Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
Under forum rules I am not allowed to tell Moshe what he should or should not do. But were I Moshe I would now run for the hills.
 
realpaladin said:
What is wrong with you?

Ok. In step-by-step english:

1) Group/person A, sets up a theory and works out the necessary proof (i.e. sets up the necessary experimental/theoretical verification).

2) Group/person B (and C and D etc.) tries to replicate the results of group/person A by methods provided by person A.

If step 2 can not be succesfully completed, your theory is dead in the water.

How hard is this?

I am just saying, you are not getting step 2 done at the moment, so even if you *were* right, there is no *science* in your method, so it is worth *nothing*.

It does not matter one Iota if you can defend your theory against the world and then some if nobody else can do the same as you can.

If only you can do it, it is not *science*, it is woo.
Click to expand...

doronshadmi said:
What is wrong with you?

Why can't you (you will call yuorself I, but it is the same dircet perception) get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4876963&postcount=4471?
Click to expand...





That is Dorons notion of repeatability realpaladin, that he simply accepts or as he puts it ‘directly perceives’ his OM. Were you to simply accept or ‘directly perceive’ his OM or “get it” as he also often puts it, then the conditions required (simple acceptance) and the subsequent result (apparently, again, only simple acceptance) have been repeated. The actual scientific and philosophical notion of falsification never seems to enter Doron’s ‘direct perception’. However for others the self falsification of Doron’s OM is readily and directly perceivable.

Not to mention Doron’s propensity for editing post without noting the edit, as he has done again with this last post (unfortunately I did not quote it before the change).
 
Last edited:
realpaladin said:
That one is also extremely cool!

EDIT: Especially the reference to the fish and the probability again.

What does any of this have to do with *scientific methodology*?
Click to expand...

There is no probability in "the little fish and the water" story.

You simply did not get it.


Let us do something cooler:

---------------------------------------------------

Direct perception's concrete example

Direct perception is not a thought exactly as silence itself is not the thought "silence".

Thoughts are organized by direct perception.

Some example of organized thoughts:

"No amount of 0-dim elements can fully cover a 1-dim element"

_____ represents a non-finite 1-dim element.

• represents a single 0-dim element.

There are infinitely many • on _____

By using organized thoughts that are based on direct perception, it is shown that for any arbitrary • on _____ there is • < • < • , where < is possible for any amount of • on _____ exactly because no collection of • elements can fully cover _____

By using organized thoughts that are based on direct perception, we immediately conclude that no collection of 0-dim elements is complete (there are always uncovered domains along the 1-dim element, no matter how many 0-dim elements exist along the 1-dim element).

--------------------------------------------------

At the moment that you get that direct perception fact, a notion was replicated in your mind, and now it is in your mind an also in my mind.

Each time when this direct perception fact is replicated in more and more minds, a scientific proof, based on repitition, is given.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
At the moment that you get that direct perception fact, a notion was replicated in your mind, and now it is in your mind an also in my mind.

Each time when this direct perception fact is replicated in more and more minds, a scientific proof, based on repitition, is given.
Click to expand...

To paraphrase something from my hacking days:

"Your kung-woo is better than mine!"

So, at the moment it is failing miserably then?
 
doronshadmi said:
Why? just because you can't get yourself by direct perception (which is not a thought about yourself)?
Click to expand...

No, but because of the total inability of either of you to provide "even one minor practical use for organic mathematics".

It would be very easy for you to show me I'm wrong simply by providing "even one minor practical use for organic mathematics".

But you cannot, can you? Instead you bleat on about people not being able to "get" something or other.

Just one practical example. Show us.





ETA -

You've told us in the past that you cannot explain OM to us until we "get" it (whatever "it" is). Now given that -

1. You claim I "can't get [my]self by direct perception (which is not a thought about [my]self)".

2. "Direct perception" appears to be a fundamental part of OM.

3. You've previously admitted that you cannot explain OM to me unless I already "get" it.

Does this mean I'm immune to Organic Mathematics?
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
What do you wish to say that once mind does not belong to reality?
Click to expand...

No, that your theory fails miserably as the replication process does not work at all.

And please stop editing posts... think things through and press the 'Submit Reply' button only once.
 
doronshadmi said:
I am not a hacker.

What do you wish to say, that once mind does not belong to reality?
Click to expand...

The Matrix has been reloaded! I gave an answer before the post...

Randi! I claim the MDC!

But my answer is still the same... your theory is scientifically a failure as replication by others does not work.
 
Ow, and I just verified something...

So, how is it different from working with 'infinite sets' again?

They are well-described and for some reason seem to have a lot of properties and none of the failures in common with your theory....
 
The Man said:
That is Dorons notion of repeatability realpaladin, that he simply accepts or as he puts it ‘directly perceives’ his OM. Were you to simply accept or ‘directly perceive’ his OM or “get it” as he also often puts it, then the conditions required (simple acceptance) and the subsequent result (apparently, again, only simple acceptance) have been repeated. The actual scientific and philosophical notion of falsification never seems to enter Doron’s ‘direct perception’. However for others the self falsification of Doron’s OM is readily and directly perceivable.

Not to mention Doron’s propensity for editing post without noting the edit, as he has done again with this last post (unfortunately I did not quote it before the change).
Click to expand...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4877236&postcount=4496 .
 
realpaladin said:
Ow, and I just verified something...

So, how is it different from working with 'infinite sets' again?

They are well-described and for some reason seem to have a lot of properties and none of the failures in common with your theory....
Click to expand...

They are well-bla bla bla ... , no more.

Most of this bla bla bla ... vebal-only agreement is wrong, exactly because it is not organaized by direct perception.

The right notions are http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4877172&postcount=4486 .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom