Deeper than primes

[zooterkin]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4702525&postcount=2777 is the exact answer to your question.

I see that 'exact' is another word you have chosen to redefine.

Let's see. The post you refer to is:

Do you see how I defined Redundancy and Uncertainty in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4694499&postcount=2733 ?

If an element has Redundancy = 1 and Uncertainty = 1 , then it has a crisp id.

For example, each element of the last form of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4694499&postcount=2733 has a crisp id.

So, another indirection. That post referred to has a big image, for some reason, even for the text. The definitions are:

Let redundancy be more then (sic) one copy of the same value can be found.

Let uncertainty be more than one unique value can be found.

So, how does something you have apparently defined as a quality of something get a value of 1? A worked example would help. Give two examples of numbers with a crisp id, and some without.

 

[doronshadmi]

So, how does something you have apparently defined as a quality of something get a value of 1? A worked example would help. Give two examples of numbers with a crisp id, and some without.

quality of something ???

No, whole number's value cannot be more than the sum of the parts.

0 means "no parts".

∞ means "greater than any sum of the parts" (what I call "The Whole").

Here is an example:

A crisp element is any element that has a unique color.

A non-crisp element is any element that has a white color (all the colors together).

 

[zooterkin]

A crisp element is any element that has a unique color.

A non-crisp element is any element that has a white color (all the colors together).

Sorry, I really have no idea what those rainbows represent. I don't know what one element in that picture is. Can you give an example of one element, and show what its crisp id is?

 

[The Man]

Here the insider cannot get the notion of the intermediate level of existence as the result of the interaction between the Whole (string) and the Part (bead).

Furthermore, he does not get the concept of Many and how this concept is possible iff each bead has an interaction with the string.

By this interaction we get the concept of Sum.

The answer to the question "the parts of what?" is "the parts of the sum!".

By OM, the Whole is greater than the sum of the Parts, exactly because the existence of the string is independent of the existence of each bead or any sum of the beads.

Insiders can't get this beauty, and force their Weak or Standard Strong Emergence Reasoning up to ignorance.

A whole lot of blathering and an extremely ‘weak’ answer to a very simple question.

“the parts of the sum” you say, would that be the whole sum or just some part of that whole sum?

As usual Doron is simply confused about the meaning of ‘whole’ and somehow ascribes this to his imaginary ‘fullness’.

By Donor’s own assertions above his ‘sum’ is only a result of his ‘interaction’ between his ‘whole’ and his ‘parts’ making his ‘whole’, his ‘parts’ and his ‘interaction’ all just parts of his ‘sum’. Apparently Doron understands the meaning of the word ‘parts’ as poorly as he does the meaning of the word ‘whole’ or even his own expressed interpretation of the word ‘sum’. The only ‘beauty’ in Dorons notions is the comedic beauty of watching him run around is circles chasing his own tail thinking he is catching something ‘greater then the sum of’ his head and his keister.

So was that the last last time you will reply to my posts or can we expect a last last last time later?


ETA:

In addition to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4702337&postcount=2773 , any one (insiders are excluded) enables to get that no sum of . (the mininal existence of the Part) things is a ____ thing (the mininal existence of the Whole).

For example: ... _._._._ ... (no matter how many . are on _____ , they cannot be _____).

And you know this because you claim you can not research them separately? All you are claiming is that you are just making crap up about your ‘parts’ independent of your ‘whole’ because you claim you can not research them independently.

Here the insider can't get the exact and specific difference between any sum of . (Parts) and ______ (the Whole) as can be clearly seen by the difference between NXOR and XOR connectives ( http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OMPT.pdf , page 29 ).

Ok so that was the last last last last time doron will reply to me.

 

[jsfisher]

Here is some example of a person that forces Weak Emergence Reasoning or Standard Strong Emergence Reasoning, on the Non-Standard Strong Emergence Reasoning of OM.

Yeah, we know. These are the latest cool terms you have stumbled across. Too bad you have no idea what they mean, but they do sound so cool, don't they?

Still, you are blaming the whole world for your failure. Stop that. Accept some responsibility for your own actions, will you, please?

 

[doronshadmi]

Yeah, we know. These are the latest cool terms you have stumbled across. Too bad you have no idea what they mean, but they do sound so cool, don't they?

Still, you are blaming the whole world for your failure. Stop that. Accept some responsibility for your own actions, will you, please?

“the parts of the sum” you say, would that be the whole sum or just some part of that whole sum?

The insider simply can't get that The Whole > Sum of the Parts.

The rest of what he says is derived from the inability to get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4702737&postcount=2780 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4702871&postcount=2782 .

And you know this because you claim you can not research them separately? All you are claiming is that you are just making crap up about your ‘parts’ independent of your ‘whole’ because you claim you can not research them independently.

Here the insider can't get the exact meaning of "Mutual Independence", which is not totally Mutual AND not totally Independent (it is an anti-entropic realm that is not total by nature and therefore researchable), (please see http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OMPT.pdf , pages 25-30).


EDIT:

Generally the insider can't distinguish between the total AND non-researchable and the non-total AND researchable.

 

[doronshadmi]

Sorry, I really have no idea what those rainbows represent.

uniqueness = crisp id

 

[zooterkin]

uniqueness = crisp id

Uniqueness of what? What is the crisp id?

 

[Typicallucas]

Notion #1:

If we use partitions in order to define Entropy, then a multiset (a repetition of the same identity) has an entropy that is equivalent to the number of the repetitions that exists within it.

Is there a reason why this is in "Religion and Philosophy" question mark.

 

[Typicallucas]

uniqueness = crisp id

Judging from this quote I think I might know you. Do you live in Bakersfield, CA?

 

[doronshadmi]

Is there a reason why this is in "Religion and Philosophy" question mark.

Why not?

 

[doronshadmi]

Judging from this quote I think I might know you. Do you live in Bakersfield, CA?

No.

 

[doronshadmi]

Uniqueness of what? What is the crisp id?

Of each element.

 

[zooterkin]

Of each element.

Why don't you answer all the questions?

 

[doronshadmi]

Please look at this link:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_originated_the_phrase_'The_whole_is_greater_than_the_sum_of_its_parts'

"Additional attribution -- Kurt Koffka: "It has been said: The whole is more than the sum of its parts. It is more correct to say that the whole is something else than the sum of its parts, because summing up is a meaningless procedure, whereas the whole-part relationship is meaningful." (Kurt Koffka, 1935: New York: Harcourt-Brace. p 176) [emphasis added]

On that view, "more than" does not mean that the whole is "greater" than the sum of its parts but that it is more than merely the sum of its parts.

There is another option where the Whole is greater than the sum of the Parts if the magnitude of existence of the Whole is greater than the magnitude of existence of a collection, where no sum of Parts has the magnitude of existence of the Whole, exactly as any sum of Parts has a magnitude of existence that is greater than Nothing.

So we get Whole > Sum of existing Parts > Nothing, that can be understood as different qualities of existence that cannot be equal (for example Whole = the Sum of existing Parts is impossible exactly as the Sum of existing Parts = Nothing is impossible).

For example:

_____ = Whole

... _._._._ ... = Sum of existing Parts.

There can be any non-finite sum of . interacted with _______ and still |______| > |... _._._._ ...|

 

[The Man]

The insider simply can't get that The Whole > Sum of the Parts.

The rest of what he says is derived from the inability to get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4702737&postcount=2780 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4702871&postcount=2782 .

Well, we are still waiting for you to show “The Whole > Sum of the Parts” mathematically in your ‘mathematical theory of strong emergence’.

Here the insider can't get the exact meaning of "Mutual Independence", which is not totally Mutual AND not totally Independent (it is an anti-entropic realm that is not total by nature and therefore researchable), (please see http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OMPT.pdf , pages 25-30).

‘Anti-entropic realm’? Another Doronophrase bound to be one of your classics. So tell us Doron why does entropy only seem to increase in your ‘anti-entropic realm’? Some math would be preferable to a bad analogy that actually goes against your claim.

EDIT:

Generally the insider can't distinguish between the total AND non-researchable and the non-total AND researchable.

Quite the contrary, we certainly can and do distinguish between what one claims they can research and what they claim they can not. When are you going to be able to make that distinction?

So is this the last last last last last last last time you will reply to my posts?

 

[doronshadmi]

Well, we are still waiting for you to show “The Whole > Sum of the Parts” mathematically in your ‘mathematical theory of strong emergence’.



‘Anti-entropic realm’? Another Doronophrase bound to be one of your classics. So tell us Doron why does entropy only seem to increase in your ‘anti-entropic realm’? Some math would be preferable to a bad analogy that actually goes against your claim.



Quite the contrary, we certainly can and do distinguish between what one claims they can research and what they claim they can not. When are you going to be able to make that distinction?

So is this the last last last last last last last time you will reply to my posts?

Here the insider shows again his inability to think beyond Whole = Sum of Parts.

"Whole = Sum of Parts" is the only reasoning that he can get.

 

[The Man]

Here the insider shows again his inability to think beyond Whole = Sum of Parts.

"Whole = Sum of Parts" is the only reasoning that he can get.

Here we see Doron’s propensity to simply label people and then deal strictly with that label as opposed to actually addressing what has been said. We also see here Doron’s fundamental trait of not adhering to the assertions he has made (like not replying to my posts) and, as noted by jsfisher, Doron's inability to accept or even tolerate criticism. So strong is this compulsion that he has continued to respond to my post in spite of his assertion that he would not. You will also see here Doron’s typical evasive, obfuscating and self-deceptive word games by addressing the ‘insider’ as opposed to me directly when responding to my posts. Thus, at least it seems that in his mind, making his responses to my post not actually responses to my post since he does not refer to me directly.

 

[doronshadmi]

Here we see Doron’s propensity to simply label people and then deal strictly with that label as opposed to actually addressing what has been said. We also see here Doron’s fundamental trait of not adhering to the assertions he has made (like not replying to my posts) and, as noted by jsfisher, Doron's inability to accept or even tolerate criticism. So strong is this compulsion that he has continued to respond to my post in spite of his assertion that he would not. You will also see here Doron’s typical evasive, obfuscating and self-deceptive word games by addressing the ‘insider’ as opposed to me directly when responding to my posts. Thus, at least it seems that in his mind, making his responses to my post not actually responses to my post since he does not refer to me directly.

Here the insider tries to cover his inability to get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4705491&postcount=2795 .

 

[jsfisher]

Here the insider tries to cover his inability to get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4705491&postcount=2795 .

Dodging all the real issues, still, I see; substituting insult for reason. How many people do you convince with this strategy, Doron?

So far, including yourself, of course, I believe the total count has reached exactly one. You must be very proud. At least you can say you haven't lost any followers, yet.