Deeper than primes

[realpaladin]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4883977&postcount=4743

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4884105&postcount=4746

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4884082&postcount=4745

Random linkage 'r us????

 

[dlorde]

I suspect no one but Doron is qualified to speak of Organic Mathematics.

Already we've learned that MosheKlein's paper on OM missed the mark and is no longer "relevant."

OM is now "Direct Perception" and words are just "blau-blau."
(The OM that can be spoken isn't the OM.)
(The OM that can be demonstrated isn't The OM)

As I said previously (a little tongue-in-cheek), he's basically asking you to take it on faith (i.e. unthinking direct perception). Once you 'get' it (i.e. unthinkingly accept the presented 'fact'), you become an 'OM supporter'.

"Whereof one cannot speak thereof one must be silent".

 

[zooterkin]

Doron, you missed answering this:

I'll repeat the question you ignored:

So, you're using your own definitions for 'line' and 'point'. Care to share them?

A point is a local atom and contains exactly 0 points.

No, it means the it is divided into exactly 0 sub-apples.

So, you're using the word 'point' to mean two different things? A 'point' and a 'sub-point'? Wouldn't it be better to use two different words?

ETA: How long is the line on which the numbers in the following series appear: {1, 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16, 1/32, ... } ?

How do you measure length, in this case?

In units.

 

[realpaladin]

ETA: How long is the line on which the numbers in the following series appear: {1, 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16, 1/32, ... } ?

Doron, you missed answering this:

Missed that question. Thanks Zooterkin.

Well doron,

In math, your answer is lim(1), i.e. it approaches one, but never reaches it.

In physics, it is 1 - Plancks length (if you want to get into more detail, you will get into Heisenberg, Feynman etc. and have to read 'The Elegant Universe')

And guess what, they are not the same answers!

 

[Apathia]

"Whereof one cannot speak thereof one must be silent".

Indeed!
Now I need some duct tape over my mouth, before I start ranting.

(The prerequsite to Direct Perception is to be silent.)

 

[dlorde]

(The prerequsite to Direct Perception is to be silent.)

If only Doron had followed this, he would have saved us all a lot of wasted time (and a little amusement, to be sure).

 

[realpaladin]

It is quiet... too quiet... normally around this time we would be exchanging 'no you are wrongs'....

 

[doronshadmi]

So, {} contains the existence of {}, i.e. it is not null, but contains 0 values of other points.

No.

If {} contains the existence of {} we get {{}}.


{}, . or ___ are different representations of an atom, where {{}} is not an atom, but it is a complex thing.

 

[realpaladin]

Doron, you missed answering this:

No.

If {} contains the existence of {} we get {{}}.


{}, . or ___ are different representations of an atom, where {{}} is not an atom, but it is a complex thing.

Thing. A complex Thing.

Well, that will win Microsoft over: "Guys, I know stuff about Things."

But nonetheless you are wrong.

If you represent {} as {} then that simple representation {} contains the existence of {}, otherwise you could not have written {}.

So the {} contains the existence of {} and is not null.

 

[doronshadmi]

Less verbal sneer? I don't know - but I did like this:

Doron: So, please let us open a dialog, by reply something about my work.
Bookman: I'm afraid that's impossible. My area of study is mathematics, so I'm not really qualified to speak about your writings.

(The OM that can be spoken isn't the OM.)
(The OM that can be demonstrated isn't The OM)

No.

OM is both direct perception AND organized thoughts that are based on direct perception.

Standard Mathematics misses the core of organized thoughts, exactly because it does not use direct perception as the simplest basis of any expressed reasoning.

Again you are using the dichotomist view of silence XOR non-silence instead of getting them as two aspects of a one organism.

So save your jokes about silence-only wrong and misleading point of view about OM.

 

[doronshadmi]

If you represent {} as {} then that simple representation {} contains the existence of {}, otherwise you could not have written {}.

No,

{} does not contain the existence of {}.

{} is its own exitence, and this existence contains exactly nothing.

That is why {} is an atom and {{}}=({} contains the existence of {}) is not an atom.

 

[realpaladin]

No,

{} does not contain the existence of {}.

{} is its own exitence, and this existence contains exactly nothing.

That is why {} is and atom and {{}}=({} contains the existence of {}) is not an atom/

First answer my other posts... you will have time as I go to my bed

Then tomorrow I will have you for breakfast. Including this one

 

[doronshadmi]

First answer my other posts... you will have time as I go to my bed

Then tomorrow I will have you for breakfast. Including this one

You can't, because your mind can't get the silence that enables its noisy existence, in the first place.

Save your energy by directly get silence as the basis of any action of your mind, instead of running after your own tail since you started to post here.

 

[doronshadmi]

First answer my other posts... you will have time as I go to my bed

They are the wrong results of the same noisy mind that can't get silence as the basis of its existence.

 

[doronshadmi]

Why do you talk about a line then?

Because it is the simplest representation of Non-locality, whether we deal with the finite (what you call Physics) or the non-finite (what you call Pure Math).

 

[jsfisher]

Mosheklein,
In case the low signal-to-noise ratio caused you to miss this:

@ have no connection with OM

infact I discover that there is infinit number of operators @1, @2, @3, @4...
were :

@1 = + ( x+y)
@2= * (x*y)
@3 = @ ( x^.. let's wait to jsfisher answer)

Are you serious? You are claiming the @-operator in:

x@y=y@x
x@(y@z)=(x@y)@z
x@(y*z)=(x@y)*(x*z)

...can be exponentiation? It doesn't satisfy even your first requirement, commutativity.

By the way, can you prove (fairly easily) that any operator that satisfies the requirements you lay out cannot have an identity value? That is to say, for no value I will I@X=X for all X.

Can you prove that?

 

[dlorde]

So save your jokes about silence-only wrong and misleading point of view about OM.

Without the jokes this thread would be as unleavened bread. Flat and bland.

 

[Apathia]

No.

OM is both direct perception AND organized thoughts that are based on direct perception.

Standard Mathematics misses the core of organized thoughts, exactly because it does not use direct perception as the simplest basis of any expressed reasoning.

Again you are using the dichotomist view of silence XOR non-silence instead of getting them as two aspects of a one organism.

So save your jokes about silence-only wrong and misleading point of view about OM.

Thank you for the qualification.

 

[doronshadmi]

Without the jokes this thread would be as unleavened bread. Flat and bland.

They are misleading jokes, so be more creative and next time please try to invent non-misleading jokes.

 

[doronshadmi]

Thank you for the qualification.

What do you mean?