Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
doronshadmi said:
Please try http://www.scribd.com/doc/16547236/EEM .
Click to expand...
If you could write readable, intelligible English, and bothered to proof-read your contributions, perhaps people could make some sense of them (although I seriously doubt it).

Examples:

There can be a lot of reasons of why L has a final value, but in our case the reason can be simply self-distraction of some civilization
Click to expand...
The ideal complex system is a one biosphere that has no external potential enemies
Click to expand...
Do you know what a biosphere is? why is it an 'ideal complex system'? and are these 'external potential' enemies little green men with ray-guns?
EEM's fundamental level is represented by half circles, where each half circle has no internal complexity: <string of semicircles here>
EEM's "friend"\"enemy" viewpoint is developed at the moment that at least two half circles are combined into a higher level of complexity, which enables it to distinguish between internal and external environments, and gives the reason to protect the internal complexity from potential external attacks
Click to expand...

It's laughable gibberish - why semicircles? What do they represent? How does concatenating two semicircles that have no internal complexity produce internal complexity or a 'higher level of complexity', or give the assembly the 'ability to distinguish' or 'reason to protect' anything?

But we must no forget that a complex system is a result of many levels of combined elements that exists between uncertainty and redundancy of each element's identity AND a unique function and identity of each element.
Click to expand...
:eye-poppi :boggled: :confused:

By using EEM we can see that there is no general agreement about Ethics, between the cultures of our civilization but on the same time there is the scientific method of exact sciences, that is not limited to any particular culture of our civilization and as a result our civilization enabled to develop powerful technologies, that nowadays has the actual power to destroy our civilization, exactly because there is no agreement about Ethics (EEM was not developed in our civilization).
Click to expand...
:covereyes :eek:
EEM language minimal aim is to reduce the abilities of scientists to develop technologies for self mass distraction, something that the current mathematics easily enables because of Ethics\Logics dichotomy.
Click to expand...
Giggle...
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Please show these typos
Click to expand...

dlorde has pointed some of them out, although I suspect I'm being charitable calling them typos.

But no, I won't do your proofreading for you. I've honestly tried to help you understand a few things in this thread, but most of the time you won't even accept you can be wrong, whether regarding maths or English.
 
zooterkin said:
dlorde has pointed some of them out, although I suspect I'm being charitable calling them typos.

But no, I won't do your proofreading for you. I've honestly tried to help you understand a few things in this thread, but most of the time you won't even accept you can be wrong, whether regarding maths or English.
Click to expand...

"up to" zooterkin, I do not need your help, as can be seen in the update of http://www.scribd.com/doc/16547236/EEM .
 
dlorde said:
It's laughable gibberish - why semicircles? What do they represent? How does concatenating two semicircles that have no internal complexity produce internal complexity or a 'higher level of complexity', or give the assembly the 'ability to distinguish' or 'reason to protect' anything?
Click to expand...

The semicircles represent the non-copmosed (atomic) building-blocks of some system.

dlorde said:
Do you know what a biosphere is? why is it an 'ideal complex system'? and are these 'external potential' enemies little green men with ray-guns?
Click to expand...
I have changed it to ecosystem.

In our case the little green men with ray-guns is us.
 
Last edited:
Hm... doron, I think you're going to need some help developing your ideas and your communications skills. Judging from what I could understand of your papers, you seem to have some interesting ideas but your communication style is hard to follow and you've picked a pretty rough crowd to present your theories to.

I suggest you and a bunch of trusted friends get together and polish up your work. Get feedback from individuals you know and who's opinions you respect. Once you've developed your ideas and presentation well enough you should be able to present them to a wider audience, maybe even have them published. Don't let the negative reception here discourage you :)
 
AkuManiMani said:
Hm... doron, I think you're going to need some help developing your ideas and your communications skills. Judging from what I could understand of your papers, you seem to have some interesting ideas but your communication style is hard to follow and you've picked a pretty rough crowd to present your theories to.

I suggest you and a bunch of trusted friends get together and polish up your work. Get feedback from individuals you know and who's opinions you respect. Once you've developed your ideas and presentation well enough you should be able to present them to a wider audience, maybe even have them published. Don't let the negative reception here discourage you :)
Click to expand...

AkuManiMani,

Thank you for your kind words.

One work on this subject (the QM aspect of it) was published by IJPAM (please see Moshe Klein, Doron Shadmi: Organic Mathematics, International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics, volume 49 No. 3 2008, 329-340
http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/IJPAM-OM.pdf )

Two days ago my colleague Moshe Klein gave a lecture about OM ( please see http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4817367&postcount=3738 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4817795&postcount=3743 ) after that he called me and said that people were very interested.

As for this forum or any other forum in the internet, I developed my work exactly because I exposed it to rough crowd for the past 5 years, because some of them have both the knowledge and the motivation to criticize my work.

For an analogy, let us take for example pure carbon.

It appears in nature both as graphite or as a diamond, but in order to get a diamond you need the extreme conditions and high atmosphere that can be found in the depths of the Earth.

From my experience, without rough environment your notions can't demonstrate their strength and can't be really developed.

It is not an easy task, but (as I see it) real development must not avoid rough environments.

( by the way, I'v just fixed http://www.scribd.com/doc/16547236/EEM )
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
As for this forum or any other forum in the internet, I developed my work exactly because I exposed it to rough crowd for the past 5 years, because some of them have both the knowledge and the motivation to criticize my work.

For an analogy, let us take for example pure carbon.

It appears in nature both as graphite or as a diamond, but in order to get a diamond you need the extreme conditions and high atmosphere that can be found in the depths of the Earth.

From my experience, without rough environment your notions can't demonstrate their strength and can't be really developed.

It is not an easy task, but (as I see it) real development must not avoid rough environments.
Click to expand...

I agree. I get my best thinking done when I'm in debate mode. Good luck on developing your ideas and I hope they make an impact :)
 
doronshadmi said:
The semicircles represent the non-copmosed (atomic) building-blocks of some system.
Click to expand...
Presumably you mean a biological system, since you suggest that it can distinguish between internal and external and has reason to protect the internal complexity from external attack. So is it safe to say these 'atomic' building-blocks are cells? If so, why not just say you're talking about multicellular organisms, and make it clear?

I have changed it to ecosystem.
In our case the little green men with ray-guns is us.
Click to expand...
So you're saying we're potentially enemies of some ecosystem(s)? I don't think many people would argue with that, but why dress it up in such opaque and impenetrable language?

I don't have time to decode all your arcane article, but if it means anything at all, it seems to be mundane stuff presented as hallucinatory fantasy. Sadly, if by chance you do have something interesting to say, no-one is ever likely to find out - they won't make sense of it, or they'll misunderstand or misinterpret it, or won't read past the first paragraph. This is what causes the suspicion that it is just pretentious nonsense deliberately presented to appear portentious. The mangling of the English language alone is enough to raise suspicion of a clever satire, but 'content' is too humourless for that.

This idea of us not being able to understand your insights without making some kind of 'paradigm shift' in thinking to 'parallel thinking' is pointless and absurd. Either you can explain what you're talking about so that people in this forum can understand it, or you can't. Most posters here seem to be smart and literate, they should at least be able to understand the concepts, if not the details - the problem isn't with them. The unfortunate truth is that you have been unable to convince anyone that this stuff is even rational.

If you want to recover any credibility, you need to find a way to explain what you're talking about so people can understand it - assuming there's any meaningful content to understand.
 
dlorde said:
Presumably you mean a biological system, since you suggest that it can distinguish between internal and external and has reason to protect the internal complexity from external attack. So is it safe to say these 'atomic' building-blocks are cells? If so, why not just say you're talking about multicellular organisms, and make it clear?
Click to expand...
I am talking here about both physical and abstract manifestations of Complexity as a one inseparable phenomenon. For example both physical body's and social\cultural complexities are taken as two aspects of a one and only one comprehensive phenomenon.

dlorde said:
So you're saying we're potentially enemies of some ecosystem(s)? I don't think many people would argue with that, but why dress it up in such opaque and impenetrable language?
Click to expand...
Opaque and impenetrable is in the eyes of the reader in this case, because the half-circles model is essentially simple and straightforward (a lot of force is needed in order to not get its beautiful simplicity).
PTR.jpg


dlorde said:
I don't have time to decode all your arcane article, but if it means anything at all, it seems to be mundane stuff presented as hallucinatory fantasy.
Click to expand...
You don't have the time exactly because you force unnecessary complications on simple models like the half-circles model.

dlorde said:
Sadly, if by chance you do have something interesting to say, no-one is ever likely to find out - they won't make sense of it, or they'll misunderstand or misinterpret it, or won't read past the first paragraph. This is what causes the suspicion that it is just pretentious nonsense deliberately presented to appear portentious. The mangling of the English language alone is enough to raise suspicion of a clever satire, but 'content' is too humourless for that.
Click to expand...
Sadly there are to much complicated minds in our word that have lost their abilities to get simple and straightforward models or analogies, as inseparable factor of their understanding.

dlorde said:
This idea of us not being able to understand your insights without making some kind of 'paradigm shift' in thinking to 'parallel thinking' is pointless and absurd.
Click to expand...
You did not get the half-circles model, so what I claim here is not an absurd, but it is a painful reality, and you are a living example of it.

dlorde said:
Either you can explain what you're talking about so that people in this forum can understand it, or you can't.
Click to expand...
You are wrong, we need two for tango.

dlorde said:
Most posters here seem to be smart and literate, they should at least be able to understand the concepts, if not the details - the problem isn't with them. The unfortunate truth is that you have been unable to convince anyone that this stuff is even rational.
Click to expand...
We are talking here about around 15-20 people that clearly share "if A then B" reasoning as the one and only one legitimate thinking style. Since OM is not limited only to "if A then B" reasoning, there cannot be any agreement between this group and me.

dlorde said:
If you want to recover any credibility, you need to find a way to explain what you're talking about so people can understand it - assuming there's any meaningful content to understand.
Click to expand...
1) I am doing my best all along this very long thread, but the other side of this tango does not do even the slightest move beyond its "if A then B" box.

2) If I am what you claim I am (an ignorant crank with crooked language) then why this thread has more than 3800 posts and more than 60,000 viwes?
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
The semicircles represent the non-copmosed (atomic) building-blocks of some system.

<snip>
Click to expand...

doronshadmi said:
<snip>
[qimg]http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/PTR.jpg[/qimg]

<snip>
Click to expand...

So in order to show your “semicircles” as “non-copmosed (atomic) building-blocks of some system” you use a diagram that shows your “semicircles” as, well, composed and subdivided?
 
doronshadmi said:
No, the first level (the white one) is not composed or subdivided.

This time please do your best in order to get http://www.scribd.com/doc/16547236/EEM .
Click to expand...

Remember it is your “never ending tree”. That “first level” is just where you choose to stop doing your subdividing, but since it is a “never ending tree” the subdivision never does stop. You really do have no comprehension do you, neither of what you assert nor even just your own notions?
 
The Man said:
Remember it is your “never ending tree”. That “first level” is just where you choose to stop doing your subdividing, but since it is a “never ending tree” the subdivision never does stop. You really do have no comprehension do you, neither of what you assert nor even just your own notions?
Click to expand...
No, the first-level is exactly what it is, the first, and any other level (which is composed, where the compositions are marked by colors) is developed on top of it.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
2) If I am what you claim I am (an ignorant crank with crooked language) then why this thread has more than 3800 posts and more than 60,000 viwes?
Click to expand...
Please don't put words in my mouth. I have never claimed you were "an ignorant crank with crooked language". Perhaps it says more about your opinion of others that you think I did claim such a thing.

I did say that your posts raise "the suspicion that it is just pretentious nonsense deliberately presented to appear portentious", which is not the same thing at all.

The point remains that if you insist that to understand your ideas people must adopt a mode of thinking that you are unable to explain to them, you will continue to raise the same suspicions.
 
dlorde said:
The point remains that if you insist that to understand your ideas people must adopt a mode of thinking that you are unable to explain to them, you will continue to raise the same suspicions.
Click to expand...

The point remains exactly this: "if A then B" reasoning can't capture OM's reasoning, which clearly explained in http://www.scribd.com/doc/16542245/OMPT.

dlorde said:
I did say that your posts raise "the suspicion that it is just pretentious nonsense deliberately presented to appear portentious"
Click to expand...
Why do you think so? ( until now you did not say any meaningful thing about the content of http://www.scribd.com/doc/16547236/EEM )
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
So your "never ending tree", well, ends?
Click to expand...
No, it is a non-finite tree that has an atomic building-block and if you are going to ask if I mean to a composed atom or a non-composed atom, then first go climb a tree and stay there.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom