Sorry, Dorn, but once again your notions only place limits upon you, not anyone else.
By you, The Man, "assertions are without basis" = "assertions are not researchable".
Again absolutely not true, my statements have been quite specific about that.
You clearly claims that things have no basis if they are not researchable.
Again, I have specifically claimed that if you assert you can not research the aspects that you assert your claims are based on then they have no basis or merit within your own assertions for your claims. My claims, for the most part, have been specifically limited to your claims or assertions and clearly identified as such. I have occasionally remarked on the general applications of definitions and research while clearly identifying it as such. Since you seemed to have missed those remarks, I will reiterate them.
Things of physical existence or physical consequences are by that nature researchable otherwise that definition of having physical existence or physical consequences has no bearing, relevance or meaning. It is only by research that any definition of such things has any validity in its representation or description of that thing. Abstract or conceptual considerations that have no physical existence or physical consequences exist only as their definitions and are researchable by and as those definitions. Since a definition is just basically a description, the accuracy of any description is the relevant factor in determining if one description is more applicable then another. For physical considerations that is determined by research, an aspect that one might include in a definition or description and claims as not researchable has no bearing, basis or validity, because without the ability to research such an aspect it becomes superfluous, extraneous and of no determinable physical consequence. Since conceptual considerations are researchable only as and by their definitions or descriptions, the description of that concept or some aspect of it as being not researchable renders that concept or aspect of it as meaningless, superfluous and without basis or merit because the only reason for even having conceptual considerations is so that we can research the implications of those considerations. So to put it more succinctly since the concept seems to be still eluding you. You can describe or define whatever you what whether it is researchable or not. However, research is the only method that can demonstrate that your definition or description of a physical aspect has any relevance to that physical aspect while research of abstract concepts is the only purpose for defining or describing such concepts at all.
Assertions can be also axioms, and in this case all is needed is to show that these axioms do not contradict each other, and define an interesting researchable universe.
Would you finally care to list your non-contradictory ‘axioms’ we have asked you to do this repeatedly. Please tell use Doron, of what use are your non-researchable ‘axioms’.
Now see there you go contradicting yourself again “providing the foundations that enables axioms” is a conclusion and that requires proof or at least supporting evidence. You constantly make such assertions that are in no way axioms. You do know want an axiom is don’t you?
You don't get it because your abstract ability cannot go beyond the result of the interaction between the totally weak and the totally strong.
More claims unsupported by your “axiom” of those ‘states’ being ‘not researchable’
Well I have actually done research for a living and it was always done on a well established basis (usually involving properties of materials).
Let us see some of your replies to this link, in order to clearly show that you have no understanding of what I am talking about, here it is:
I think it is already very clear to the readers of this thread which of us has no idea what they are talking about.
What you wrote, clearly supports my claim about your claim that says that without research there is no basis to definition. In other words, you simply do not get the notion of total definitions that are too weak or too strong for research, and only the intermediate result between them is researchable exactly because any research cannot be done unless the variant and the invariant are comparable under a one framework.
You still do get it Doron it is the definition of an axiom that makes it researchable, claiming your ‘axioms’ (which we would be more the happy to finally see) assertions or whatever you want to call them now are definable but not researchable is a contradiction. You are basically saying that your axiom, definition, assertion, claim or whatever synonym you find next to try and avoid the issue, is completely useless because it is a definition you claim can not be explored or researched. Which is all an axiom is really, its definition, it is one of those conceptual ‘things’ that are precisely its definition, no more and no less. In your usually contradictory style you make such claims as the following.
I assert that "Atom" or "Singularity" is simpler than any definition of it.
Clearly you are making an assertion about something that you profess exists not as just a definition or axiom. This something you have also asserted you can not research. Thus your claims that it in fact does exist not as just a definition or axiom and its ‘simplicity’ are either contrary to your claims that it is not researchable or your claim that it is not researchable is simply invalid. You take your pick, but don’t try to give us this horse hockey you’re trying to shovel now that your professed “axioms do not contradict each other”. If your "Singularity" “is simpler than” your “definition of it” then simplify your definition. As you claim you can not ‘research’ your “singularity” then you have no way to establish that your definition is simpler or more complex then your “singularity”. If you claim your ‘definition’ of your ‘singularity’ is an axiom then you are claiming it is precisely your definition of it, no simpler or more complex then that definition.
If we are at total state the variant and the invariant are not comparable and nothing is researchable.
So as you see The Man, the total is definable but not researchable.
Doron that assertion in and of itself is a contradiction, if you can define something then you can research it based on that definition. Remember Doron a definition clarifies the particular attributes of something and makes it distinct, often specifically for the purposes of research as in abstract concepts. A definition of non-researchable makes it indistinct, clarifies nothing, ascribes no particular aspects and is useless, invalid, meaningless and contradictory as a definition.
Again, if you disagree with me you have to show how the totally weak (that its cardinal has no predecessor, where cardinality is the magnitude of the existence of a thing ) or how the totally strong (that its cardinal has no successor, where cardinality is the magnitude of the existence of a thing) are researchable by themselves (without any interaction that enables to compare between them).
No Doron you have to show your axioms, show them to be self consistent and meaningful is some way as well as show them to be consistent with observational data. No one need disprove your claims that you specifically describe as “without need for proof or regard for evidence”
Since you refused in (
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4526358&postcount=2219 ) to read my edits in
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4525984&postcount=2213 you are still ignorant about the invariant proportion as the signature of the atomic state (where atom is an indivisible thing, and an invariant proportion is a signature of this indivisibility).
I suppose this is one of your non-contradictory ‘axioms’ where a ‘proportion’ (specifically a division) is somehow “a signature of this indivisibility”.
Constants are researchable only if they are comparable with the non-constants (they are under the result of the interaction between the totally weak and the totally strong.
There is no contradiction because the total and non-researchable is the invariant basis of the non-total and researchable.
So your basis of what you call “researchable” is “the invariant” “non-researchable” and that is somehow not a contradiction? Doron I doubt even you could stuff any more contradictions into a single statement.
You think that is a contradiction because by your wrong reasoning Total and non-researchable AND non-total and researchable are at the same level, which is basically wrong.
See there you go again claiming conclusions like ‘wrong’ based on what you specifically describe as “without need for proof or regard for evidence”. Conclusions do require evidence and support.
You are unable to explore yourself The Man, so how are you going to explore and understand a thing that is not yourself. If you do that, what you will find will be very trivial, and if you understand yourself AND the explored thing that is not yourself, then and only then you get the full range of exploration, and have the chance to understand what you explore in a much more accurate way.
Again, yourself is not thoughts about yourself, but it is the invariant state that stands at the basis of your different thoughts, and enables you to research, in the first place. Without it no two thoughts in your mind are gathered to some notion, so notion is at least the interaction between the variant and invariant aspects of your mind. Research is an extension of your mind, that enables to define the interactions between the variant and the invariant also externally to the mind, but both cases any research is based on the same principle, which is the interaction between the totally weak and the totally strong, that enables the intermediate and researchable realm.
Doron, why should anyone give any relevance to what you specifically claim is “without need for proof or regard for evidence”. If exploring the validity of your own assertions is of no concern to you why should anyone else give them any credence?
You are the one that claims that "assert" has a general definition. I don't claim that.
So, to show that, you close your post with links to reference sites giving the same general definitions of ‘assert’, you do understand the implications and limitations of the word “often”, don’t you?
No Doron not only did I get your intent I also expected your use of such synonyms in an attempt to evade the issue of your assertions being without validity just within your own assertions.
What you do not seem to understand is that simply asserting your claims are without or do not require proof does not make them suddenly valid or in any way less self-contradictory. More specifically your current ascription of some of your claims as ‘axioms’ infers the general intent of making such an axiom, specifically to examine or research its implications. ‘Axioms’ you claim you can not research fail in that intent, thus making your claims even more self-contradictory.
I am still glad to see you finial starting to make an effort to look up and reference things, although you do still have the tendency to draw the wrong conclusion from that reference. Care to try again with the words L10T has asked you about.
Third time: What is your definition of "Singularity" and "Research"?
Second time: Please explain other sources of where my thoughts come from.
Since you are having problems answering simple questions, you should stick with a board/forum in your native language where don't have two language barriers to deal with.
