Cont: Deeper than primes - Continuation 2

[jsfisher]

In other words your system does not distinguish between the countably infinite and the uncountably infinite.

That's like asking if it distinguishes between yellow and purple. It doesn't enter into the discussion at any point.

Moreover, are you suggesting your as-yet undefined system embraces all the possible infinities that may exist in the transfinite cardinals? You seem to be fixated on just two as if that were all there be, with nothing between nor after.

 

[doronshadmi]

That's like asking if it distinguishes between yellow and purple. It doesn't enter into the discussion at any point.

Yes I know that you are using infinity in terms of hands waving, in case of the limit notion.

Moreover, are you suggesting your as-yet undefined system embraces all the possible infinities that may exist in the transfinite cardinals? You seem to be fixated on just two as if that were all there be, with nothing between nor after.

Please see the edited version of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10677878&postcount=660.

Your reply simply ignores http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10652239&postcount=539.

Your reasoning still missing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_Infinite.

Unlike Cantor, God is not involved in my reasoning in any stage.

 

[doronshadmi]

What is involved in my reasoning is Neutral monism, such that x remains neutral among its multiple expressions (NOx, SOMEx, EVERYx, YESx), which means that it is not fully defined by each one of them or all of the together, exactly as Unity can't be defined in terms of Multiplicity, yet Unity is the substance of Multiplicity, but not vice versa.

By Neutral monism absolute infinity is defined in terms of YESx that is beyond collections (defined in terms of SOMEx or EVERYx), and it is the opposite of NOx.

 

[realpaladin]

But of use it is to NO*Body*

 

[doronshadmi]

Being a common substance of multiple things, is the natural way to be developed in harmony, such that difference is not a factor for mutual destruction anymore.

The ability of Science to enliven such non-entropic realm is essentially useful for further evolutionary development of complex (yet rooted in simplicity) creatures like us.

Those who understand reality only in terms of multiplicity by ignoring its simple substance, simply can't be aware of Neutral Monism non-entropic daily usefulness principle.

 

[zooterkin]

Being a common substance of multiple things, is the natural way to be developed in harmony, such that difference is not a factor for mutual destruction anymore.

The ability of Science to enliven such non-entropic realm is essentially useful for further evolutionary development of complex (yet rooted in simplicity) creatures like us.

Those who understand reality only in terms of multiplicity by ignoring its simple substance, simply can't be aware of Neutral Monism non-entropic daily usefulness principle.

I recognise all the words, but there doesn't appear to be any meaning in the order in which they are arranged.

 

[doronshadmi]

I recognise all the words, but there doesn't appear to be any meaning in the order in which they are arranged.

Simplicity is the common principle of any possible arrangement of multiple things (words, in this case).

If you unaware of the simple common principle of multiplicity, you can't recognize the meaning of multiple things (words, in this case), or in other words, you recognize the words (each one of the separately) but not their common meaning.

EDIT:

Neutral Monism suggests the scientific framework to know multiplicity by its common simple principle.

 

[jsfisher]

Neutral Monism suggests the scientific framework to know multiplicity by its common simple principle.

Nonsense. There is nothing scientific about monism, neutral or otherwise.

Doron, you continue to concatenate words in ways that may meet syntactic norms but are devoid of semantic content.

 

[Nonpareil]

Simplicity is the common principle of any possible arrangement of multiple things (words, in this case).

If you unaware of the simple common principle of multiplicity, you can't recognize the meaning of multiple things (words, in this case), or in other words, you recognize the words (each one of the separately) but not their common meaning.

EDIT:

Neutral Monism suggests the scientific framework to know multiplicity by its common simple principle.

Oh, wonderful. We're still doing this. I was afraid I had missed out on all the fun.

But no. I return to find that, not only is this nonsense about doron's mangled version of neutral monism still being spouted, completely unaltered, we've added a completely useless, non-functional, and wrong definition for the concept of a mathematical limit, and started claiming that this new limit has "no gap" because the x actually "reaches infinity".

This thread is amazing.

 

[doronshadmi]

Nonsense. There is nothing scientific about monism, neutral or otherwise.

Happy birthday to you jsfisher.

Well this is no less no more than your multiplicity-only view of Science (and in your case it is also a limited multiplicity-only version, as clearly seen in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10677971&postcount=662), so?

jsfisher, you continue to ignore simplicity as the common source of complexity, and as a result no syntactic norms or semantic contents of yours actually deal with Neutral Monism (no wonder that "Nonsense." is your best reply, in this case).

 

[jsfisher]

Well this is no less no more than your multiplicity-only view of Science

Well, since you have tried to redefine everything else to support your fantasy, why not science, too, right?

For anything to have a scientific basis there must be distinguishing falsifiable predictions. What falsifiable predictions would you offer for neutral monism?

 

[Nonpareil]

Well this is no less no more than your multiplicity-only view

And this is just the same non-sentence that you have been spouting for... oh, at least a year now. It meant nothing when you first came up with it, and it means nothing now.

You don't seem to understand that terms have to be defined before you can use them. You just throw the words "multiplicity" and "unity" around and hope that no one bothers to actually think it through.

 

[doronshadmi]

What falsifiable predictions would you offer for neutral monism?

Careful designed experiments that enable to measure the decreasing of entropy among biological and non-biological complex systems, as a result of the activity of complex biological systems.

Such experiments are generally multi-disciplinary methods (theories and experiments) that also enable to redefine already agreed definitions as a valid property of the suggested scientific framework (no definition is immune from re-examination, re-search, etc.).

An example of this approach is given in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10677971&postcount=662.

Your "The cardinality of the domain set is immaterial." in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10675113&postcount=658 is a concrete example of your unnecessary artificial limitations on real scientific evolution.

As a result there is no wonder that your approach indeed gets http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10677971&postcount=662 as nonsense.

For anything to have a scientific basis, no definition is immune from re-examination, re-search, etc.

 

[jsfisher]

...snip...

So, no falsifiable predictions, then. Just more gibberish.

 

[Nonpareil]

Careful designed experiments that enable to measure the decreasing of entropy among biological and non-biological complex systems, as a result of the activity of complex biological systems.

Neutral monism does not result in a reversal of entropy.

 

[doronshadmi]

So, no falsifiable predictions, then. Just more gibberish.

Dear jsfisher you have missed it again.

Falsifiable predictions is exactly what Neutral Monism predicts about any relative measurable phenomena, exactly because relative measurable phenomena is naturally variant (and before you are using the common claim about the invariant speed of light in vacuum, first please read http://www.gla.ac.uk/news/headline_388852_en.html, http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-30944584 and http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1411/1411.3987.pdf).

By http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10706519&postcount=663 falsifiable predictions are the domain of SOMEx and EVERYx, so according to Neutral Monism real Science can't be limited only to this domain and has to be expended in order to deal with NOx, YESx and x.

"Falsifiable predictions" is simply a term for science that was done by persons that get reality only in terms of SOMEx and EVERYx.

 

[jsfisher]

Falsifiable predictions is exactly what Neutral Monism predicts....

Rather than tell us about them generally, how about you name one. Just one specific prediction that can be tested and will distinguish neutral monism from everything else.

 

[Nonpareil]

Falsifiable predictions is exactly what Neutral Monism predicts about any relative measurable phenomena

So give us some.

 

[doronshadmi]

Rather than tell us about them generally, how about you name one. Just one specific prediction that can be tested and will distinguish neutral monism from everything else.

If Science is understood only in terms of SOMEx and EVERYx, it is measured according to falsifiable predictions.

"Just one specific [falsifiable] prediction that can be tested and will distinguish neutral monism from everything else" is a concrete example of an understanding that is done only in terms of SOMEx and EVERYx, where SOMEx and EVERYx are concepts of Neutral Monism (seen in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10706519&postcount=663), which enables to predict the understanding of Science of persons like you.

Please show such prediction that is not done and tested by Neutral Monism.

 

[jsfisher]

Please show such prediction that is not done and tested by Neutral Monism.

The onus is upon you. You made the claim, remember? According to you and you alone, neutral monism has a scientific basis. Ok, back that up with a distinguishing prediction that can be evaluated scientifically.