http://www.toequest.com/forum/blogs/everymansmedium/ en Sun, 12 Feb 2012 19:45:47 GMT vBulletin 60 http://www.toequest.com/forum/images/styles/TotallyPro/misc/rss.jpg http://www.toequest.com/forum/blogs/everymansmedium/ http://www.toequest.com/forum/blogs/everymansmedium/232-unit-unity-community.html Sun, 23 Sep 2007 19:03:26 GMT Believing in our systems. The reason this is called Unit unity community as this is what I was writing when I discovered all the things that fell together like a house of cards that built itself before my eyes. We say that coincidence is just that. It is something that happened to coincide or... Believing in our systems.
The reason this is called Unit unity community as this is what I was writing when I discovered all the things that fell together like a house of cards that built itself before my eyes. We say that coincidence is just that. It is something that happened to coincide or relate. But what do you believe when the number of coincidences is so great that you know that random possibilities can not account for their existence. Yet there is still nothing tangible that you can grab hold of to examine or measure. Still the majority of our knowledge is based on probability. For even to know that the sun will rise in the morning tomorrow must still in all reality be stated as a probability, a very high probability indeed but still just a probable event.
Many discount the finding of string theory and M-theory, for it gives us nothing that we can measure. But it gives us data. Data that coincides and reinforces what we have measured without these methods. Do we discount what is found by these methods because we can not measure what is found. What is the probability of these methods being wrong simply because we can not see what is a calculated result. When the very same methods coincide and reinforce what we already know as truth. The calculation of data happing at random generates the largest of numbers, and has the least chance of happening at random.
Therefore the theory of data is generated as the way to describe everything that we know or can know because of it inability to duplicate itself. Why then do we think that these systems only function correctly while we are looking at them. We know then what is the probability of data happening at random. Then is not the reverse of this true when we find a system of data manipulation that we know works for things that we can prove. Then the probability of it failing when we are not looking must be then just as substantial as the calculation of data happening at random.

This would be a good time to read the initial document. The original document was actually written between 1970 and 1980. It was not registered with the L.O.C. until 1987.
http://unit-unity-community.com/UUC.txt
The continuation of these thoughts are reasonably well documented on the other pages that may be found on the same site from its default.htm
http://unit-unity-community.com/

May God bless us all in what we do.
John. ]]> everymansmedium http://www.toequest.com/forum/blogs/everymansmedium/232-unit-unity-community.html