Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
doronshadmi said:
Now let us examine this jsfisher's argument:



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 is not less 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.
Click to expand...

When I say "The moon is made of cheese", there is no self reference. Is Little 10 Toes the moon? Is Little 10 Toes cheese? No. I am stating the moon (which you may or may not be seeing) is made of cheese.
 
doronshadmi said:
I do not understand your question.
Click to expand...
Well, you said:
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

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

I have asked you to provide proof that the symbol I is used in such a mannor.
 
Little 10 Toes said:
When I say "The moon is made of cheese", there is no self reference. Is Little 10 Toes the moon? Is Little 10 Toes cheese? No. I am stating the moon (which you may or may not be seeing) is made of cheese.
Click to expand...

All you say is: I

and we are not talking about any property of I, what I is, etc ...

At this fundamental level we reseach what we need in order to define I.

That's all (at this fundamental level).
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
All you say is: I

and we are not talking about any property of I, what I is, etc ...

At this fundamental level we reseach what we need in order to define I.

That's all (at this fundamental level).
Click to expand...

Nice. Standard operating procedure for doronshadmi is to go back and re-edit a post.

And no, we are not talking about I, we are talking about the lack of self-reference of A and the lack of documention of the symbol I. We havn't even talked about the definition of I yet.
 
doronshadmi said:
The real world is the result of the developed interaction between the complex and the simple.
Click to expand...

More of your fantasy gibberish.

doronshadmi said:
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.
Click to expand...

I never claimed to have a “Head\Hammer philosophy of existence” the philosophy of existence that I remarked ‘might not be bad’ was a ‘head/hummer interaction’, but I also never claimed it to be my philosophy. Obviously you still do not understand the difference between the words “hammer” and “hummer”, try looking them up.

doronshadmi said:
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.
Click to expand...

I subscribe to no particular “philosophy” destructive or otherwise just as I subscribe to no particular “school of thought”. Is this the only way that you can address others by labeling them so you can only deal with the inferences of the label that you ascribe to them and not what they actually say.

So again you assert your lack of tolerance even to just some philosophical considerations. Clearly you do not tolerate ‘diversity’ as you have previously claimed.
 
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

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


Immediately understood as what? A letter in the alphabet and what alphabet would that be, perhaps it is a variable, even the current in an electric circuit (often represented as “I”) or just some other abstract representation?


doronshadmi said:
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.
Click to expand...


So you are saying that because you understand the symbol I to represent something based on your preconceived notions that I represents your preconceived notions without, well, your preconceived notions. Even your ascription of it as a “symbol” represents a “preliminary explanation” in that it is an abstract as apposed to a pictorial representation. That ascription of “symbol” requires an “explanation” of what that symbol represents. The simple fact that you explained how you were using I after presenting that symbol does not change the fact that it requires some explanation. So by your application no symbol requires a “preliminary explanation, definition etc, …” as long as one makes a subsequent “explanation, definition etc, …” as you just did. Did you figure that out all on your own or do you simply not understand that an explanation is an explanation whether is preliminary or subsequent?
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
The Man said:
Immediately understood as what? A letter in the alphabet and what alphabet would that be, perhaps it is a variable, even the current in an electric circuit (often represented as “I”) or just some other abstract representation?
Click to expand...
Here is another proof of how The Man ignores himself during research.

As a result he does not recognize I (himself).

Since he does not recognize himself during research, he cannot understand that I is not less than I=I (Relation = \ Element I Interaction)
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
More of your fantasy gibberish.



I never claimed to have a “Head\Hammer philosophy of existence” the philosophy of existence that I remarked ‘might not be bad’ was a ‘head/hummer interaction’, but I also never claimed it to be my philosophy. Obviously you still do not understand the difference between the words “hammer” and “hummer”, try looking them up.



I subscribe to no particular “philosophy” destructive or otherwise just as I subscribe to no particular “school of thought”. Is this the only way that you can address others by labeling them so you can only deal with the inferences of the label that you ascribe to them and not what they actually say.

So again you assert your lack of tolerance even to just some philosophical considerations. Clearly you do not tolerate ‘diversity’ as you have previously claimed.
Click to expand...
You have a philosophy of life The Man, the philosophy of the unaware of themselves.

As long as this is your philosophy, you can't get OM.
 
Little 10 Toes said:
Nice. Standard operating procedure for doronshadmi is to go back and re-edit a post.

And no, we are not talking about I, we are talking about the lack of self-reference of A and the lack of documention of the symbol I. We havn't even talked about the definition of I yet.
Click to expand...

Any definition is based on X is ....

If someone aware of himself\herself, it can be represented by a single symbol like I, but also in this case we see that self-awareness is not less than I=I, as explained in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4506506&postcount=2118 .
 
Last edited:
The minimal terms for research are:

Element (the local aspect of research)

Relation (the non-local aspect of research)

Self-reference (the interaction aspect of research)

No research holds unless it is REI.
 
doronshadmi said:
Here is another proof of how The Man ignores himself during research.

As a result he does not recognize I (himself).

Since he does not recognize himself during research, he cannot understand that I is not less than I=I (Relation = \ Element I Interaction)
Click to expand...


Oh so your explaining and defining your use of the symbol I as ‘ones self’. The very symbol you claimed required no explanation or definition to be understood, how typically contradictory of you.
 
The Man said:
Oh so your explaining and defining your use of the symbol I as ‘ones self’. The very symbol you claimed required no explanation or definition to be understood, how typically contradictory of you.
Click to expand...

Typical poor understanding of the unaware of themselves during re-search.

I simply show that even in the case of the most direct re-search like self-awareness we can't avoid Relation Element Interaction.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
You have a philosophy of life The Man, the philosophy of the unaware of themselves.

As long as this is your philosophy, you can't get OM.
Click to expand...

So having stated that I ascribe to no particular philosophy of life you find it necessary to label me with one of your own creation. Thank you Doron, for answering my previous question and conclusively demonstrating that you must label people within the confines of your own perspectives as opposed to addressing them, their perspectives or what they say directly
 
doronshadmi said:
Typical poor understanding of the unaware of themselves during re-search.

I simply show that even in the case of the most direct re-search like self-awareness we can't avoid Relation Element Interaction.
Click to expand...



By explaining a symbol you claimed required no explanation to be understood? Typical, the poor understanding, contradictions and demonstrative lack of self-awareness is again yours and yours alone.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom