Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
doronshadmi said:
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.
Click to expand...

And the point of this would be what?
 
doronshadmi said:
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 ).
Click to expand...

Are you claiming your notions are renormalizable? If not then renormalization is still irrelevant to your claims. The results are indeed finite and researchable doron both in the experiment and in the calculation, what is not finite are all of the contributing factors and those are canceled by considering opposing infinite contributing factors. So this example actually goes against your notion of (0,∞) being symmetrical while supporting a current description of symmetry as (-∞,+∞). Doron what ever happen to your claim of non-finite sets do no exist? Now you’re claiming that not only do they exist but Physics has to deal with them, by renormalization. Of course no one here expects you to actually understand renormalization or to have actually read the article you just linked.
 
doronshadmi said:
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.
Click to expand...


So you simply choose to impose your thoughts upon that level? Since you claim to be thinking about or defining that ‘level of existence where thoughts do not exist’ then again you are claiming that anything you think or define about that level has no relevance to that level since it results from your thoughts and explicitly not that level itself. You can try all the circular, terminology and obfuscating dodges you want, but it all just comes down to you claiming to do what you specifically claim you can not do.
 
The Man said:
So this example actually goes against your notion of (0,∞) being symmetrical
Click to expand...

Indeed after 2400 posts you clearly show that you do not understand OM, and how parallel AND serial thinking styles are used by it.

The reason is simple, you cannot reason in parallel (EDIT: In order to do it, you at least have to be aware of yourself as a source of your thoughts (which is not a thought)).
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Indeed after 2400 posts you clearly show that you do not understand OM, and how parallel AND serial thinking styles are used by it.

The reason is simple, you cannot reason in parallel.
Click to expand...

If by “reason in parallel” you mean ‘simply accept Doron’s self-contradictory notions’, then why would anyone want to? Especially considering that you do not even want to accept your own notions as you continue to contradict them and yourself.
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
Since you claim to be thinking about or defining that ‘level of existence where thoughts do not exist’ then again you are claiming that anything you think or define about that level has no relevance to that level since it results from your thoughts and explicitly not that level itself.
Click to expand...

It is most relevant to the existence of our thoughts, because without the interaction between the totally weak AND the totally strong, we, as thinking definers AND researchers, do not exists.

In other words, A or B are essential for C existence, even is they are not researchable on their own. Things exist (wether they are abstract ot not) even if they are not researchable, and this is something that you don't get because you are not aware of yourself as the source of your thoughts (which is not a thought).

You are unable to get OM exactly because you do not get yourself as the invariant source of your thoughts (which is not a thought).
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
If by “reason in parallel” you mean ‘simply accept Doron’s self-contradictory notions’, then why would anyone want to? Especially considering that you do not even want to accept your own notions as you continue to contract them and yourself.
Click to expand...

No, rason in parallel is superposition of identities as a first-order property of REI.

Your reasoning is limited to the step-by-step serial-only thinking style as a frist-order property.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
No, rason in parallel is superposition of identities as a first-order property of REI.
Click to expand...

Right, so it is simply accepting your self contradictory notions like your ‘REI’ and the word salad you posted above. I suppose we should all be thankful that it was the diet Doron salad this time.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
It is most relevant to the existence of our thoughts, because without the interaction between the totally weak AND the totally strong, we, as thinking definers AND researchers, do not exists.

In other words, A or B are essential for C existence, even is they are not researchable on their own. Things exist (wether ther are abstract ot not) even if they are not researchable, and this is something that you don't get because you are not aware of yourself as the source of your thoughts (which is not a thought).

You are unable to get OM exactly because you do not get yourself as the invariant source of your thoughts (which is not a thought).
Click to expand...

Doron you do not even know what you are thinking about first it was “I am thinking about (defining) a level of existence where thoughts do not exist” Now it’s “the existence of our thoughts”. Again “the totally weak AND the totally strong,” as a state or level where “we, as thinking definers AND researchers, do not exists” is just you imposing you thoughts on that level where you claim “thoughts do not exist” and thus has no relevance to that level since it results from your thoughts and explicitly not that level itself.
 
The Man said:
Doron you do not even know what you are thinking about first it was “I am thinking about (defining) a level of existence where thoughts do not exist” Now it’s “the existence of our thoughts”. Again “the totally weak AND the totally strong,” as a state or level where “we, as thinking definers AND researchers, do not exists” is just you imposing you thoughts on that level where you claim “thoughts do not exist” and thus has no relevance to that level since it results from your thoughts and explicitly not that level itself.
Click to expand...

This reply is a good example of what I am talking about.

At the level of the awareness of yourself no thought exists and nothing is researchable.

Furthermore, you aware of yourself as the definition of itself, where this definition is not a thought about yourself, but it simply the awareness of yourself to itself without any thought.

Without this simple thoughtless self-awareness, you are unable to get OM.
 
The Man said:
So tell us Doron how does one demonstrate that something exists which they claim they can not research?
Click to expand...

Know yourself as the source of your thoughts (which is the awareness without thoughts).


EDIT:

People along history that got it, described it as simultaneously the most intimate (local) experience AND the most non-personal (non-local) experience, and this is exactly REI.
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
Again Doron you do no get it (still) or you would not find it necessary to always contradict yourself.
Click to expand...

The contradiction is in the mind that tries to be aware of the source of his thoughts, by using thoughts.
 
doronshadmi said:
Know yourself as the source of your thoughts (which is the awareness without thoughts).


EDIT:

People along history that got it, described it as simultaneously the most intimate (local) experience AND the most non-personal (non-local) experience, and this is exactly REI.
Click to expand...

Well since you obviously ignored or misunderstood the question I'll repeat it


The Man said:
So tell us Doron how does one demonstrate that something exists which they claim they can not research?
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom