Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
realpaladin said:
Which is not an answer I can accept. Unless you accept that exact same ≠ as the smallest example of non-locality.

"Anywhere, except here."

Now, where did we read about that ≠ in other words again? And who refuted it to be a part of OM?
Click to expand...

The smallest example of non-locality is exactly __ (1-dim element), and it is represented as ≠ in "0-dimA ≠ 0-dimB" expression, whether you get it or not.


Your subjective verbal-based inability to get it, has no influence on this objective fact.
 
Last edited:
realpaladin said:
One of the sayings of the 'Science of everything': "No thing will ever be not everything else".
Click to expand...

If this was true then no two phenomena are expressible.

You do not distinguish between Unity self state and some expression of it.

The sea is the same sea whether waves are unified at its calm level or expressible at its exited level.

___ and . are exactly the invariant building-blocks that enable Sea's expression.

Both of them are unified at its calm level.

Maharishi specks about not less than 100% absoluteness AND 100% relativity of the same sea.
 
Last edited:
For all of you that gets things only as verbal-based expressions, http://www.tm.org/research#research-top can help.

Like any powerful tool that works among Complex systems like us, there can be also negative results' examples, but in this case we have to see the whole picture, and form this point of view TM indeed does what it claims it does, and more than 600 scientific studies is a fact that cannot be ignored.

I am not a TM groupie, there are also very interesting results about other meditation techniques, but TM is defiantly the most researched one.
 
Last edited:
zooterkin said:
You're saying that OM is TM?
Click to expand...
Now, I do not know where Doron lives, but I say that I have *been* to the Maharishi in Vlodrop (the Netherlands) at least one more time than he has been.

I know what he said.

But that is just a new course in the meanderings of OM.
 
doronshadmi said:
The smallest example of non-locality is exactly __ (1-dim element), and it is represented as ≠ in "0-dimA ≠ 0-dimB" expression, whether you get it or not.
Click to expand...

Aaah! But now you concede that the 'not here, but everywhere' is true.

Because:

"0-dimA ≠ 0-dimB"
"0-dimA ≠ 0-dimC"
"0-dimA ≠ 0-dimD"
"0-dimA ≠ 0-dimE"
"0-dimA ≠ 0-dim<infinite enumeration>"

Again, Doron, you lose. By your own construed argumentation nonetheless.

Ow, and the example of __ as smallest expression of non-locality is still wrong.

doronshadmi said:
Your subjective verbal-based inability to get it, has no influence on this objective fact.
Click to expand...

I agree. You are merely rewriting your own stuff to cover up that I have proven you wrong.
 
doronshadmi said:
and more than 600 scientific studies is a fact that cannot be ignored.
Click to expand...

Ehm, they are studies by the Maharishi University and liaisoned organisations.

If that is your standard of reliability... you might want to try www.scientology.org as well.

They make you believe in Aliens. And they have way more money than TM. And more studies too.
 
doronshadmi said:
No, Heisenberg's principle rigorously describes the quantum realm.
Click to expand...

Argh! He rigorously describes that there can be no natural rigor!

His postulations, conjectures, theories and formula's are rigorously worked out and proven.

And they state that there is no natural rigor.

Unlike OM, which is just a bit of swami-bami talk.
 
doronshadmi said:
You can't get what invariant fact is, do you realpaladin?
Click to expand...

A tautology?

Afaik invariant means something does not change under a set of transformations.

A fact is an established piece of information (several ways to arrive there).

This has absolutely nothing to do with the statement that you reply to.
 
realpaladin said:
A tautology?

Afaik invariant means something does not change under a set of transformations.

A fact is an established piece of information (several ways to arrive there).

This has absolutely nothing to do with the statement that you reply to.
Click to expand...

Can't get ≠ (no matter what 0-dims are used), isn't it realpaladin?
 
doronshadmi said:
OM is the mathematical expression and TM is an example of a practical expression of the same thing.
Click to expand...

And yet, without going into its merits or otherwise, TM was developed before OM. What does OM give us? Are you going to give some example of what OM actually can do?
 
doronshadmi said:
Because without the arguer understanding there is no use to explain some argument.
Click to expand...
Wonderful logic. Why would you need to explain the argument if someone already understood it?
There is none (= No one) to talk to.
Click to expand...

Then it may be wiser to keep silent, or people may think you are talking to yourself.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom