Deeper than primes

[ddt]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4569938&postcount=2351

Doron, what happened with the "last post in this thread" part?

 

[Little 10 Toes]

1) By The Man without research there is no basis to anything.

2) By me we have to get the basis that enables reseachability, in the first place.

It is done like this:

The trunk called Singularity or Atom (which is simpler than any definition of it) is defined at least as two extreme branches which are the weakest and strongest states.

The trunk of what? Atoms (also known as urelement^WP is defined as object (concrete or abstract) which is not a set, but that may be an element of a set) don't have trunks. Trees, elephants, and luggage do. Why should it have a trunk? If I define a third branch that I call "Midget" that is exactly between the two states, does this make my branch extreme?

These extremes are too weak or too strong for any research, and they are the defined invariant building-blocks of any research, where research is at least the result of the interaction between the variant (the intermediate state between the extremes) and the invariant (the extremes).

So the extremes are too strong/weak for research, and are invarient.
Doron-Research: interaction between the invarient extremes and something varient between them.

Since the Singularity (the atomic state) is simpler than any definition of it, it can be defined only as dichotomy, but this dichotomy is rooted at Singularity.

Please define dichotomy. And remember, dichotomy is simplier than it's definition. Also, why are you changing the use of Singularity when you've already used it. You've already called it a trunk, why is it now branches?

This is exactly the reason why the intermediate existence between the extremes is mutual independent (it is both mutual (common) and independent (non-common).

The mutual independent existence is researchable, where any research is the measurement between the variant (the local) and the invariant (the non-local).

Doron-speak: the local is the variant something that is between the invarient extremes which will be called non-local.

[picture snipped]

I also call the weak state Element and the strong state Relation, where the identity of an Element is variant under Symmetry and the identity of a Relation is invariant under Symmetry.

So now the weak state, which you call Element, is now varient under the atomic state. You previously called it invarient. Which is it?

This is why no one understands you or your ideas. You contradict yourself, use one word with multiple definitions, go back and re-edit posts, claim something like, "You don't get what I'm saying", or "You're not thinking properly", or invent other words or change exsiting word definitions.

I assert you'll either now claim that I don't "get it", post some other pictures and keep me on your ignore list. Assertations can be made without proof like UFO abductions, Bigfoot, and conspiracy theories.

Why do you use old words with existing definitions, like "Symmetry" and "Research", and try to use them when you already have existing phrases like "atomic state" or "interaction"?

 

[doronshadmi]

The trunk of what? Atoms (also known as urelement^WP is defined as object (concrete or abstract) which is not a set, but that may be an element of a set) don't have trunks. Trees, elephants, and luggage do. Why should it have a trunk? If I define a third branch that I call "Midget" that is exactly between the two states, does this make my branch extreme?



So the extremes are too strong/weak for research, and are invarient.
Doron-Research: interaction between the invarient extremes and something varient between them.



Please define dichotomy. And remember, dichotomy is simplier than it's definition. Also, why are you changing the use of Singularity when you've already used it. You've already called it a trunk, why is it now branches?



Doron-speak: the local is the variant something that is between the invarient extremes which will be called non-local.

[picture snipped]



So now the weak state, which you call Element, is now varient under the atomic state. You previously called it invarient. Which is it?

This is why no one understands you or your ideas. You contradict yourself, use one word with multiple definitions, go back and re-edit posts, claim something like, "You don't get what I'm saying", or "You're not thinking properly", or invent other words or change exsiting word definitions.

I assert you'll either now claim that I don't "get it", post some other pictures and keep me on your ignore list. Assertations can be made without proof like UFO abductions, Bigfoot, and conspiracy theories.

Why do you use old words with existing definitions, like "Symmetry" and "Research", and try to use them when you already have existing phrases like "atomic state" or "interaction"?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4569938&postcount=2351

 

[doronshadmi]

What, you mean you actually consider that load of tripe a serious attempt at explanation. Remember Doron it is “Simpler than any definition of it” not ‘simpler then something added to it’. If you wanted that to even look like an attempt at an explanation of your ‘background’ being “simpler than any definition of it” you should have at least attempted to describe, well, the background. Instead you make it about adding something to your ‘background’ then proclaim that one should “ignore this particular example”. It would have been better if you had chosen to ignore it. What makes you think you need to “draw” or add something to that ‘background’ in order to define or describe it? One could simply start by describing part of that background and the simplest way would be to describe or define a circular area within that background (which does not require one to ‘draw’ anything). One could even consider two concentric circular areas within that background with one of a larger diameter then the other. Both those circular areas can be described or defined by the same equation even though one circular area is completely within the other. The only thing left is to define the background entirely and not just some part of it. If the background in its entirety were to be circular like the areas just considered it could be described by the same equation and thus its description would be no simpler and no more complex then that description. If the background is not circular then the description of the largest circular area that could be completely contained in that background would be insufficient, some areas would remain outside that circle. More specifically the description of the background, if not circular, would need to be more complex then the description of the largest circular area it could completely contain. So it is quite easy to come up with a description of your background that is simpler (if the background is not circular) or completely representative of that background (if the background is circular) by simply describing or defining a circular area. It does not matter what the actual shape (if any) of the background is, its description can never be simpler then the largest circular area it can completely contain. So once again if something is simpler then your description or definition of it, make a simpler definition.

Your post is closed under level 3.

 

[sympathic]

Math is the art of abstraction and http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OMPT.pdf is exactly this art.

No it is not. You do not get to define what Maths is, and you are certainly not doing Maths. If you continue to convince yourself you are you are wasting your time.

 

[doronshadmi]

No it is not. You do not get to define what Maths is, and you are certainly not doing Maths. If you continue to convince yourself you are you are wasting your time.

Yes it is, and because of this it helps us to get the fundamental rules that stand also at the basis of the physical realm.

 

[doronshadmi]

Why stop there? Why not 5, 100, 56894 or an infinite number of your “non-researchable” levels? Again layering on useless crap, Dorn, just gives you, well, a big pile of useless crap.

Any cardinal > 0 and < ∞ is a level 3 thing.

 

[The Man]

Your post is closed under level 3.

While you notions remain a big steaming pile of ‘number two‘.

 

[The Man]

Any cardinal > 0 and < ∞ is a level 3 thing.

What so your level 1 and level 2 are just "a level 3 thing"?

 

[doronshadmi]

What so your level 1 and level 2 are just "a level 3 thing"?

No.

We are able to talk about the foundations that enable the existence of level 3 (which are levels 2 and 1) only at level 3. At levels 2 and 1, these terms do not exist and this is exactly the reason of why they are not researchable.


Analogy 1:

It is like that no scientific research about the big-bang was at the moment of the big-bang, because there were no conditions for the existence of complex systems like us, that were able to research it.

Be aware that I am not talking about the time gap between the big-bang time and now, but I am talking about the complexity levels that are too small for the existence of the researcher.

In other words, we can talk about the foundations of level3 only at level3 but it does not mean that level3 does not have foundations that are not at level3 (I call them level2 and 1, and I am doing it at level3).

Analogy 2:

You can't research a quantum particle by be yourself quantum particle, because at this fundamental level the complexity is too low for the existence of a complex system like us (the researchers).

Actually complex systems like us are able to talk about the non-researchable and the level that is simpler than any definition, exactly because complex systems are able to be aware of their non-researchable foundations of themselves ( please look at http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OMI2.pdf page 11 ).

 

[The Man]

No.

We are able to talk about the foundations that enable the existence of level 3 (which are levels 2 and 1) only at level 3. At levels 2 and 1, these terms do not exist and this is exactly the reason of why they are not researchable.

So again you're claiming no basis for distinguishing your level one and two from your level three.

Analogy 1:

It is like that no scientific research about the big-bang was at the moment of the big-bang, because there were no conditions for the existence of complex systems like us, that were able to research it.

Be aware that I am not talking about the time gap between the big-bang time and now, but I am talking about the complexity levels that are too small for the existence of the researcher.

To be precise researchers could not have existed for a considerable amount of time after the big bang yet we can still research the universe directly at the time it became transparent to electro-magnetic radiation (again when no researchers could have possibly existed). See cosmic background radiation

In other words, we can talk about the foundations of level3 only at level3 but it does not mean that level3 does not have foundations that are not at level3 (I call them level2 and 1, and I am doing it at level3).

It just means you have no basis for such a discussion since you claim you can not research your separate levels, well, separately

Analogy 2:

You can't research a quantum particle by be yourself quantum particle, because at this fundamental level the complexity is too low for the existence of a complex system like us (the researchers).

No “You can't research a quantum particle by be yourself quantum particle” because, well, you’re not a quantum particle. We do research quantum particles with, well, other quantum particles.

Actually complex systems like us are able to talk about the non-researchable and the level that is simpler than any definition, exactly because complex systems are able to be aware of their non-researchable foundations of themselves ( please look at http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OMI2.pdf page 11 ).

Well you sure talk about “the non-researchable and the level that is simpler than any definition” a lot and your certainly demonstrate that you are unaware of what you are talking about.

 

[doronshadmi]

As usual, The Man can't distinguish between analogy and the real thing and he is certainly demonstrates that he is unaware of what I am talking about.

 

[The Man]

As usual, The Man can't distinguish between analogy and the real thing and he is certainly demonstrates that he is unaware of what I am talking about.

While you continue to be unable to distinguish between your fantasies and “the real thing” and we are still waiting for you to demonstrate that you are aware of what you are talking about.

So much for your last post on this thread.

 

[doronshadmi]

Let us take for example his nonsense reply:

To be precise researchers could not have existed for a considerable amount of time after the big bang yet we can still research the universe directly at the time it became transparent to electro-magnetic radiation (again when no researchers could have possibly existed). See cosmic background radiation

The Man is unaware of the simple fact that in order to be able to research the cosmic background radiation he must be more complex than the cosmic radiation.

More nonsense:

We do research quantum particles with, well, other quantum particles.

Also in this case "We" are more complex than the quantum particles.

In both cases no research can be done unless the researcher is more complex than the researched.

It means that the researcher get the researched because his research is based on level3 realm, which is not less than REI.

It just means you have no basis for such a discussion since you claim you can not research your separate levels, well, separately

Another analogy (The Man is not going to get it as an analogy, because he does not have the ability to get the general and abstract level at the basis of the analogy):

A research is possible only if realm C is sticky.

Realm C does not exist unless property A (which is not sticky) and property B (which is not sticky) are interacted with each other, and the result is sticky realm C.

The ability to research exists only under sticky realm C, and the sticky researchers of sticky realm C, are able to think about properties A or B that are not sticky and therefore cannot be found as one of the researched things of sticky realm C.

This beautiful ability is called abstraction, and it goes beyond the sticky state of realm C, in order to define the non-sticky building-blocks of sticky realm C.

Furthermore, this abstraction ability also goes beyond A and B non-sticky states, and talks about the state that is simpler than any definition of it (including definitions A or B).

These abstract notions are expressed at the level of sticky realm C, but the researchers are aware of the fact that there is a difference between the expression level of sticky realm C and the abstract levels that are not sticky (and therefore not researchable) or the state that is simpler than any definition of it.

By The Man, abstraction has no basis, unless the abstraction and the expression of it are researchable, or in other words, both of them must be at sticky realm C.

Some analogy from Physics:

Black holes are an abstract consequence of the mathematics that stands at the basis of GRT and they are measured indirectly by the high radiation that getting out of objects that are falling into them.

The fact that no one knows what really happens inside a black hole does not mark it as a baseless research.

 

[doronshadmi]

We can think also about an analogy based on quarks:

The strong force that holds some quarks together within some hadron, unlike other forces, does not diminish in strength with increasing distance ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_interaction ).

By this model, this is the reason of why we cannot usually find free quarks in nature, but it does not mean that we cannot think about a realm where quarks are not closed inside hadrons (each property of some quack exists independently of the other quarks, and in this realm no hadron can be found).

By using this analogy, we can think about a realm where Relation or Element are not in Interaction, and the resullt is a non-researchable realm (the non-reseachability of this realm is equivalent to the non-existence of hadrons in the analogy).

 

[doronshadmi]

If our realm is equivalent to sticky realm C, then A or B are equivalent to Emptiness or Fullness that are not researchable under C and they are known exactly as Emptiness (let us call it A) or Fullness (let us call it B) exactly because they are not researchable under C.

In general, given a researchable realm, that has no predecessor or that has no successor are not researchable under the intermediate state that exist between that has no successor and that has no predecessor exactly because the researchable realm is the result of the interaction of that has no predecessor with that has no successor , where this intermediate result is stronger than that has no predecessor and weaker than that has no successor, which prevents the ability to research that has no predecessor or that has no successor under the intermediate state.


The researchable realm C is the result of A AND B and it is called level3.

The non-respectable A OR B are the defined but not researchable A state OR B state, which is called level2.

That is simpler than any definition of it is called level1.

Level3 existence depends on level2 existence that depends on level1.

 

[The Man]

Let us take for example his nonsense reply:


The Man is unaware of the simple fact that in order to be able to research the cosmic background radiation he must be more complex than the cosmic radiation.

Well it doesn’t really matter how complex one is if you’ve got nothing to research and you keep claiming you’ve got nothing to research. Simple as that.

More nonsense:

Also in this case "We" are more complex than the quantum particles.

In both cases no research can be done unless the researcher is more complex than the researched.

It means that the researcher get the researched because his research is based on level3 realm, which is not less than REI.

Funny, Doron, we research the universe and as part of the universe ourselves the universe must be more complex then just us. How about just researching ourselves, isn’t that what your ‘self-awareness’ is all about so now you claim that is impossible because you would have to be more complex then yourself. Your really haven’t thought any of this thtough have you?

Another analogy (The Man is not going to get it as an analogy, because he does not have the ability to get the general and abstract level at the basis of the analogy):

A research is possible only if realm C is sticky.

Realm C does not exist unless property A (which is not sticky) and property B (which is not sticky) are interacted with each other, and the result is sticky realm C.

The ability to research exists only under sticky realm C, and the sticky researchers of sticky realm C, are able to think about properties A or B that are not sticky and therefore cannot be found as one of the researched things of sticky realm C.

This beautiful ability is called abstraction, and it goes beyond the sticky state of realm C, in order to define the non-sticky building-blocks of sticky realm C.

Furthermore, this abstraction ability also goes beyond A and B non-sticky states, and talks about the state that is simpler than any definition of it (including definitions A or B).

These abstract notions are expressed at the level of sticky realm C, but the researchers are aware of the fact that there is a difference between the expression level of sticky realm C and the abstract levels that are not sticky (and therefore not researchable) or the state that is simpler than any definition of it.

By The Man, abstraction has no basis, unless the abstraction and the expression of it are researchable, or in other words, both of them must be at sticky realm C.

Changing your terminology does not make your notions any less contradictory it just gives you a big sticky pile of crap.

Some analogy from Physics:

Black holes are an abstract consequence of the mathematics that stands at the basis of GRT and they are measured indirectly by the high radiation that getting out of objects that are falling into them.

No Doron black holes are physical not ’abstractions’ that is why they have physically researchable consequences like” the high radiation that getting out of objects that are falling into them”? Although why would anyone expect you to understand the meaning of the word abstract.

The fact that no one knows what really happens inside a black hole does not mark it as a baseless research.

Because it is based on our well researched current physical model of gravity called general relatively not some abstraction one claims they can not research.

 

[doronshadmi]

Your really haven’t thought any of this thtough have you?

No, I was not stacked at the trivial notion that you express.

‘self-awareness’ is the simplest state that stands at the basis of our complexity, and we are able to be aware of our own simple origins exactly because our cybernetic kernel refers to itself through complexity. In other words, more we complex more we are able to be aware of our simple origins, because there is a direct ratio between complexity and self-awareness (be aware that complicated and complex are not the same thing).

We are able to understand the universe around us iff the researched is less complex than us. You are talking about the quantitative aspect of research where in this case I am talking about the quality of the understanding of our research that does not need more of the same thing or any possible variation of a thing in order to conclude something about it. This is exactly the reason of why we, as complex systems, get the deep principle of something by explore a partial amount of it, and it can be done exactly because complex systems are a concentrated examples on a very small domain that are like a deep drilling into the fabric of space\time, which is aware of itself, and of the connections of the phenomena within and without it.

The complex cannot directly be aware beyond the simplest state that stands at its basis, therefore it uses interpolations or extrapolations that are based on what it gets directly. Such interpolation is Emptiness, which is beyond research, and so is extrapolation as Fullness, which is also beyond research.

Even if there is something that is more complex than us and looks to us as Emptiness and Fullness, it does not mean that this complex thing does not have something that is more complex than it, etc … ad infinitum.

In other words, the universal principle is not less than the non-finite intermediate states of complexity that are stronger than Emptiness and weaker than Fullness, where Emptiness and Fullness are not simple as that is simpler than any definition of it.

No Doron black holes are physical not ’abstractions’

As I said, The Man can't get the abstract notions that stand at the basis of some analogy, he always stacked at the level of the analogy.

In other words The Man, you do not understand the foundations of reseachability because you ignore again and again the simple model shown in page 11 of http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OMI2.pdf .

 

[doronshadmi]

Some correction in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4581269&postcount=2376 .


Instead of:

"The non-respectable A OR B are the defined but not researchable A state OR B state, which is called level2."

It has to be:

"A OR B are the defined but non-researchable A state OR B state, which is called level2."

 

[The Man]

No, I was not stacked at the trivial notion that you express.

‘self-awareness’ is the simplest state that stands at the basis of our complexity, and we are able to be aware of our own simple origins exactly because our cybernetic kernel refers to itself through complexity. In other words, more we complex more we are able to be aware of our simple origins, because there is a direct ratio between complexity and self-awareness (be aware that complicated and complex are not the same thing).

We are able to understand the universe around us iff the researched is less complex than us. You are talking about the quantitative aspect of research where in this case I am talking about the quality of the understanding of our research that does not need more of the same thing or any possible variation of a thing in order to conclude something about it. This is exactly the reason of why we, as complex systems, get the deep principle of something by explore a partial amount of it, and it can be done exactly because complex systems are a concentrated examples on a very small domain that are like a deep drilling into the fabric of space\time, which is aware of itself, and of the connections of the phenomena within and without it.

The complex cannot directly be aware beyond the simplest state that stands at its basis, therefore it uses interpolations or extrapolations that are based on what it gets directly. Such interpolation is Emptiness, which is beyond research, and so is extrapolation as Fullness, which is also beyond research.

Even if there is something that is more complex than us and looks to us as Emptiness and Fullness, it does not mean that this complex thing does not have something that is more complex than it, etc … ad infinitum.

In other words, the universal principle is not less than the non-finite intermediate states of complexity that are stronger than Emptiness and weaker than Fullness, where Emptiness and Fullness are not simple as that is simpler than any definition of it.

As I said, The Man can't get the abstract notions that stand at the basis of some analogy, he always stacked at the level of the analogy.

In other words The Man, you do not understand the foundations of reseachability because you ignore again and again the simple model shown in page 11 of http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OMI2.pdf .

Doron, your still not getting the purpose or value of abstraction. You could say tolls are the basis of your first level and pixies the second, The trolls hold up the pixies and the pixies hold up your level three. It does not really matter but when you then claim you can not research your pixies or trolls you are claiming that your abstraction has no purpose or value. Again Doron of what use is an abstract concept that one can not research? Researching abstract concept is not just speculating what might be their basis. It is also what other concepts they may support. It works both ways. As far as abstract non-researchable concepts go, as I said before why not 4, 5, 1000 or an infinite number of non-researchable levels besides just your 3. We could claim none of them are researchable and they all remain meaningless. The only value abstraction has is in researching that abstract concept. I think this is the point you are missing. Also you still do not seem to understand that ascribing aspects like your ‘cardinally’ or ‘strengths’ makes your unsearchable concepts, well, researchable by those aspects you ascribe.