Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
I confess that I'm a "verbal thinker."
So much so that I know how to manipulate my feelings with choice of words and am a master of disassociation. :D

But Doron's odd vocabulary always pulls the rug out from under me.

Here:
http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OMDP.pdf
however, he does illustrate his "direct perception" with a diagram worthy of Zeno of Elea, and any proponent of Intuitionist Mathematics.

Look at his Ford circles. Between each are yet smaller circles shrinking to points. The points keep getting smaller smaller, but there are always gaps between them in a never ending process.
So, the line is never, ever covered with the points.

QED

Seeing is believing, or in this case not believing in the Euclidian concept of points and lines.

Yes, there must follow the centuries old discussion about the subtlties and paradoxes of mathematical infinity.
Doron prefers sweeping all of that off the table.
Instead of points on a line, his concept of number is a fractal "Tree of Life."

So, there's what's to be the "direct perception." (or one of them.)
It just loses any notice when the hideous verbage rushes right at you and knocks you unconscious.
 
Last edited:
Apathia said:
I confess that I'm a "verbal thinker."
So much so that I know how to manipulate my feelings with choice of words and am a master of disassociation. :D

But Doron's odd vocabulary always pulls the rug out from under me.

Here:
http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OMDP.pdf
however, he does illustrate his "direct perception" with a diagram worthy of Zeno of Elea, and any proponent of Intuitionist Mathematics.

Look at his Ford circles. Between each are yet smaller circles shrinking to points. The points keep getting smaller smaller, but there are always gaps between them in a never ending process.
So, the line is never, ever covered with the points.

QED

Seeing is believing, or in this case not believing in the Euclidian concept of points and lines.

Yes, there must follow the centuries old discussion about the subtlties and paradoxes of mathematical infinity.
Doron prefers sweeping all of that off the table.
Instead of points on a line, his concept of number is a fractal "Tree of Life."

So, there's what's to be the "direct perception." (or one of them.)
It just loses any notice when the hideous verbage rushes right at you and knocks you unconscious.
Click to expand...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4871865&postcount=4330
 
doronshadmi said:
Direct perception is its own example, it does not need any further bla bla bla ...
Click to expand...
So you say. You seem unable to prove it.

doronshadmi said:
Giving or not giving a name to something does not change its existence.
Click to expand...
Giving or not giving a name to something imaginary does not change its existence.

doronshadmi said:
The existence of _____ element or . element, and the fact that ____ is not made or defined by any amount of . elements, is a direct perception fact that is not chaneged by any bla bla bla … verbal expressions.
Click to expand...
Yes, but you do understand the following I hope:

- Any perception is a representation of reality.
- Quantum Mechanics states that there *is* a smallest *thing* (no verbal blabla)

Therefore your _______ element *has* to consist of . elements at some level or else you can not perceive it.

You are caught up in the imperfection and coarseness of your own human body. Therefore you *think* you perceive directly while you are doing nowhere near so.

You do not perceive directly.
 
doronshadmi said:
In order to understand better ___\. and QM, please read http://www.livecity.co.il/image/users/112431/ftp/my_files/IJPAM-OM.pdf .
Click to expand...

Ok, I did. It has a few logical fallacies and it does contain too many 'in our view' and 'in our opinion'.

I would not accept this at all as any kind of proof. In fact I will not.

If you can rewrite it without the errors upon which your work seems to be depending, we can have a discussion.

But before that, come on, you do not expect yourself to be taken seriously with such glaring errors, right?
 
realpaladin said:
Ok, I did. It has a few logical fallacies and it does contain too many 'in our view' and 'in our opinion'.

I would not accept this at all as any kind of proof. In fact I will not.

If you can rewrite it without the errors upon which your work seems to be depending, we can have a discussion.

But before that, come on, you do not expect yourself to be taken seriously with such glaring errors, right?
Click to expand...
Please show the logical fallacies.
 
doronshadmi said:
Please show the logical fallacies.
Click to expand...

Are you nuts or are you just lazy?

You know what? If you can not find them, I will just wait until you are silly enough to try and get these papers published, then I will tear you apart.

What the heck are you thinking? Wasting a lot of people's time here with something that has fundamental flaws in it.

Go ahead, I will not discuss any further, I will wait until you have spent enough of your life's time to think you are done. And then I will point to those two oh so small but glaring and obvious errors.

See ya! Would not want to be ya!
 
Apathia said:
Here:
http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OMDP.pdf
however, he does illustrate his "direct perception" with a diagram worthy of Zeno of Elea, and any proponent of Intuitionist Mathematics.

Look at his Ford circles. Between each are yet smaller circles shrinking to points. The points keep getting smaller smaller, but there are always gaps between them in a never ending process.
So, the line is never, ever covered with the points.

QED
Click to expand...

The Ford Circles correspond only to the rational numbers, so there should be no expectation the tangent points would "cover" the real line. Still, I agree it is a good example, but for a different reason than you were thinking. It shows how Doron's "direct perception" can lead to false conclusions.

"Direct perception" from the diagram leads to the incorrect conclusion there would always be gaps. In fact, the rationals are everywhere dense, so there are no gaps. But after correcting for this mis-perception, "direct perception" leads to another incorrect conclusion that the rationals cover the real line.

"Direct perception" of the Cantor Set might lead you to believe it contains fewer points than there are real numbers, but it doesn't.

"Direct perception" of a space-filling curve might lead you to believe it doesn't really cover the entire space, but it does.


Doron's "direct perception" gambit is a cop-out. He's trying to deny his inability to explain things by shifting the burden to everyone else. What he won't admit, ever, is that his inability is a direct result of the contradictions and inconsistencies built into his notions.
 
jsfisher said:
The Ford Circles correspond only to the rational numbers, so there should be no expectation the tangent points would "cover" the real line. Still, I agree it is a good example, but for a different reason than you were thinking. It shows how Doron's "direct perception" can lead to false conclusions.

"Direct perception" from the diagram leads to the incorrect conclusion there would always be gaps.
Click to expand...

jsfisher, you do not understand a single word of what is written in page 3 of http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OMDP.pdf .

You continue to spread your lies about OM.

realpaladin ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4872943&postcount=4390 ) is waiting to you, you are in a good company.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
You are incorrect in that conclusion. No surprise, though.
Click to expand...

I am correct in that conclusion, and you continue to spead you lies ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4872949&postcount=4391 ) about what is really written in page 3 of http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OMDP.pdf.

jsfisher said:
"Direct perception" from the diagram leads to the incorrect conclusion there would always be gaps.
Click to expand...

This is not how direct perception is used, in order to understand the real-line, and in page 3 of http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OMDP.pdf the all 3 types (whole, rational and irrational numbers) are concidered, and not just the rational numbers (as you spread in your lies).

jsfisher you have reached the bottom. Game is over for you.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
I am correct in that conclusion, and you continue to spead you lies ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4872949&postcount=4391 )
Click to expand...

Careful, there, Doronshadmi. Just yesterday you received not one but two moderator infractions in part for calling me a liar. You see, the thing is you need to be able to back the claim up with facts. So, please, educate us all: Where did I lie? Two examples should be sufficient you meet your "lies" (plural) claim.

If you can't support your claim, guess what that makes you?

...about what is really written in page 3 of http://www.livecity.co.il/image/users/112431/ftp/my_files/IJPAM-OM.pdf.
Click to expand...

Curiously, the document you cite begins at page 329.


jsfisher you have reached the bottom. Game is over for you.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you mean by this.
 
doronshadmi said:
A group of people that are limited to verbal-only notions and can't get that ___ element is not defined, made, etc ... by any amount of . elements.
Click to expand...
That is just poor logic. A group of people that doesn't follow your non-verbal notion of maths is not necessarily limited to verbal-only notions. In fact, I suspect quite a few of them have found themselves unable to verbalise their annoyance and frustration at the evasiveness you have shown in answering simple practical questions.

The sad fact is that this claimed great advance in maths whose goal is apparently to enable all creatures to communicate more effectively, has fallen at the first hurdle - after 9 months and 4500 messages, you have been quite unable to communicate it effectively to the very people you clearly feel it was most worth spending all that time and effort on.

Doesn't that give you a clue about how effective this system actually is?

How can it ever work if it's very proponents are unable to use it to communicate effectively with their fellow man? Of all people, you and Moshe should be able to use it effectively to achieve what you claim, but all we hear is you telling us that we're too limited to understand it - and you have some superior grasp of reality. But, of course, even if that is the case (and I don't think it is), your OM project would still be dead in the water as far as the goals you specified for it.

Still waiting for that worked example of OM in practice, by the way - even an idealised exemplar would help - although I think I understand why we haven't seen one.
 
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
Careful, there, Doronshadmi. Just yesterday you received not one but two moderator infractions in part for calling me a liar. You see, the thing is you need to be able to back the claim up with facts. So, please, educate us all: Where did I lie? Two examples should be sufficient you meet your "lies" (plural) claim.

If you can't support your claim, guess what that makes you?



Curiously, the document you cite begins at page 329.




I have no idea what you mean by this.
Click to expand...

Again,

jsfisher said:
"Direct perception" from the diagram leads to the incorrect conclusion there would always be gaps.
Click to expand...

This is not how direct perception is used, in order to understand the real-line, and in page 3 of http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OMDP.pdf the all 3 types (whole, rational and irrational numbers) are concidered, and not just the rational numbers ( as you spread in your lies about my work in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4872949&postcount=4391 ).

jsfisher you have reached the bottom. Game is over for you.

Go, run to the moderators and say to them that a call you a lier.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom