Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
realpaladin said:
But seriously, want to go Psychology as well? My second Phd is in AI, and because the UvA did not know any better where to begin in my time, I spent 40% of my study-time studying organisation of memory, mind, planning processes etc.

Let's go.
Click to expand...
Get in the queue - <smug>he asked me, not you</smug>

Although, of course, I, uh <cough>, have no objection to you bringing your formal expertise to the table... :D
 
dlorde said:
Get in the queue - <smug>he asked me, not you</smug>

Although, of course, I, uh <cough>, have no objection to you bringing your formal expertise to the table... :D
Click to expand...


Pfft. Remember UVa is a party school. Don't assume he has a real PhD.


:)
 
dlorde said:
Get in the queue - <smug>he asked me, not you</smug>

Although, of course, I, uh <cough>, have no objection to you bringing your formal expertise to the table... :D
Click to expand...

No, where were my manners! You are first of course!

(Reminds me of a scene from Asterix)
 
dlorde said:
My thoughts (on this topic) are what you just responded to... as to how they are organised, if you mean how does my mind work, I don't think anyone can tell you that for certain - I have my own ideas about the processes involved, but it would take more than a couple of paragraphs to explain them.
Click to expand...

This http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqnEGu8VF8Y&feature=related can be a good start, but instead of this Soul thing at the end, we are using direct perception that manifests itself as Non-locality\Locality linkage.
 
dlorde said:
So, Doron, you've established that we're all 'verbal thinkers' because we don't 'get' the essence of OM by 'Direct Perception' (probably because all we have are your obfuscated verbal/textual 'explanations' of it).

So why are you still here? why aren't you off making pots of money and changing the world for the better by recruiting all the thousands or millions of people who can use their Direct Perception to 'get' OM ?

Could it be you know they won't 'get' OM? Could it be that it's all a bunch of hooey and you can't let go because you wasted so many years of your life on it (classic Sunk Cost Fallacy) ?

If there is a good reason you are still on this thread, perhaps you'd let us know so we can all do something more constructive.
Click to expand...

doronshadmi said:
dlorde, what are your thoughts and how they are organized?
Click to expand...

Evasion noted.
 
doronshadmi said:
You can't get it if you don't know what you are doing (which is not a thought of what you are doing).
Click to expand...

Of course I know what I'm doing - I'm laughing at someone on the internet.

But you don't 'get' that.

More random quotes about seagulls please. Hint -

"I was a toiler on the sea ..." The Stranglers

don't look in here for the answer, doron, it's non-local
 
doronshadmi said:
Direct it or not get it.

Definition is nothing but verbal rolling wave upon the silence of the Sea's depth.

Your shallow level can't get it yet.
Click to expand...




I should have been a pair of ragged claws
Scuttling across the floors of silent seas.
Click to expand...

And then it appears an allusion to the Tao Te Ching is relevant after all.

The Way that can be told
Is not the Eternal Way.
The Name that can be Named
Is not the Eternal Name.

The unnamable is the eternally real.
Naming is the origin of all objects.

Free from desire, you realize the mystery.
Caught in desire, you see only the manifestations.

Yet mystery and manifestations
Arise from the same source.
This source is called Darkness.

Darkness within Darkness
Is the gateway to all understanding.
Click to expand...
 
Skeptic said:
(sigh)

Like all cranks, Doron and Moshe are certain that their incredible OM is JUST THE THING that world of mathematics has been waiting for.

Naturally, they think MS will be interested, and -- any day now -- they will have Bill Gates knocking at their door, offering them fame, fortune, and beautiful women with questionable morality and a weird taste in men, if only they let him use OM.

Well, it's not going to happen. The reply from MS will be silence, or at most a polite form letter, of course.

That the billions that are theirs for the incredible effort of inventing OM, like the Nobel prize (yes, I know there is no Nobel prize for mathematics -- but cranks usually don't), is not yet theirs, will be chalked up by Doron & Moshe to the conspiracy of envious enemies within the "mathematical establishment".
Click to expand...


During the 20 century there was a revolution is Science. The two theories relativity and Quantum theory change the world of physics. The philosophical new idea was that the observer is not looking on the universe from outside but he is inherent part of the universe. Later Einstein disagree with QM and he develop with partners his famous though experiment EPR, to show the incompleteness of OM. Until today there is disagreement between scientist about the interpretation of EPR. In the conference about the reconsideration of QM vaxjo university Sweden ,there were clear statement about the need to develop new kind of mathematics that will be relevant to the Quantum world. L.Lovasaz the president of the international mathematic union wrote in his paper One mathematics about the need to find a deep connection between continuity and discreetness.

The principle of Organic Mathematic are:

Mathematics is the bridging between locality and non locality
A point can present locality and a line can present non locality
There is a matrix of uncertainty and redundancy which can be applied to the structure of numbers. Each possibility is a distinction.

Example of 2.

(2,2)=(ab,ab)
(2,1)=(ab,a);(ab,b)
(1,1)=(a,a);(b,b);(a,b)

The traditional mathematics use only one case of the 6 possibilities for 2 (a,b)
There are 69 difference distinctions of 3.

Possible Applications:

1) Education of Mathematics
2) Design in Quantum world
 
Last edited:
MosheKlein said:
between continuity and discreetness.
Click to expand...


You know that Doron and you have been working hard to prove that OM is quite the opposite?

The principle of Organic Mathematic are:
MosheKlein said:
Mathematics is the bridging between locality and non locality
A point can present locality and a line can present non locality
Click to expand...

But a point can not be on the line, because there is no way in which we can say where on the line that point is.

See above for proof by Doron.
MosheKlein said:
There is a matrix of uncertainty and redundancy which can be applied to the structure of numbers. Each possibility is a distinction.
Click to expand...


This is statistics. So, yeah, for each combination of 'uncertainty' and 'redundancy' there is a distinction.
MosheKlein said:
Example of 2.

(2,2)=(ab,ab)
(2,1)=(ab,a);(ab,b)
(1,1)=(a,a);(b,b);(a,b)

The traditional mathematics use only one case of the 6 possibilities for 2 (a,b)
There are 69 difference distinctions of 3.
Click to expand...


This is because traditional mathematics deals with numbers, not 'classes'.

But as soon as you introduce classes (where in your example a <> b) then it is just the same.

Your example only says:
In OM we do not explicitly mention if things are of the same class, therefore we introduce some uncertainty which we may or may not use.
MosheKlein said:
Possible Applications:

1) Education of Mathematics
2) Design in Quantum world
Click to expand...


I spoke to someone who is actually involved with the design of Quantum Computers.

She looked your papers over (the ones I mailed her) and told me (I quote):
"These people do not have the slightest inkling about Quantum Mechanics, do they? They verbally introduce uncertainty and the whole 1-dim thing is just silly; it makes it completely unusable in QM; it needs to be possible to divide any line up into infinity because of the statistical uncertainty, not the semantic uncertainty."

And Doron... how will computers ever "get it"?

 
realpaladin said:


You know that Doron and you have been working hard to prove that OM is quite the opposite?

The principle of Organic Mathematic are:


But a point can not be on the line, because there is no way in which we can say where on the line that point is.

See above for proof by Doron.



This is statistics. So, yeah, for each combination of 'uncertainty' and 'redundancy' there is a distinction.



This is because traditional mathematics deals with numbers, not 'classes'.

But as soon as you introduce classes (where in your example a <> b) then it is just the same.

Your example only says:
In OM we do not explicitly mention if things are of the same class, therefore we introduce some uncertainty which we may or may not use.



I spoke to someone who is actually involved with the design of Quantum Computers.

She looked your papers over (the ones I mailed her) and told me (I quote):
"These people do not have the slightest inkling about Quantum Mechanics, do they? They verbally introduce uncertainty and the whole 1-dim thing is just silly; it makes it completely unusable in QM; it needs to be possible to divide any line up into infinity because of the statistical uncertainty, not the semantic uncertainty."

And Doron... how will computers ever "get it"?
Click to expand...

It is nice from you that you share OM with one of your college
Maybe it's a first step for collaboration with us.

L. Lovasaz IMU president ( Microsoft) think that it is very important to find today a bridge between continuity and discreetness.

Well, what is your attitude to solve this challenge ?

The distinction is simply the praxis that open the mind of the researcher to a new dimension of thinking. ( Parralel&Serial) OM certainly reject the attitude of Kolmogorov to Probability theory
Yes, to built Turing machine with OM is today..the Billion Dollars challenge !
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
This http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqnEGu8VF8Y&feature=related can be a good start, but instead of this Soul thing at the end, we are using direct perception that manifests itself as Non-locality\Locality linkage.
Click to expand...
That video is a sadly misleading and self-contradictory attempt to use solipsism to 'prove' souls and/or god exists because the universe doesn't. So full of holes & non-sequiturs, I don't know where to start. The technique of using half the presentation to lull the viewer with high school biology, then jumping to ever more unsupported and illogical metaphysical woo is a standard propaganda technique for this kind of thing.

If you're saying that you're using the same arguments but substituting your own woo for the soul, it simply confirms to me that your claims have no more underlying substance than theirs. To be honest, very I'm surprised you would want to associate your ideas with any of that nonsense.
 
MosheKlein said:

Yes, to built Turing machine with OM is today..the Billion Dollars challenge !
Click to expand...
Why? we already have a huge selection of very efficient Turing Machines, with more on the way.

Still waiting to see any worked example of OM in use. If OM can be used to make a TM, let's see some examples of OM expressions.
 
During the 20 century there was a revolution is Science.
Click to expand...

For every genius whose revolutionary work is not recognized by the establishment because it is too advanced, there are 3,445,087 cranks whose work is not recognized by the establishment because it's just plain wrong and/or meaningless.

Don't tell anybody, but I think chances are you and Doron belong to the latter camp.
 
dlorde said:
That video is a sadly misleading and self-contradictory attempt to use solipsism to 'prove' souls and/or god exists
Click to expand...

You have missed it.

The aim of guiding you to this video (which I do not agree with) is to show that even what is called electrical pulses along neurons are nothing but a serial view of Non-locality\Locality linkage.

You are following only the story like any verbal-only-oriented system, and missing direct perception as the source of any verbal expression (abstract or not).

For example, in this video they interpret perception as idea, and fail exactly like anyone how gets perception as a verbal interpretation.

OM says exactly the opposite: direct perception is not an idea about direct perception exactly as the idea "silence" (even if it is only thinkable and not vocally expressible) is not silence.
 
Last edited:
dlorde said:
Why? we already have a huge selection of very efficient Turing Machines, with more on the way.

Still waiting to see any worked example of OM in use. If OM can be used to make a TM, let's see some examples of OM expressions.
Click to expand...

Do you think that Quantum computers
can be built by using of traditional Mathematics ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom