avntMORI

From one man called out of Ur, God built a nation. Abraham's family tree produced the twelve tribes of Israel, and from the tribe of Judah came the line that led to Christ. Ishmael, Esau, Moab, and Ammon also appear here. The genealogy of Abraham shaped the entire ancient Near East.

A friend who took his family to Rome to teach hid kids sent me this! The Jesuit war room at the villa Farnese is called the Paolina room. It includes Pope Paul III coat of arms & episodes of Alexander the Greats life, whom Farnese’s Borgia power broker (Alexander VI) was named.

They just met each other and they both have the same tattoo sleeve 😂

Paul never met Jesus, but he wrote half of the Bible. Lol

LET KING TONKA TALK.. TONIGHT

Math-brain Two foundational concepts in math are the quantifiers “for every” and “there exists” Example: “for every real number x, there exists a real number y such that x+y=0” The outer quantifier “for every” means the statement applies to all real numbers without exception. The inner quantifier “there exists” means that, given your choice of x, there is at least one y which satisfies the statement. “For every” statements can be disproven by a single counterexample. For example, the statement “for every prime number x, x is odd” is disproven by the fact that *there exists* the prime number 2. The fact that this is the only counterexample out of an infinite set of primes doesn’t matter. The universal claim is as false as it would be if every single prime were even. not “for every” = “there exists” not These are part of the basic language of set theory. And many academics who aren’t mathematicians also learn them in a logic class. But they’re a very poor grammar for thinking about the external world. In physical and social reality, hardly any concepts are utterly precise the way they are in math. They are not defined by logical propositions, but rather by vague clouds of data points. “Chair” is the most common example. There is no airtight, exception-free definition of a chair. Give any definition you want, and I’ll find something commonly called a chair that doesn’t satisfy it, or something not commonly called a chair that does. This is illustrated in a (possibly apocryphal) episode between Plato and Diogenes. Plato was asked for a definition of Man and said “featherless biped”. Diogenes runs in holding a plucked chicken and says “behold, a man!” Less humorously, math-brain is responsible for some of the dumbest arguments in politics. Consider the trans advocates who challenge any definition of sex by pointing out some 0.000001% prevalence disorder that they don’t even have. Or the people who respond to generalizations with anecdotal exceptions. Or the people who think the solution to illegal immigration is to just legalize them all. Boom! For every immigrant, that immigrant is now legal. Solved. That was your problem right? The technical legality? The basic issue is acting as if discrete language could ever carve continuous reality* perfectly, and selectively using its failure to do so to bog down conversations when *we all know what we mean*. No one consistently does this across the board, because it would render all thinking impossible. Rather, it is a rhetorical tool for derailing substantive debate. Don’t humor it. Don’t engage with it. Don’t get lost in the weeds. All practical categories are approximate, none are exact. If someone pretends they don’t know what you mean based on some math-brained hair splitting when they clearly do know what you mean, write them off as a liar. *this is not a claim about the nature of fundamental physics **despite calling this concept math-brain, I don’t think mathematicians are especially prone to it. Less so, if anything.