Deeper than primes

[Apathia]

Apathia has a connotation of apathetic (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/apathetic), and I have problems to use it as something that is related to you.


Furthermore, Apathia looks to me like the land apathetic people.

The word "apathetic" shares common roots with "apathia," bur "apathia" is a term from classical GrecoRoman Stoicism which means impariality and detachment.

True, I'm neither apathetic nor an example of stoic virtue.

 

[doronshadmi]

The word "apathetic" shares common roots with "apathia," bur "apathia" is a term from classical GrecoRoman Stoicism which means impariality and detachment.

True, I'm neither apathetic nor an example of stoic virtue.

So maybe "Impartial" fits better to you.

 

[Apathia]

The "I" expression is not less that Non-locality\Locality dance, where Singularity is the unseen stage.

Singularity is not expressible (neti-neti).


Please see also http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4901750&postcount=5123 .

Ah yes, the very apt and ancient analogy of the sea snd the waves.
Waves integrally consist of peaks and troughs.
When the dance of peaks and troughs ends, there is still and silent depth.

It's an anaolgy that's used throughout Eastern meditation traditions, and in Western mystical writings as well.
Very apt.

 

[The Man]

The Man,

Thank you for this post.

Now it is clear that you do not have abstract abilities, and as a result you do not understand Distinction as a general principle.

As usual Doron you think “abstract ablities” simply means agreeing with what you say regardless of how contradictory it is.

A or B or C or … are nothing but place holders that represent Distinction's general notion.

“Distinction's general notion”? I would ask you to define what you think you are talking about, but we all know that is a waste of time. “Distinction's general notion” is quite simple, when you have nothing there is no distinction, once you have something anything even just 1 object, symbol, concept whatever then you have distinction between something and nothing. Distinction is just a simple consequence of not having, well, nothing.

We do not need more that A and B in order to introduce the entire ONs system.

1) AB represents the Uncertain state of Distinction under ONs.

If you are uncertain about its “state of Distinction” then it remains indistinct, at least for you. Appling your own arbitrary limits to that uncertainty does not make it any more distinct, but just makes your considerations arbitrarily limited.

2) A,B represents the clear id state of Distinction under ONs.

3) A,A represents the Redundant state of Distinction under ONs.

“A,A” is not a “state of Distinction” it is in fact specifically indistinct, that you can not understand such a simple concept as distinction and base your “ONs” on such a simple and fundamental misunderstanding, just makes your subsequent nonsense even more ridiculous.

(1)(2)(3) itself can be represented as ABC ; A,B,C ; A,A,A of ON3.

So as you see The Man, you have no clue what ONs are because you do not understand what Organism is in its most general principle.

So we see Doron you do not have a clue what distinction is and specifcaly base your “ONs” on that simple lack of understanding.

 

[realpaladin]

Here is where your "generalization" continues to fail.

We were not talking about generalization we were talking about amounts.

I understand what generalization means and I tell you that it is not the answer to the question.

So it does not matter one Iota if I understand it in your world. You do not answer the question.

Simple as that.

 

[realpaladin]

1) You are right, I have missed "!" .

Duh! You never read carefully what others write!.

2) So you actually agree that no matter what pair of different dims are used, it is always based on ≠ (non-locality)\some dim (locality) linkage.

The term linkage is a forced way so you can have something to say about something that "standard" Math takes for granted.

So it is more verbalisation of something that is implicit in "standard" Math.

3) (2) is an example of a generalization.

Hey! I agree! But it does not answer the question!

4) Covering dim by itself is trivial, we are talking about fully cover n+1-dim by n-dim, that cannot be done.

So, prove that there is one point that is not covered on that n+1-dim by the n-dim!

The ≠ is not a proof. It is a statement in the vein "I decree it so", and so it means absolutely nothing.

Show me the starting point, then work up to it as a proof.

We wasted a goodly amount of posts on this, and you still have shown bupkiss.

To explain my question in your own lingo:

Again:

• is 0-dim element.

_____ is 1-dim element.

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 _____

Yes? Ok, now the question is:

Using your quoted and modified logic:

• is 0-dim element.

_____ is 1-dim element.

It is shown that for any arbitrary ≠ on _____ there is • ≠ • ≠ • because no collection of elements can fully uncover _____

So, according to you, any 1-dim element is at once covered and uncovered by • and ≠ simultaneously?

It all exists and does not exist.

I understood that much already from pages ago. But somehow I did not get that through.

Now, my question is:

Can you, in OM, point to any specific point on that 1-dim and state that it is uncovered?
If so, how?

In "standard" Math this is easy. All points are covered.

There is a succinct need for that equation in OM, because otherwise the information that a 1-dim holds is of no use.

 

[Tricky]

Several rule 12 violations and general bickering split to AAH. Desist.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky

 

[realpaladin]

Several rule 12 violations and general bickering split to AAH. Desist.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky

No problem there.

I just do not hope it will leave me with a forever unanswered question...

Where is the spot on the 1-dim that is not covered by a 0-dim?

Or, alternatively:

Where is the spot on the 1-dim that is covered by a 0-dim?

And we will have to repeat that for 2-dim, 3-dim etc.

We would have 'atoms' for every dimension.

 

[jsfisher]

Covering dim by itself is trivial, we are talking about fully cover n+1-dim by n-dim, that cannot be done.

You continue to assert this, yet you cannot support your statement with any sort of evidence. (This "By direct perception I know it to be true" nonsense doesn't cut it as evidence.)

 

[doronshadmi]

If you ask me then, this thread airs its last views

 

[jsfisher]

If you ask me then, this thread airs its last views

I see.

So, you will be departing? You leave behind a legacy of no evidence to support your misconceptions, no application for your new mathematics, and an ever-changing tapestry of inconsistency, contradiction, and revisionism. Good luck with your future.

 

[doronshadmi]

You continue to assert this, yet you cannot support your statement with any sort of evidence. (This "By direct perception I know it to be true" nonsense doesn't cut it as evidence.)

n=1 to ∞
k= n-1 to ∞

Given any n-dim element, there are infinitely many k-dim elements on it such that … k-dimA ≠ k-dimB ≠ k-dimC … , where ≠ is an example of n-dim domain, which is not covered by any k-dim element.

This is an obvious fact like any axiom.

If some claims against this fact by avoiding ≠ , then he has at most one and only one k-dim elements on the n-dim element.

I see.

This is a contradiction, in this case.

 

[doronshadmi]

If you are uncertain about its “state of Distinction” then it remains indistinct, at least for you. Appling your own arbitrary limits to that uncertainty does not make it any more distinct, but just makes your considerations arbitrarily limited.

The Man, N,Z,Q,R and C are sets of local-only elements
(which arbitrarily considered as general cases of many mathematical branches) that ignore non-local numbers.

In other words, the current number system is indeed arbitrary.

 

[jsfisher]

n=1 to ∞
k= n-1 to ∞

Given any n-dim element, there are infinitely many k-dim elements on it such that … k-dimA ≠ k-dimB ≠ k-dimC … , where ≠ is an example of n-dim domain, which is not covered by any k-dim element.

Repeating your baseless assertion does not give it a basis.

This is an obvious fact like any axiom.

It is not an obvious fact, nor is an axiom an obvious fact. You managed to be doubly wrong in the space of one sentence. Well done.

 

[The Man]

The Man, N,Z,Q,R and C are sets of local-only elements

What elements of a set are not “local only elements” of that set? If it is an element of that set then it is local to that set.

(which arbitrarily considered as general cases of many mathematical branches) that ignore non-local numbers.

What number is not local to it self or a set it is an element of?

In other words, the current number system is indeed arbitrary.

Please demonstrate how “the current number system” is arbitrary or

1. subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion: an arbitrary decision.

2. decided by a judge or arbiter rather than by a law or statute.

3. having unlimited power; uncontrolled or unrestricted by law; despotic; tyrannical: an arbitrary government.

4. capricious; unreasonable; unsupported: an arbitrary demand for payment.

5. Mathematics. undetermined; not assigned a specific value: an arbitrary constant.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/arbitrary

 

[doronshadmi]

Repeating your baseless assertion does not give it a basis.



It is not an obvious fact, nor is an axiom an obvious fact. You managed to be doubly wrong in the space of one sentence. Well done.

You are right, my mistake.

Axiom is a verbal-based thing and therefore can't be an obvious fact.

But you see jsfisher, I am not talking here about some verbal-based assertion.

We deal here with direct perception result, which is indeed an obvious fact.

Let us improve its verbal expression:

As for Non-locality and Locality:

n=1 to ∞
k= n-1 to ∞

We say that any n-dim is non-local w.r.t any amount of k-dim elements because:

Given n-dim element, there are infinitely many k-dim elements on it such that k-dimA ≠ k-dimB ≠ k-dimC … , where ≠ is an example of n-dim domain, which is not covered by any k-dim element.

If some claims against this fact by avoiding ≠ , then he has at most one and only one k-dim elements on the n-dim element.

 

[doronshadmi]

Please demonstrate how “the current number system” is arbitrary

It ignores the existence of non-local numbers on the real-line.

For example 0.999...[base 10] = 1 arbitrarily ignores the difference between the non-local number 0.999...[base 10] and the local number 1.

More particularly, the non-local number 0.000…1 is not understood by the current arbitrary system, because the current arbitrary system arbitrarily ignores non-locality, as one of the building-blocks of the real-line.

We do not need more than http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4904212&postcount=5176 fact in order to show why the current system is arbitrary.

 

[jsfisher]

You are right, my mistake.

Axiom is a verbal-based thing and therefore can't be an obvious fact.

You have no idea what an axiom really is, do you? (The question is rhetorical. The answer is, "No, you really don't.")

But you see jsfisher, I am not talking here about some verbal-based assertion.

Nice bit of self-inconsistency, there.

We deal here with direct perception result, which is indeed an obvious fact.

...followed by "I dreamed it, so it must be true" logic.

Let us improve its verbal expression:

As for Non-locality and Locality:

n=1 to ∞
k= n-1 to ∞

We say that any n-dim is non-local w.r.t any amount of k-dim elements because:

Given n-dim element, there are infinitely many k-dim elements on it such that k-dimA ≠ k-dimB ≠ k-dimC … , where ≠ is an example of n-dim domain, which is not covered by any k-dim element.

If some claims against this fact by avoiding ≠ , then he has at most one and only one k-dim elements on the n-dim element.

This is still a baseless assertion with no supporting evidence. Just because you so disparately what it to be true doesn't make it so.

 

[The Man]

It ignores the existence of non-local numbers on the real-line.

What numbers on the real number line are not local to the real number line?

For example 0.999...[base 10] = 1 arbitrarily ignores the difference between the non-local number 0.999...[base 10] and the local number 1.

No it does not since there is no “difference”, if you are claiming that 0.9999… does not equal 1 then you are claiming that 3 * 1/3 does not equal 1. Please show how 3 * 1/3 does not equal 1.

More particularly, the non-local number 0.000…1 is not understood by the current arbitrary system, because the current arbitrary system arbitrarily ignores non-locality, as one of the fundamental building-blocks of the real-line.

You really do not understand the word arbitrary do you?. If you are intending “0.0000…1” to represent an infinite number of zeros followed by a 1, then start writing those zeros and let us know when you actually get to your 1. So you really don’t understand the concept of infinity, do you?

We do not need more than http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4904212&postcount=5176 fact in order to show why the current system is arbitrary.

Who is this “we”, just you and Moshe? Sorry Doron but those inane ramblings are no more significant now then they were when you first posted it, um just 12 minutes before you posted what I am responding to now. Now I am all for recycling Doron, but you have now taken it to a bizarre extreme by linking your previous post in your subsequent post with out any posts in between. Which would make that post the immediate successor of your previous post that you intend then be succeeded by your previous post.

 

[jsfisher]

MosheKlein,

You seem to have vanished. You didn't respond to my last observation. I had accused you of lack of attention to important details. For a discipline like Mathematics, those are not a good practice.

Remember, you had claimed to have found an operator "above" multiplication what was commutative, associative, and was distributive over multiplication. (Well, actually, the distributive part was a bit of a cock-up initially. More lack of attention to important details.) You went on to claim you'd discovered a whole hierarchy of such operators. You went further to claim that this discovery provided the basis for your acceptance of organic numbers and organic mathematics.

The only problem with that progression was that you never considered the limitations of your first operator. Its domain was much narrower than all of the reals, but you blithely skipped over that detail. I can only assume your whole hierarchy is similarly restricted. It isn't what you thought it was nor claimed it to be.

So, an erroneous claim provided the basis for your acceptance of organic numbers, et alia. Curious that. Are you now inclined to reconsider your position?

Meanwhile, Doron dumps his long-time-honored position on organic numbers. They were forged from a viewpoint "where distinction is a first order property." In fact, distinction was neither a property nor first order, but Doron has remained steadfastly oblivious to these points. Nonetheless, Doron abandons one formulation in favor of another without missing a beat or even admitting anything had changed.

Curious that. Are you now inclined to reconsider your position?

Then there is this direct perception bat crap. Doron uses it to prove everything. It doesn't work for anyone else, though, not even you, MosheKlein. It's Doron's special magic. It does greatly simplify for him finding the truth, though (well, his truth, anyway).

Curious that. Are you now inclined to reconsider your position?