Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
doronshadmi said:
It agrees (it uses "belonging to oneself" which is clearly a self-reference).
Click to expand...

It's that reading deficiency again, isn't it? The definition in question would be for the phrase, "on ones own". "Belonging to oneself" does not appear in any part of the definition for "on ones own".


Any news on the meaning of non-locality? No?
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
we are talking about "on its own" and not on "on ones own"
Click to expand...


Clearly you don't understand the English pronoun, one. Perhaps before you start those classes in Mathematics you might want to consider taking a few in English syntax and grammar.


Never mind about defining non-locality. You can't, and any attempt you made likely would be filled with words with imaginary meanings. Not much point really.
 
doronshadmi said:
In other words, you ignored http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4504437&postcount=2089 .
Click to expand...

Ignored? I specifically and precisely addressed it, more lies and misrepresentations on your part. Oh, would you actually care to address what I did say in not ignoring your post.

doronshadmi said:
Please show us your non-violent lifestyle.
Click to expand...

Well, I’d have to get a wedcam for that, but then of course I’m not the one who asserted a non-violent lifestyle based on tolerance then added his own "missing" intolerance to that mix.
 
jsfisher said:
Clearly you don't understand the English pronoun, one. Perhaps before you start those classes in Mathematics you might want to consider taking a few in English syntax and grammar.


Never mind about defining non-locality. You can't, and any attempt you made likely would be filled with words with imaginary meanings. Not much point really.
Click to expand...

It does not belong only to English.

"A is itself" = "On its own".

In both cases something is equal to itself not by the level of some property as you did in the case of A = "blab la bla" , but by the level of existence of a researchable thing, written as "A=A"

A alone is total isolation and not researchable.

= alone is total connectivity and not researchable.
 
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
Now, click your heels together three times and say, "There's no place like home."
Click to expand...

You will not get the trick, because you don't get how you get A, in the first place.


You don't get "own".

You don't get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4504999&postcount=2105 or http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4504532&postcount=2090 .

Your two-levels example of A = "false" is not my one-level example of A=A.

A alone is too weak for research exactly as a single point alone is not reseachable.

In order to get it, please try to define a reseachable framework by using just A, for example:

A


After you get it, you are able to understand that the identity of a thing to itself is the least reseachable framework, for example:

A=A

where A is an example of Element of this framework and = is an example of Relation of this framework.

AAA.jpg


The value of A is not important at one-level.

And again you ignored http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4496144&postcount=2010 .
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Really?

I don't see it.
Click to expand...

No you "see it" you just do not care to address what I did say in response to you.

As far as my “non-violent lifestyle” goes I will say that I have stood up to bullies for a good part of my life. The most proficient way was to take their best hit and laugh in their face, again tolerating the violence that might be enacted upon you.

So please tell us, Doron, how have you enacted the principles of non-violence and tolerance?
 
The Man said:
No you "see it" you just do not care to address what I did say in response to you.

As far as my “non-violent lifestyle” goes I will say that I have stood up to bullies for a good part of my life. The most proficient way was to take their best hit and laugh in their face, again tolerating the violence that might be enacted upon you.

So please tell us, Doron, how have you enacted the principles of non-violence and tolerance?
Click to expand...

“non-violent lifestyle” for me is to do my best in order to save and develop diversity that is based on simplicity, in any aspect of my life.
 
doronshadmi said:
“non-violent lifestyle” for me is to do my best in order to save and develop diversity that is based on simplicity, in any aspect of my life.
Click to expand...

So, you have never had to remain non-violent while violence directly confronts you, good to know and I am glad that it is an experience you have not had. However, I must say that it seems to have given you a rather distorted view of violence, non-violence and tolerance in the real world.
 
The Man said:
So, you have never had to remain non-violent while violence directly confronts you, good to know and I am glad that it is an experience you have not had. However, I must say that it seems to have given you a rather distorted view of violence, non-violence and tolerance in the real world.
Click to expand...

Do do my best in order to save and develop diversity that is based on simplicity in any aspect of my life, is clearly an actual principle for non-violence and tolerance in the real world.

Try to use this principle and you will get it by yourself.

This is an ideal principle and I don't always able to act according to it.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Do do my best in order to save and develop diversity that is based on simplicity in any aspect of my life, is clearly an actual principle for non-violence and tolerance in the real world.

Try to use this principle and you will get it by yourself.

This is an ideal principle and I don't always able to act according to it.
Click to expand...

What, “clearly an actual principle for non-violence and tolerance in the real world”? No, actual principals of non-violence and tolerance in the real world are exemplified by actually being non-violent while tolerating violence against you in the real world, your self serving fantasies are in no way related to the real world.
 
doronshadmi said:
Yes. Try it.
Click to expand...

Try what, your fantasies? Sorry, Doron, I have actually been there in the real world, non-violent while being tolerant as violence is attempted upon me. As far as fantasies go, yours is naive at best and hardly meaningful to anyone but you.

If you are unable to live out your own fantasies, I am sorry to hear that, but do not ask others to do it vicariously for you.
 
The Man said:
Try what, your fantasies? Sorry, Doron, I have actually been there in the real world, non-violent while being tolerant as violence is attempted upon me. As far as fantasies go, yours is naive at best and hardly meaningful to anyone but you.

If you are unable to live out your own fantasies, I am sorry to hear that, but do not ask others to do it vicariously for you.
Click to expand...
The real world is the result of the developed interaction between the complex and the simple.

Your Head\Hammer philosophy of existence ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4504437&postcount=2089 ) is an act of regression of this reality, and its is not a fantasy exactly as the developed interaction between the complex and the simple is not a fantasy.

My criticism about your destructive philosophy air its view exactly because it is a real destruction, and you will not find any tolerance by this criticism, because I expose your destructive philosophy and take off any nice mask that you wish to address it.
 
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
Now, click your heels together three times and say, "There's no place like home."
Click to expand...

Ok let us show how jsfisher uses his fantasy in order to define A as a formula.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formula_(mathematical_logic)

Each propositional variable is, on its own, a formula
Click to expand...

This definition can be reduced to:

"A is a formula"

Pay attention that at this fundamental level we don't care about the value of the formula, but at this fundamental level all we care is about the existence of such a formula.

In that case "A is a formula" is reduced to the general form "A=A".

Jsfisher's fantasy is that A alone is definable.
 
Last edited:
Surprisingly, there is a way to use a single symbol in such a way that it will be immediately understood as a valid formula without any preliminary explanation, definition etc, …

But in order to do that, we have to go beyond the current mechanic approach of the formal framework.

This symbol is:

I

where I is immediately understood because of self-awareness, where self-awareness is actually the result of self-reference (the self refers to itself).

I does not need any preliminary explanation, definition etc … because it is immediately and directly understood as its own thing.

All is needed is a thing and self-reference, so I is actually a short way of I=I, where I is the Element and = is the self-Relation of the Element to itself.

A=I

[qimg]http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/AAA.jpg[/qimg]

In other words, a valid formula is not less than Relation Element Interaction (REI).

Why jsfisher can't get it?

Because he is not aware of himself during his logical reasoning.

Nothing is mystical here, actually self-awareness is the core of reasoning, whether it is formal or not.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Surprisingly, there is a way to use a single symbol in such a way that it will be immediately understood as a valid formula without any preliminary explanation, definition etc, …

But in order to do that, we have to go beyond the current mechanic approach of the formal framework.

This symbol is:

I
Click to expand...
Proof and/or external reference?
 
Now let us examine this jsfisher's argument:

jsfisher said:
Easily refuted. Let A = "The moon is made of cheese." Clearly, A is a false proposition whereas A=A is true.
Click to expand...

By this argument jsfisher proves that A is not A=A.

Well, I agree with jsfisher because A="…" is not A=A.

1) In A = "…" jsfisher can't avoid the use of at least A AND = in order to define something, so also in this case A alone or = alone is not a formula.

2) A = "…" is equivalent to I am …, where … is some property of I, but first I has to be defined, and as shown in I definition ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4506506&postcount=2118 ) it is not less than I=I.

3) I without self-reference is undefined and so is A.

In that case A is not defined unless A=A , and we are not talking here about any property of A, but we are talking here about the least term that enables to define A as a formula, in the first-place, which is a fundamental level that jsfisher does not get yet.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom