APPEARS WE HAVE A COMPLETE SYSTEM OF NATURAL NUMBERS AND AXIOMS. NOTICE THAT EACH STATEMENT ON THE VERTICAL AXIS PRODUCES ITS OWN UNIQUE HORIZONTAL LINE OF Ys AND Ns. #7. CREATE A NEW WELL-DEFINED SEQUENCE OF Ys AND Ns BY FOLLOWING A DIAGONAL ON THE CHART WE HAVE JUST CREATED. DO THIS BY TURNING EACH DIAGONAL ELEMENT INTO ITS OPPOSITE. THE N AT 0/0 ON THE TABLE BECOMES A Y. THE Y AT 1/1 BECOMES AN N. THE Y AT 2/2 BECOMES AN N. THE Y AT 3/3 BECOMES AN N AND SO FORTH. WE GET YNNN... DOES ANY STATEMENT WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN GIVEN PRODUCE THIS NEW SEQUENCE? #8. STATEMENT 0 DOESN'T BECAUSE IT HAS AN N WHERE THE NEW STATEMENT HAS Y. 1, 2, AND 3 DON'T BECAUSE THEY HAVE Ys WHERE THE NEW STATEMENT HAS Ns. THIS WOULD HOLD TRUE TO INFINITY IF WE COULD MAKE OUR TABLE THAT LONG, #9. WE KNOW WE LEGITIMATELY CREATED THIS NEW Y & N PATTERN, IE: IT IS TRUE. YET NONE OF THE EXISTING AXIOM STATEMENTS PRODUCE THIS DIAGONAL STATEMENT. A NEW AXIOM IS NEEDED TO EXPRESS THE DIAGONAL. 10. IF WE WRITE A NEW STATEMENT (CALL IT R) THAT INCLUDES A PROCEDURE FOR MAKING THIS DIAGONAL , AT SPACE R/R A NEW DIAGONAL LETTER WILL APPEAR AND WE WILL HAVE TO ADD STATEMENT S TO REPRESENT THIS NEW SEQUENCE. BUT AT S/S A NEW DIAGONAL NUMBER WILL APPEAR, REQUIRING A STATEMENT T AND SO ON, INFINITELY. 11. THEREFORE ALGORITHM A IS IMPOSSIBLE, WHICH IS THE PROOF REQUIRED BY #2. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO AUTOMATICALLY DERIVE ALL POSSIBLE MATHEMATICAL TRUTH. Immediate Implications

What do Godel's theorems mean for those who believe there is a God? First, Godel shattered naive expectations that human thinking could be reduced to algorithms. An algorithm is a step-by-step mathematical procedure for solving a problem. Usually it is repetitive. Computers use algorithms. What it means is that our thought cannot be a strictly mechanical process. Roger Penrose makes much of this, arguing in Shadows of the Mind that computers will never be able to emulate the full depth of human thought. But whereas Penrose seeks solutions in quantum theory, Christians see man as a spiritual being with understanding that springs not just from the physical organ of the mind but also from soul and spirit.

Second, had Godel been able to affirm that a complex system is able to prove itself self-consistent, then we could argue that the universe is self-sufficient. His proof points us toward a different understanding, one in which we must either declare the universe to be infinite--as some do(5)--or else look for infinity outside the universe as theists do.

The first possibility, that the universe is infinite, is most unlikely. Everything that we have learned about the universe tells us that it is finite. Astronomers have found details that set absolute limits to its age and dimensions. Physicists have estimated the number of protons in all of creation. And even if there were an infinite amount of natural matter, each particle would still suffer the limitations of matter, for no particle is infinite in itself. The Christian therefore is reasonable when he points to a spiritual creator outside the physical universe as an explanation for what goes on within it. Godel recognized these implications and struggled to produce an ontological proof for the existence of God (a proof based on the definition of "God"). Godel was wasting his time in trying to establish this proof. His own theorems strongly suggest that while the finite can infer something bigger than itself, it cannot prove the infinite. As in this article, reason can only show that it is reasonable to believe in a spiritual God who transcends the limits of the universe.

Godel's theorem means that the universe cannot be a vast self-contained computer. One modern scientist, Fredekin, suggests that it is.(6) The fundamental particles of nature (in his view) are information bits in that huge machine. Were he right that the universe is effectively a computer, then Godel's theorems would require that nature, as a whole be understood only outside nature because no finite system is sufficient for itself. This conclusion flows by analogy from what Godel proved. "...if arithmetic is consistent, its consistency cannot be established by any meta-mathematical reasoning that can be represented within the formalism of arithmetic."(7)

As a third implication of Godel's theorem , faith is shown to be (ultimately) the only possible response to reality. Michael Guillen has spelled out this implication: "the only possible way of avowing an unprovable truth, mathematical or otherwise, is to accept it as an article of faith."(8) In other words, scientists are as subject to belief as non-scientists. And scientific faith can let a man down as hard as any other. Guillen writes: "In 1959 a disillusioned Russell lamented: ÔI wanted certainty in the kind of way in which people want religious faith. I thought that certainty is more likely to be found in mathematics than anywhere...But after some twenty years of arduous toil, I came to the conclusion that there was nothing more that I could do in the way of making mathematical knowledge indubitable.'"(9)

A or Non-A?

Godel showed that "it is impossible to establish the internal logical consistency of a very large class of deductive systems--elementary arithmetic, for example--unless one adopts principles of reasoning so complex that their internal consistency is as open to doubt as that of the sytems themselves."(10) In short, we can have no certitude that our most cherished systems of math are free from internal contradiction.

Take note! He did not prove a contradictory statement, that A = non-A, (the kind of thinking that occurs in many Eastern religions). Instead, he showed that no system can decide between a certain A and non-A, even where A is known to be true. Any finite system with sufficient power to support a full number theory cannot be self-contained.

Judeo-Christianity has long held that truth is above mere reason. Spiritual truth, we are taught, can be apprehended only by the spirit. This, too, is as it should be. The Godelian picture fits what Christians believe about the universe. Had he been able to show that self-proof was possible, we would be in deep trouble. As noted above, the universe could then be self-explanatory.

As it stands, the very real infinities and paradoxes of nature demand something higher, different in kind, more powerful, to explain them just as every logic set needs a higher logic set to prove and explain elements within it.

This lesson from Godel's proof is one reason I believe that no finite system, even one as vast as the universe, can ultimately satisfy the questions it raises.

References

(1)Moore, Gregory H., "Kurt Friedrich Godel," in Dictionary of Scientific Biography. New York: Scribner's Sons, 1973.

(2)Edward, Paul. Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Macmillan and Free Press, 1967.

(3)Ibid.

(4)Hofstadter, Douglas R., Godel, Escher, Bach; an Eternal Golden Braid. New York: Vintage, 1979, p.19.

(5)Zebrowski, George. "Life in Godel's Universe: Maps all the Way." Omni. April 1992, p. 53.

(6)Wright, Robert, Three Scientists and Their Gods. New York: Times Books, 1988, pp. 4, 5-80.

(7)Nagel, Ernest and John Newman, Godel's Proof. New York: New York University Press, 1958, p. 96.

(8)Guillen, Michael, Bridges to Infinity. Los Angeles: Tarcher, 1983, pp. 117,18.

(9)Ibid, pp. 20,21.

(10)Nagel, p. 6.

See also:

Blanch, Robert, "Axiomatization," in Dictionary of the History of Ideas Volume I (New York: Scribner's Sons, 1973) p.170.

Moore, A. W. The Infinite. London and New York: Routledge, 1990.

Newman, James R. The World of Mathematics. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1956. Paulos, John Allen, Beyond Numeracy; Ruminations of a Numbers Man (New York: Knopf, 1991) p. 97.

Penrose, Roger. Shadows of the Mind. 1993.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

CHRIST SUFFERED AS TRUTH

"Now if we are children [of God], then we are heirsÑheirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory." Rom. 8:17.

In answer to a question put by Pilate, Jesus said, "You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me."

"What is truth?" Pilate retorted. With this he went out again to the Jews and said, "I find no basis for a charge against him..." Then Pilate took Jesus and had him flogged...

The world met truth with force, but truth won.

Godel's proof implies that we must seek final truth outside our finite world. Jesus uttered one of the most ultimate claims ever made by a sane man. "I am the way, the truth, and the life," he told his disciples just hours before he stood before Pilate.

Will we find truth in a transfinite Christ or will we prefer partial truth from within a system that cannot validate itself?

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

MATHEMATICIANS OF THE INFINITE

The mathematics of the infinite cannot be understood apart from Judeo-Christianity. Although infinitely theory intrigued all civilizations, especially the Greeks, nowhere has it been so important as in Christendom, where all theology hinged on its implications. Augustine in various writings and Boethius, in The Consolation of Philosophy, wrestled with the idea especially in relation to time and God's eternal existence. Of Learned Ignorance, by Bishop Nicholas Cusa, argued that at infinity all things become one, just as the arc of an infinitely large circle will flatten into a straight line.

Not surprisingly, the world's first systematic treatment of infinity was produced by a theologian. The Czech, Bernard Balzano, pioneered the theory of real numbers, established some properties of infinite sets, and became a precursor of modern logic. Like most pioneers he made serious errors. His theology verged on heresy.

The great Cantor, a Protestant Jew with a Catholic mother, was spurred by religious impulses to create transfinite theory. His profoundly original work was spurned by most contemporaries and he was relegated to minor teaching posts. One of Cantor's greatest contributions was the technique of diagonalization (which we employ in our page seven proof of Godel). Kronecker savaged Cantor in print and in the classroom. Lacking self-confidence, Cantor came to doubt the worth of his own work. Although the Jesuits seized upon his proofs as validation for certain theological tenets, Cantor's uncertainty eventually led him into madness.

Godel, with a Lutheran background, took religious questions seriously and declared himself a theist. Profoundly influenced by his Lutheran predecessor, Leibnitz, he espoused an ontological proof for the existence of God based on his mathematics. This was not successful.

These instances show the power of Christianity to drive first-rate scientific work. No other religion in history has impelled men and women to do such science. The claims of Christianity are so ultimate that at every turn they must either be accepted and substantiated, or denied and challenged. Again and again friend and foe impress new insight upon old theology.

References:

Bell, E. T. Men of Mathematics.

Gillispie, Charles Coulston. Dictionary of Scientific Biography.

Guillen, Michael. Bridges to Infinity.

QUESTIONS FOR ATHEISTS AND AGNOSTICS

If we dwell in a finite world created by an infinite God, is not a Godelian theorem exactly what we should expect to find?

Why was it that Christian theology and Christian thinkers impelled the major modern developments in infinity theory?

Since mathematical theory ultimately rests on faith, why do you denounce Christianity for resting on faith?

The history of science shows that strictly mechanistic views of the world have consistently failed to hold up. Why not acknowledge that the world is not strictly mechanistic as materialistic explanations must suppose?

In light of Godel's proofs and Christ's transfinite claims, won't you yield yourself to God?

Nice vids

1. Scare Tactics - Vampires

Psihologia Penisului

Toate actiunile unui om sunt
determinate de mărimea pulii lui..
După mărimea pulii, oamenii se încadrează în patru
tipologii:

Bărbatii cu pula mare:

Maxipulii se simt împliniti spiritual pentru simplul
motiv că au pula mare. Ei nu se străduiesc să facă
nimic
în viată. Nu vor nici bani, nici faimă, nici case, nici
masini. Ei nu au nimic de demonstrat. Au pula mare ti
stiu că au pula mare. Acest lucru le este de ajuns
încât
să ducă o viată linistită, pasnică si veselă,
străduindu-se în viată doar cât e necesar să
supravietuiască. Maxipulii sunt pasnici si linistiti.
Nu vor nici războaie, nici ceartă nici nimic. Se vor
împăca cu toată lumea, si vor căuta solutia de mijloc
în orice conflict, pentru că nu au nevoie să se compare
cu altii. Deja se stiu superiori.
Atitudinea lor generală fată de restul oamenilor este de
o superioritate
detasată. Se uită de sus, cu blândete la restul
oamenilor, întelegând drama lor
internă. Totusi sunt mărinimosi. Dacă ar fi după ei,
toată
lumea ar avea pula mare, dar, din păcate, nu se poate.
În relatiile cu femeile sunt calmi si tandri, capabili de
o relatie
profundă si sentimentală, pentru că nu au nevoie de
altceva.


Bărbatii cu pula mică:

Lumea s-a dezvoltat pe spatele bărbatilor cu pula
mică. Toti cercetătorii, toti filozofii si artistii au
avut pula mică. Minipulul este un om muncitor. El stie
că
o are sub-standard si va dori toată viata să compenseze.
Va munci, se va zbate, va creea. Toate ca să pară că o
are mai mare decât e cu adevărat. În mintea lui, el are
impresia că lumea va face o paralelă între succesul lui
si mărimea pulii lui, desi, cu cât adună mai multe
chestii,
cu cât se zbate mai tare, cu atât dovedeste că
o are mai mică. Minipulul vrea tot timpul să iasă în
evidentă. Unul mai prost va cumpăra foarte multe
chestii,
compensând mărimea lui peniană cu masini mari, case
mari, haine de lux, etc. Unul inteligent va compensa prin
făcutul de lucruri noi, prin inovatie în domeniul de
care
se ocupă, împingând lumea înainte. Se va simti tot
timpul amenintat de oamenii cu pula mare dar nu este
destul
de bazat pe mărimea propriei puli încât să caute
conflictul cu acestia. Îi va urî în tăcere. El este
nefericit până la vârsta de mijloc, când, se va
resemna
cu pula lui mică si va începe să se bucure de
posesiunile lui materiale si să caute plăcere în munca
sa. Minipulul, până la faza de împăcare cu propria
pulă
va privi femeia ca un obiect. O va alege nu după
sentimente, ci după valoarea superficială a ei. Va fi
pentru el doar o
altă chestie cu care să compenseze pula
mică. În faza a doua, de resemnare, va fi capabil de o
relatie profundă, dar minipulul necopt niciodată nu va
fi
în stare de o relatie adevărată.


Bărbatii cu pula medie:

Medipulii sunt caracterizati printr-o tensiune internă
permanentă. Sunt oameni vehementi si violenti. stiu că
pula lor nu are o dimensiune care să impună
categorisirea
în tipologiile anterioare, si de aceea vor fi toată
viata blocati într-un permanent concurs de măsurare a
pulii. Medipulul va râde bucuros când va da de unul cu
pula mică si îi va demonstra că a lui e mai mare si îi
va săpa pe la spate pe cei cu pula mare ca să îi
deruteze
dar fără succes. Maxipulii sunt imuni la răutăti si
acest lucru îl va frustra pe medipul.
Însă cel mai violent va fi cu cei ca el, restul
medipulilor. stie că
unul cu pula medie, ca a lui este asemănător lui. Unul
mai
prost va
încerca prin orice metodă să demonstreze că are
juma de centimetru în plus si va face tot soiul de
competitii cu ceilalti medipuli, tot timpul facând topuri
si clasificări. Unul mai destept va încerca să se
distanteze de ceilalti medipuli printr-o personalitate
unică. Printr-un mod de a fi original.
La vârsta mijlocie, medipul ori se va încadra singur în
una
din categoriile de mai sus, mimând comportamentul lor
(pseudomaxipul sau pseudominipul) sau va rămâne toată
viata un frustrat, un încrancenat. Atâta timp cât va
considera că are pula medie, va fi o fortă distructivă,
un
element negativ al societătii. Medipulul caută o femeie
care să-l facă să se simtă cu pula mare. Va trece
peste
orice defect al acelei femei atâta timp cât ea va avea
grijă de această simplă nevoie a lui. De aceea relatia
lui cu femeile va fi una de simbioză, nu una profundă.
Evident, până la faza
pseudo.


Femeile
Femeile nu au pulă. Evident. De aia sunt apule. Totusi,
modul lor de gândire se centrează pe pulă. Singure,
sunt
haotice. Comportamentul lor nu poate fi prevăzut, pentru
simplul motiv că nu au o pulă fizică.
Au în schimb o imagine a propriei puli în cap, care
fluctuează. Ei bine, femeia într-un anumit moment se va
comporta în functie de cât de mare este pula psihică,
pula
imaginată de ea că o are. Iar imaginea apulei despre
nepula ei
este foarte fluidă. Poate fi de 10 cm acum, si de 30
peste 10 minute.
De aceea femeia este imprevizibilă si lipsită de
logică.
Din fericire, după ce se combină cu un bărbat, va
adopta
mărimea pulii acestuia ca fiind mărimea pulii ei.
Atentie! Dacă va avea impresia că pula masculului este
mult mai mică decât pula ei mintală, va încerca să
îl
domine si să îl tină sub
papuc.”