Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
sympathic said:
I think proper communication skills are far more important for creating a peaceful atmosphere among human beings. In fact I think you should start by teaching English in your kindergarten. It is far more fundamental than OM.
Click to expand...
A very good point, and ironically this thread makes very clear that either the proponents of OM don't have the communication skills, or that the principles of OM itself are extremely difficult to communicate.

Most of all, the proponents have been unable to communicate any worked examples of OM in practice.

The claimed potential of OM is irrelevant if nobody knows how to use it, or what to do with it.
 
Last edited:
sympathic said:
I think proper communication skills are far more important for creating a peaceful atmosphere among human beings. In fact I think you should start by teaching English in your kindergarten. It is far more fundamental than OM.
Click to expand...

Yes, I can remember that when I was in kindergarten
there was a child his name was smpyhtica..
 
jsfisher said:
There was nothing extraordinarily fast about it. You reject a fundamental principle of Set Theory (namely union), and in so doing you reject Set Theory. Since Set Theory is at the very foundation of much of Mathematics, if you remove Set Theory (as you have done), you also remove everything built from that Set Theory foundation.

That was not a hasty conclusion. That is merely the simple and obvious consequence of your views.

Meanwhile, you have this organic numbers notion. It is built from ordinary numbers and arithmetic properties. However, since the numbers and Arithmetic are built on, guess what, Set Theory, your organic numbers lay in the same ruins as Set Theory.

That was also not a hasty conclusion. This is also merely the simple and obvious consequence of your views.
Click to expand...

I can easily prove the diagonal method of Cantor
but OM suggest much powerful tool then the Cardinals.
 
Little 10 Toes said:
I have never heard of the "language vision of Leibniz". Looking over one of the links you provided to another member, it appears it might be talking about encyclopedias (non-UK English spelling). Concerning about the war in this thread, I don't care.

Please provide an example of how an average citizen would use OM.
Click to expand...

Well ,Leibniz believe that most of the problems of the Human race are because we are using the wrong language.
 
This all sounds like "Snow Crash" from Stephenson...

Let me know when we get to namshubs etc. and brainstemhacking.
 
Hi Doron

I complete the draft that you gave me in Tel Aviv about the 4X4 matrices
here is the result :


(4,4,4,4)
(4,4,4,3)
(4,4,4,2)
(4,4,4,1)
(4,4,3,3)
(4,4,3,2)
(4,4,3,1)
(4,3,3,3)
(4,3,3,2)
(4,3,3,1)
(4,3,2,1)
(3,3,3,3)
(3,3,3,2)
(3,3,2,2)
(3,3,3,1)
(3,3,2,1)
(3,3,1,1)
(3,2,2,2)
(3,2,2,1)
(3,2,1,1)
(3,1,1,1)
(2,2,2,2)
(2,2,2,1)
(2,2,1,1)
(2,1,1,1)
(1,1,1,1)


Now we have to see the possibilities of distinctions of each one of them.

Moshe
 
The Man said:
No again it dose not answer my question, you had said previously that ordering distinctions are significant in serial observation and not in parallel and I see no problems in that association. However this does not answer the question as to why ordering distinctions and significant serial observations are excluded. Particularly in a “framework” claimed to be focused on distinction. If you do not know why or it is simply something arbitral ascribed by Doron, then just say so. You seem to want me to assume why they are excluded as opposed to directly saying either why, that you simply do not know or that it is just what Doron wanted. If you insist that I assume what you will not directly say, then the only thing that I will assume is that you simply don’t know what you are talking about.




OK now you’re making that last assumption look like the correct one.

Why would the “universe” require OM “to became aware to it self”?

How do you know the “universe” is ready “to became aware to it self”?

Do you have any way of determining if the universe is currently “aware to it self”, if it has always been “aware to it self”, if it needs OM to be “aware to it self”, if it even can be “aware to it self” or is “OM preset the possibility of the entire universe to became aware to it self” just some grandiose, esoteric, spiritual and essentially meaningless thing to say to make OM sound ‘universally’ significant?




Riding my motorcycle, playing the bagpipes, movies, music and theoretical physics, oh and discussing issues on this forum. Why do you ask?
Click to expand...


Hi Man

Thank you for sharing about you hobbies - nice indeed.
Concerned sciences , since you declare in this forum
that you see a line as made of points
I really can't see any value to the discussion between us.
You see, we are living in two different universe.

I am sorry
Moshe
 
Last edited:
At this juncture, it may be worth trying to clear up some vocabulary issues. Just as distinction is neither first-order nor a property, these so-called organic numbers are neither organic nor numbers.

Well, that's not completely true. They are numbers, of course, but not in the sense the integers are numbers. The latter form a complete number system while the former are more like Fibonacci numbers, but without their utility.

Given the ties between observed and observer, I'd think biological a better term than organic. And just like for Fibonacci where sequence is the more apt term, the so-called organic numbers are more correctly dubbed the biological sequence, or BS.

Doron has been unable to define for us his terms, local and non-local. That's really neither here nor there, because it is still evident these local\non-local interactions are BS at their essence.

As for organic math...er, I mean biological mathematics, we have been told of its ties to the biological sequence many times. So many times, in fact, has this been uttered, it becomes obvious that BM is utter BS. That is almost tautological if you think about it.

Finally, as both Doronshadmi and Mosheklein agree, set theory is not BS.
 
MosheKlein said:
Hi Doron

I complete the draft that you gave me in Tel Aviv about the 4X4 matrices
here is the result :


(4,4,4,4)
(4,4,4,3)
(4,4,4,2)
(4,4,4,1)
(4,4,3,3)
(4,4,3,2)
(4,4,3,1)
(4,3,3,3)
(4,3,3,2)
(4,3,3,1)
(4,3,2,1)
(3,3,3,3)
(3,3,3,2)
(3,3,2,2)
(3,3,3,1)
(3,3,2,1)
(3,3,1,1)
(3,2,2,2)
(3,2,2,1)
(3,2,1,1)
(3,1,1,1)
(2,2,2,2)
(2,2,2,1)
(2,2,1,1)
(2,1,1,1)
(1,1,1,1)


Now we have to see the possibilities of distinctions of each one of them.

Moshe
Click to expand...

No you don't, for example you have missed (4,4,2,2),(4,2,2,2), ... and more.
 
doronshadmi said:
No you don't, for example you have missed (4,4,2,2),(4,2,2,2), ... and more.
Click to expand...

Geez, guys, this is not tough stuff. You are just counting in base 4 using the symbols 1, 2, 3, and 4.

ETA: If there are ordering considerations that make some of those duplicates, this is still not tough stuff....
 
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
Doron has been unable to define for us his terms, local and non-local. That's really neither here nor there, because it is still evident these local\non-local interactions are BS at their essence.
Click to expand...
jsfisher can't get Non-locality\Locality because he unables to use direct perception. As a result he stacked at the verbal-only level, and form this non-fundamental level, OM is BS, gibberish, meaningless, cranky, … and more blab la bla verbal-only definitions. But this is jsfisher's cognitive limitation and not OM's problem (for example, he can't get that his verbal-only level is based on ___\. , and not vise versa).

jsfisher said:
Finally, as both Doronshadmi and Mosheklein agree, set theory is not BS
Click to expand...
No, we agree that ZFC set theory or any alternative set theory that is not based on Non-locality\Locality, is fundamentally limited because it is not based on direct perception.

In general, jsfisher can't grasp http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4871865&postcount=4330 (he gets it as *bump*).
 
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
Geez, guys, this is not tough stuff. You are just counting in base 4 using the symbols 1, 2, 3, and 4.

ETA: If there are ordering considerations that make some of those duplicates, this is still not tough stuff....
Click to expand...

I thought base 4 used 0,1,2 and 3...
 
realpaladin said:
I thought base 4 used 0,1,2 and 3...
Click to expand...

Those are the conventional digits, but you can use anything that suits the purpose. Since they wanted a 1,2,3,4 result, I named an alternate set of symbols for completeness. I could have said to count in base 4 but add 1 to each digit or any of several other variants, but they would get too wordy.
 
Little 10 Toes said:
Doronshadmi, perhaps you missed the first part of my post where I directed my post to MosheKlein, and not you? First word, "To"; second word, "MosheKlein".

But let's continue:

Really now? Last time I checked, I can't extract oxygen from my gills, nor extract water from the ground from my roots. I have tolerences to heat, cold, and pressure.
Click to expand...
So, what is your point?


Little 10 Toes said:
Please show how a domesticated cat uses OM. Please show how a plant uses OM. Please show how cancer uses OM. Your claim, you provide proof.

Open to anyone's responce:

Has doronshamdi defined: Complexity, Simplicity, Energy, Uncertainty, Redundancy
Click to expand...
Domesticated cat's day-by-day complex existence is the result of __\. associations, whether it is cognitively aware of it or not. This is exactly the beautiful thing about __\. associations, they work whether one is aware about them or not.

An intelligent complex system has the privilege to be aware of __\. associations and it is done only by awareness' direct perception. Any other level of understanding like verbal-only notions are already some particular results of __\. associations, and as particular results they do not provide the general notion of __\. associations that is achieved by direct perception of __\.
 
Last edited:
dlorde said:
A very good point, and ironically this thread makes very clear that either the proponents of OM don't have the communication skills, or that the principles of OM itself are extremely difficult to communicate.

Most of all, the proponents have been unable to communicate any worked examples of OM in practice.

The claimed potential of OM is irrelevant if nobody knows how to use it, or what to do with it.
Click to expand...

Well dlorde, let’s not forget…

doronshadmi said:
OM's aim is to find the simplest principle that enables living creatures to communicate with each other in such ways that reduce as much as possible destructive results of possible interactions.
Click to expand...

So the inability of OM proponents to simply communicate effectively and efficiently amongst their own species certainly does not bode well for the ability of OM to actually enable communication just for a group of people on the web, let alone meet its intended “aim”.
 
jsfisher said:
Those are the conventional digits, but you can use anything that suits the purpose. Since they wanted a 1,2,3,4 result, I named an alternate set of symbols for completeness. I could have said to count in base 4 but add 1 to each digit or any of several other variants, but they would get too wordy.
Click to expand...

Thanks. Following this almost year long thread is quite a heady affair as it is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom