Deeper than primes

[The Man]

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."

It’s a cop out Doron, again if you claim you can not research you’re A state independent of you B state then you have no basis for that independence within your own notions. You’re best bet Doron, as one of the examples I gave before, is to claim that you’re A and B states are dependent on each other and thus can not be researched independently, at least that would be self-consistent.

 

[The Man]

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).

Another bad analogy. So researching or thinking about quarks independently somehow relates to what you claim we con not research?

 

[doronshadmi]

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.

This is exactly what I do.

I say that researchablitiy holds only if it is stronger than total Emptiness and weaker than Total Fullness.

By doing this I improve the distinction between the researchable and the non-researchable, which helps us to understand better the difference between the researchable and the non-researchable.

It is done by defining the terms that are not researchable, that are compared with the terms that are researchable.

Any child can understand that if total Emptiness or total Fullness are not researchable, then anything that is stronger than total Emptiness and weaker than total Fullness, is researchable.

If we are talking about Physics (which is the only way to communicate with you about abstract notions), then it is well known that if some mathematical theory used in Physics gets non-finite results, we are using techniques like re-normalization in order to eliminate these results, in order to get measurable finite values.

Manipulations like re-normalization actually return the system to the researchable range, but it does not mean that the non-researchable does not exist beyond the researchable range. It simply non-researchable.

 

[doronshadmi]

as I said before why not 4, 5, 1000 or an infinite number of non-researchable levels besides just your 3.

Since you are unable to get my previous answers, let us try this one:

We do not need more than 3 levels in order to express OM notions, Which are very clear and simple:

Level1: That is simpler than any definition of it.

Level2: The definable but not researchable.

Level3: The definable and researchable.


Levels 2 and 1 are expressible only in terms of level3, because complexity and simplicity are intractable only at level3, where level3 is the result of AND logical connective between building-block A and building-block B.

Level3 researchable things are stronger than A and weaker then B, because each thing of level3 is true (=exists) iff A AND B.

This is not the case of level2 where each thing of level2 is true (=exists) if A OR B. In other words, A OR B be can be total, which is something that cannot be found if only A AND B determine the existence of a thing (totality cannot be found at level3).

At the basis of A OR B level2 realm there is that is simpler than any definition of it, called Level1.

You’re best bet Doron, as one of the examples I gave before, is to claim that you’re A and B states are dependent on each other and thus can not be researched independently, at least that would be self-consistent.

This is exactly Leve3 that is logically based on A AND B, where A is mutually independent of B and B is mutually independent of A.

Mutually-Independent state is stronger than total independency and weaker than total mutuality. In other words, only non-total things are both definable AND researchable.

 

[doronshadmi]

So researching or thinking about quarks independently somehow relates to what you claim we con not research?

To think about something is not this something.

Our research about the non-researchable is not the non-researchable, because it is done at level3, where things are both definable AND researchable.

Again, nothing in sticky realm C is the non-sticky building-blocks of C ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4578569&postcount=2374 ).

 

[Little 10 Toes]

Any child can understand that if total Emptiness or total Fullness are not researchable, then anything that is stronger than total Emptiness and weaker than total Fullness, is researchable.

Sorry, but they are. I can give my cousin an empty cup and he will know nothing is in it. When I fill it full of sand, he knows it's full. They're researchable.

 

[doronshadmi]

Sorry, but they are. I can give my cousin an empty cup and he will know nothing is in it. When I fill it full of sand, he knows it's full. They're researchable.

An empty cup is not Emptiness, exactly as a full cup is not Fullness.

Empty or Full cups are researchable exactly because their existence is stronger than Total Emptiness AND weaker than Total Fullness.

 

[The Man]

This is exactly what I do.

I say that researchablitiy holds only if it is stronger than total Emptiness and weaker than Total Fullness.

By doing this I improve the distinction between the researchable and the non-researchable, which helps us to understand better the difference between the researchable and the non-researchable.

It is done by defining the terms that are not researchable, that are compared with the terms that are researchable.

Any child can understand that if total Emptiness or total Fullness are not researchable, then anything that is stronger than total Emptiness and weaker than total Fullness, is researchable.

If we are talking about Physics (which is the only way to communicate with you about abstract notions), then it is well known that if some mathematical theory used in Physics gets non-finite results, we are using techniques like re-normalization in order to eliminate these results, in order to get measurable finite values.

Manipulations like re-normalization actually return the system to the researchable range, but it does not mean that the non-researchable does not exist beyond the researchable range. It simply non-researchable.

Well that is your problem, Doron, what you do, like research what you claim you can not research.

 

[The Man]

Since you are unable to get my previous answers, let us try this one:

We do not need more than 3 levels in order to express OM notions, Which are very clear and simple:

Level1: That is simpler than any definition of it.

Level2: The definable but not researchable.

Level3: The definable and researchable.


Levels 2 and 1 are expressible only in terms of level3, because complexity and simplicity are intractable only at level3, where level3 is the result of AND logical connective between building-block A and building-block B.

Level3 researchable things are stronger than A and weaker then B, because each thing of level3 is true (=exists) iff A AND B.

This is not the case of level2 where each thing of level2 is true (=exists) if A OR B. In other words, A OR B be can be total, which is something that cannot be found if only A AND B determine the existence of a thing (totality cannot be found at level3).

At the basis of A OR B level2 realm there is that is simpler than any definition of it, called Level1.

Again, since you can not research your levels, you can not say how many are ‘needed’ and certainly can not demonstrate that any are ‘needed‘. Again if something you are defining is simpler then your definition of it, make a simpler definition. Getting rid of unneeded and non-researchable ‘levels’ would be a good start.

This is exactly Leve3 that is logically based on A AND B, where A is mutually independent of B and B is mutually independent of A.

Mutually-Independent state is stronger than total independency and weaker than total mutuality. In other words, only non-total things are both definable AND researchable.

No Doron the example was mutually dependent not your confused ’mutual independence’. If you claim you can not research them independently then you have no basis within your own notions to claim that they are not mutually dependent.

 

[The Man]

To think about something is not this something.

For an abstract concept it is, because it only exists by thinking about it (that is why it is abstract). That is also how we can research abstract concepts, by thinking about them.

Our research about the non-researchable is not the non-researchable, because it is done at level3, where things are both definable AND researchable.

It’s your research Doron “about the non-researchable”, which of course is just you claiming your “non-researchable” is, well, researchable.

Again, nothing in sticky realm C is the non-sticky building-blocks of C ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4578569&postcount=2374 ).

Again just you claiming your “realm C” does not contain your “building-blocks of C”.


This is your paradigm shifting notion Doron? Claiming to research what you claim you can not research, but claiming it’s ok because what you claim to be not researchable and claim to be researching is not what your are researching. Not to mention you claiming your “realm”, which you claim is based on your research of the non-researchable that you have not been researching as it’s “building blocks”, does not contain your ‘building blocks” of your realm from your research into what you claim to be non-researchable that you have not been researching.

 

[doronshadmi]

Again just you claiming your “realm C” does not contain your “building-blocks of C”.

Since anything at realm C is sticky, then anything that is not sticky is not at realm C.

Since stickiness is the result of the interaction between A and B, where A alone is not sticky or B alone is not sticky, A OR B are not researchable at realm C.

Not to mention you claiming your “realm”, which you claim is based on your research of the non-researchable that you have not been researching as it’s “building blocks”, does not contain your ‘building blocks” of your realm from your research into what you claim to be non-researchable that you have not been researching.

You are invited to research the defined Total Emptiness (that has no predecessor) or Total Fullness (that has no successor).

I am waiting to see what you get as a result of their research.

 

[The Man]

You are invited to research the defined Total Emptiness (that has no predecessor) or Total Fullness (that has no successor).

I am waiting to see what you get as a result of their research.

Doron, we have been 'researching' them by what you claim about them and we find them to still be without meaning, value or basis even just within your own assertion. What do you think we have been doing and saying for the past 2,400 or so?

The one unilateral conclusion of the participants (and probably lurkers) on this thread is that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about and somehow feel it is incumbent on others to make their own sense of your notions. Well, we have and your notion make no sense even to you or else you would not find yourself claiming to be researching what you claim to be non-researchable and claim is not what you are researching

 

[doronshadmi]

For an abstract concept it is, because it only exists by thinking about it (that is why it is abstract). That is also how we can research abstract concepts, by thinking about them.

No.

Thinking is some excitation that is stronger than Total Emptiness and weaker than Total Fullness.

I am not talking about the content of some thought but about its very existence as some excitation level.

Thoughts' excitation level is measurable, unlike Total Emptiness or Total Fullness that are too weak or too strong for any research, because they are out of the scope of any thought or measurement tool, instrument or method.

Their existence is definable as card 0 or card ∞, but they are not researchable exactly as A OR B are not researchable at realm C.

What do you think we have been doing and saying for the past 2,400 or so?

You tried and failed to get the difference between the result of A AND B and the result of A OR B. ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4585475&postcount=2385 ).

 

[doronshadmi]

Also we can see how you ignore this:

If we are talking about Physics (which is the only way to communicate with you about abstract notions), then it is well known that if some mathematical theory used in Physics gets non-finite results, we are using techniques like re-normalization in order to eliminate these results, in order to get measurable finite values.

Manipulations like re-normalization actually return the system to the researchable range, but it does not mean that the non-researchable does not exist beyond the researchable range. It simply non-researchable.

 

[doronshadmi]

The one unilateral conclusion of the participants (and probably lurkers) on this thread is that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about and somehow feel it is incumbent on others to make their own sense of your notions. Well, we have and your notion make no sense even to you or else you would not find yourself claiming to be researching what you claim to be non-researchable and claim is not what you are researching

Nonsense.

You simply unable to get the difference between the definable (Level2) and the definable AND researchable (Level3).

 

[The Man]

No.

Thinking is some excitation that is stronger than Total Emptiness and weaker than Total Fullness.

I am not talking about the content of some thought but about its very existence as some excitation level.

Thoughts' excitation level is measurable, unlike Total Emptiness or Total Fullness that are too weak or too strong for any research, because they are out of the scope of any thought or measurement tool, instrument or method.

Their existence is definable as card 0 or card ∞, but they are not researchable exactly as A OR B are not researchable at realm C.

Just you typically claiming to think out about what you claim is “out of the scope of any thought”.

You tried and failed to get the difference between the result of A AND B and the result of A OR B. ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4585475&postcount=2385 ).

No Doron you have simply failed to explained you research about what you claim is non-researchable that you claim you are not researching. Until you can claim you are actually doing something about what you can claim you can do something about which is what you claim to be doing, you will continue to fail.

 

[The Man]

Also we can see how you ignore this:

*
If we are talking about Physics (which is the only way to communicate with you about abstract notions), then it is well known that if some mathematical theory used in Physics gets non-finite results, we are using techniques like re-normalization in order to eliminate these results, in order to get measurable finite values.

Manipulations like re-normalization actually return the system to the researchable range, but it does not mean that the non-researchable does not exist beyond the researchable range. It simply non-researchable.

*Added proper quote link.

Doron, I quote and respond to your posts in their entirety, unlike you who simply truncates out one phrase word or whatever and rearranges quotes to suit your need. Not to mention the reams of posted material that you simply ignore.

It was not ignored, Doron, your point and my response was about what you do not what physicist do to actually conduct research about what they claim to be researchable that they claim to be researching. Physicist do not claim, as you do, to be researching what they claim to be non-researchable that they claim they are not researching. Your analogy was simply irrelevant, as usual.

 

[The Man]

Nonsense.

You simply unable to get the difference between the definable (Level2) and the definable AND researchable (Level3).

No Doron you’re simply unable to get that defining an abstract concept makes it researchable by and as that definition. Again if your definitions do not suit your concepts then make better definitions or concepts.

 

[doronshadmi]

*Added proper quote link.
Your analogy was simply irrelevant, as usual.

At this case I did not use an analogy.

I showed how Physics actually deals with the non-reseachable (Non-finite results, in this case) by using re-normalization ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renormalization ).

 

[doronshadmi]

No Doron you’re simply unable to get that defining an abstract concept makes it researchable by and as that definition. Again if your definitions do not suit your concepts then make better definitions or concepts.

Your definitions and your ability to reseach are based on the existence of your thoughts.

I am thinking about (defining) a level of existence where thoughts do not exist, because this level is too weak OR too strong for thoughts' existence.

In that case the too weak OR the too strong are not researchable because no thought exists at these extremes.