Yes you did, Mutual = _______ (Relation), each one of the things = . (Element).
Doron, you will claim anything “= _______”, if you are seeing lines under everything you should probably get your vision checked.
You simply unable to understand the extremes, which are the weakest defined state that has cardinal 0 and the strongest defined state that has cardinal ∞.
The exact property of both states is their non-reseachability.
The exact property of the intermediate state between these extremes is its researchability.
Information exists only as the intermediate state, which is not totally-weak or not totally-strong.
The total is not researchable by definition, and you simply do not get that notion, because by your notion Non-researchable = Non-definable,
No Doron your assertion of ‘non-researchable’ means that your ‘definition’ is without any basis or support by your own assertions. How many times does that have to be explained to you, it is not by my notion it is specifically by your notions and assertions that your claim of ‘definition’ is without basis or merit because you are defining something you claim to be “not researchable”. Also just who do you think you’re kidding with this “is not researchable
by definition” crap? You do not just claim ‘non-researchable’ ‘by definition’ you also give them what you consider ‘cardinality’ or ‘magnitude’, attribute them as ‘too strong’ or ‘too weak’ and associate them to ‘relations’ or ‘elements’ yet claim to ascribe to them no ‘information’. You have created a whole realm for yourself based on what you claim you can not research and by specifically asserting a lack of ‘information’, in that Doron, the only thing you are defining is your fantasies.
and also by your notion Totality is a reseachable information because it is defineable.
In other words, in your world there are no defined things that are not reseachable.
In other words, in your word there is no definition of the non-researchable, but in my word there is a definition for the non-reseachable.
Firstly, in the general lexicon definitions are just common usage of a word, so definitions are themselves even in a strictly linguistic sense the result of research.
In more technical and scientific applications definitions specifically describe the known characteristic attributes of what is being defined and are thus quite literally the result of research.
Finally the mere ascription of a definition (in other words a statement conveying fundamental character) or to define something (as in to make it clear and distinct) requires accurate research to have any validity and permits one to research the consequences of that definition which is why it is important to have the definition actually reflect the attributes of what is being defined. However, Doron your continued assertion of definitions to what you claim are not researchable simply makes your definitions, assertions and research (if you had actually done any) absolutely meaningless by your own notions, assertions and … wait for it…. definitions (or whatever you choose to imagine as a definition today).
Some analogy about Information:
Information is equivalent to necklace.
A necklace is at least string AND bead(s) (where String is not Bead and Bead is not String).
String alone or bead alone is not a necklace, and so is Information.
Information is at least Relation (String) AND Element(s) (Beads), otherwise it is too weak (Bead only) OR too strong (String only) to be considered as an Information (Necklace).
So again you are asserting “information” about what you claim to be “too weak” or “too strong” to be, well, “information”. Again no one can ever take your seriously Doron if you keep insisting that the ‘information’ your are asserting is not supportable by at least your own notions. Just because you claim they lack anything “to be considered as an Information” does not mean you can just stick in whatever information, like ‘”too strong” or “too weak”, that might suit you.
To put it more succinctly, Doron, your notions are fundamentally flawed almost from the very start. Sure you begin with what would basically be an interesting and useful premise “what are the consequence if we consider aspect ‘A’ and aspect ‘B’, that seem related, separately or as not being dependent on each other?”. This type and similar ‘what if’ scenarios are how we expand science into new fields. However, you then take a contradictory approach by further stipulating that aspect ‘A’ or aspect ‘B’ are not ‘researchable’ on their own. Basically insisting that you can learn nothing by considering aspect ‘A’ and aspect ‘B’ separately or as not being dependent on each other, thus the entire original premises of perhaps finding some consequences of that consideration has now been rendered moot. To then put the finial nail in this contradictory coffin you assert aspect ‘B’ as specifically ‘not aspect A’ or explicitly make them opposites or the negations of each other, thereby requiring that they must depend on each other and rendering the entire starting premises as invalid. Has it ever occurred to you, Doron, that if you can not research aspect ‘A’ without aspect ‘B’ or visa versa that they must then, in fact, be mutually dependent upon each other?
