Deeper than primes

[jsfisher]

jsfisher,

From day 1 you are here for one and only one purpose, which is: to do your best in order to not change any fundamental verbal-based agreement of your community.

Evidence? Oh, yeah, you don't ever provide evidence.

I used your stiffness (which you call by mistake consistency) for further refinement of some verbal-based expressions of OM.

Which version of OM? You keep changing things in new and different (but still inconsistent) ways.

Now what is needed is to find scholars with opened minds to new fundamental notions and changes, and OM will start to air its view more and more day by day, until the verbal-based expression will be exactly what it is, some expression of direct perception.

This has nothing to do with open minds and novel ideas. If it did, you would have engaged Apathia in a long and interesting discussion long ago. Instead, this is all about Doron and how Doron is right about everything.

By the way, Doron, it didn't go unnoticed how you acted after MosheKlein had been here for a little while. As soon as he became the focus of some attention (stealing some of the lime light from you), you threw a tantrum. You demanded Moshe either talk about "your topic" or shut up. You then threatened others if they didn't return to "your topic". You even ostracized him from the direct perception club.

Your behavior was very childish.

You understanding of Mathematics is minimal, but your ego is huge.

 

[doronshadmi]

Evidence? Oh, yeah, you don't ever provide evidence.

You have no clue of what is going on http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4913791&postcount=5310 , for example.

But it does not stop from you the write something like http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4914235&postcount=5315 .

Your behavior was very childish.

Since you have no clue of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4913791&postcount=5310 your criticism does not hold water, because you do not understand how Moshe totally wrote off-topic. Moshe knew exactly that he writes off-topic, and after couple of times that he did it (about his @ stuff), I told him to open a new thread for his off-topic subject.

Until this very moment you have no ability to understand http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4914082&postcount=5313 and how all my post in this thread are OM and nothing but OM, since post #1.

You understanding of Mathematics is minimal, but your ego is huge.

Mathematics is not the private possession of any single person, or any collection of scholars that call themselves mathematicians and using academic institutes for the past 3000 years, that teaching verbal-based agreements, called by them Mathematics.

Anyone that limits Mathematics to verbal-based agreements finds himself in the long run with a collection of technical tools that are not based on any real foundations.

The real foundations of the mathematical science are exactly the direct perceptions of this science, and your 3000 years verbal-based school of thought is totally ignorant of this real foundation.

So your verbal-based Ego has no meaningful argument, in this case.

 

[doronshadmi]

This has nothing to do with open minds and novel ideas. If it did, you would have engaged Apathia in a long and interesting discussion long ago. Instead, this is all about Doron and how Doron is right about everything.

This is a typical interpretation of a person that does not get direct perception.

At the level of direction perception, there cannot disagreements between different verbal-based points of view, because direct perception is the natural core of any verbal-based expressions, and a notion that is based on direct-perception is naturally non-personal.

Since you get what I just wrote only on the level of thoughts you interpret them as:

"Doron uses direct perception in order to be beyond any criticism, and by doing that he of course can't be wrong, because each time when some one shows his inconsistencies and contradictions, he immediately use his direct perception winning card".

Well jsfisher, since you unaware of your own natural abilities to use direct perception as the natural basis of your mental expressions, all you get is exactly what is written above.

 

[The Man]

No, Structure in its simplest form is something that is not defined by or made of other structures.

What “other structures” are there besides structure? If you claim your atoms have ‘structures’ then you are indeed claiming that they are composed and divisible into the elements of those structures.

You are talking about the complex result of the linkage of two atomic types (Non-locality and locality) that enable any complex realm without being complex themselves.

No I am not, I am simply talking about your propensity to misunderstand and misuse words such that in your application they either have no specific meaning or are given some bizarre and contradictory meaning by you.

It has to be stressed that no Complexity (abstract or not) is possible if the atomic self state does not refers to itself and enables the simplest expressible realm of Non-locality and Locality, that if linked enable Complexity, in the first place.

“Oh waiter, is the cheesy dressing all that’s available with this word salad?”

The Man, it can be understood only by direct perception, so as long as you get "Structure" at the verbal level, you don't get it.

Precisely the point Doron your intended use of the word ‘structure’ is completely contradictory to the concept of structure.

 

[The Man]

This is a typical interpretation of a person that does not get direct perception.

At the level of direction perception, there cannot disagreements between different verbal-based points of view, because direct perception is the natural core of any verbal-based expressions, and a notion that is based on direct-perception is naturally non-personal.

Since you get what I just wrote only on the level of thoughts you interpret them as:

"Doron uses direct perception in order to be beyond any criticism, and by doing that he of course can't be wrong, because each time when some one shows his inconsistencies and contradictions, he immediately use his direct perception winning card".

Well jsfisher, since you unaware of your own natural abilities to use direct perception as the natural basis of your mental expressions, all you get is exactly what is written above.

Well since “At the level of direction perception, there cannot disagreements between different verbal-based points of view, because direct perception is the natural core of any verbal-based expressions, and a notion that is based on direct-perception is naturally non-personal.”. Then your entirely personal use of terminology and notations in “disagreement” with the intended applications, as well as your disagreement with “different verbal-based points of view” as continually demonstrated on this thread. Merely asserts that the only failure of ones direct perceptions is entirely yours.

 

[jsfisher]

This is a typical interpretation of a person that does not get direct perception.

So, prove everyone here wrong -- me especially -- by providing just one example, just one, of a real, practical application of your incredible Organic Mathematics, founded in direct perception.

You don't have one, do you? That's because your stuff still doesn't work. My stuff does.

 

[doronshadmi]

Then your entirely personal use of terminology and notations in “disagreement” with the intended applications, ..

No, your verbal-based agreement simply misses the direct perception non-personal notions of these notations.

What you call non-personal agreements are actually an agreement on the level of thoughts, where the level of thoughts is exactly personal by nature.

You belong to some group of persons that freezing thoughts and believes that if enough persons along enough time will agree about these frozen thoughts, then these thoughts can be considered as non-personal.

The Man, only direct perception is realy non-personal. Your frozen thoughts agreement is nothing but an illusion, simply because the very nature of thoughts is to express the non-personal direct perception, in many non-frozen ways.

The whole notion of Personality as a subjective-only phenomenon that needs agreements that are based on frozen thoughts, is exactly the pathological syndrome of the luck of direct perception at ones mind.

The Man, you and jsfisher are not aware of your direct perception as the natural and simplest basis of your mental activities.

As a result you are using frozen thoughts as the basis of what you wrongly get as non-personal state of mind.

 

[doronshadmi]

So, prove everyone here wrong -- me especially -- by providing just one example, just one, of a real, practical application of your incredible Organic Mathematics, founded in direct perception.

You don't have one, do you? That's because your stuff still doesn't work. My stuff does.

Your verbal-based mind can't get the practical application that is clearly exposed in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4913791&postcount=5310 to anyone that uses direct perception.

Since you do not use direct perception you can't get it.

 

[The Man]

No, your verbal-based agreement simply misses the direct perception non-personal notions of these notations.

What you call non-personal agreements are actually an agreement on the level of thoughts, where the level of thoughts is exactly personal by nature.

Now some group of persons freezes these thoughts and believes that if enough persons along enough time will agree about these frozen thoughts, then these thoughts can be considered as non-personal.

The Man, only direct perception is the real non-personal awareness. Your frozen thoughts agreement is nothing but an illusion, simply because the very nature of thoughts is to express the non-personal direct perception, in many non-frozen ways.

The whole notion of Personality as a subjective-only phenomenon that needs agreements that are based on frozen thoughts, is exactly the pathological syndrome of the luck of direct perception as the awareness of ones mind.

The Man, you and jsfisher are not aware of your direct perception awareness as the natural and simplest basis oF your mental activities

As a result you are using frozen thoughts as the basis of what you wrongly get as non-personal state of mind.

Quite the contrary Doron, I simply claim that since you are in verbal disagreement the failure in direct perception must be yours since your notion of direct perception claims that there can be no such disagreement. That there is such a disagreement even to the extent that you often do not agree with just yourself, then either your direct perception or your notions about direct perception are simply wrong, you can take your pick.

 

[jsfisher]

Your verbal-based mind can't get the practical application that is clearly exposed in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4913791&postcount=5310 to anyone that uses direct perception.

That's not any sort of application. That's just you making an assertion without any proof. You do that a lot. You so desperately what it to be true, you simply declare it so then hide under your "direct perception" security blanket.

My stuff works. Yours, doesn't.

 

[doronshadmi]

Quite the contrary Doron, I simply claim that since you are in verbal disagreement the failure in direct perception must be yours since your notion of direct perception claims that there can be no such disagreement. That there is such a disagreement even to the extent that you often do not agree with just yourself, then either your direct perception or your notions about direct perception are simply wrong, you can take your pick.

You are not aware that what is written above is exactly the result of your inability to use direct peception.

 

[doronshadmi]

That's not any sort of application. That's just you making an assertion without any proof. You do that a lot. You so desperately what it to be true, you simply declare it so then hide under your "direct perception" security blanket.

My stuff works. Yours, doesn't.

Your stuff works as a dichotomist method that can't provide the technology that naturally enables Ethics and Logics\Technology to be expressed at the basis of any researcher's\user's real-time work.

Your stuff is exactly the method that enables phenomena like nuclear Iran.

jsfisher your "working" stuff is going to fulfill itself, and I am doing my best in order to transform it to a real working stuff.

 

[jsfisher]

jsfisher your "working" stuff is going to fulfill itself, and I am doing my best in order to transform it to a real working stuff.

By breaking it?

 

[The Man]

Your stuff works as a dichotomist method that can't provide the technology that naturally enables Ethics and Logics\Technology to be expressed at the basis of any researcher's\user's real-time work.

Your stuff is exactly the method that enables phenomena like nuclear Iran.

jsfisher your "working" stuff is going to fulfill itself, and I am doing my best in order to transform it to a real working stuff.

I see you changed your reference from "The Man your "working" stuff" to "jsfisher your "working" stuff". As to your claim that "I am doing my best in order to transform it to a real working stuff", your "best" is apparently not very effective. Please tell use Doron how your “best” stroking of your ego with your OM would prevent “phenomena like nuclear Iran”? Perhaps your point is that if OM was taught is Iranian schools they would have such a poor understanding of math that such technical challenges would be beyond them? With you as the shining example of OM effectives, I could not disagree if that were your point.

 

[catbasket]

The three bottles of wine I bought today in Royston Vasey and Organic Numbers. No giggling at the back. This is paradigm-shifting, glass-emptying Maffs we're doing 'ere.

3 bottles = 10 pounds (a local unit of currency, ten of them is a local number of local currency units)

1 bottle (a rather pleasant Australian red) = 3.3333...(recurring pounds) a non-local number

1.5 bottles (a local number of bottles of a rather pleasant Australian red) = amount I have consumed = 6.6666... (recurring pounds)* 5.00 non-recurring pounds also a non-local number a non-local number!

Evidently a local number multiplied by a number which isn't from round here (non-local) equals the number you first thought of on page 43. Divide by the organic root of the hypotenuse, of course (lest we forget).

But I still don't 'get' ON, OM, direct perception or why I'm not currently listening to music. I must be doing it wrong. Can't fault me for trying though, eh?

Next week - OM on drugs. Episode one - ketamine.

Actually, I think I got my locals and non-locals mixed up ... but it's your fault for not understanding. Just replace my tpyos with real Maths.

* total organic maffs failure in the direct perceptional area of ooh look shiny ...


ETA7 - I've randomly replaced 'local' with 'non-local' to aid your understanding

ETA12 - As a further aid to understanding ... I haven't finished editing yet.


(Post born out of frustration. Nay contain nuts) **


** ain't finished editing yet. So please don't reply until you've read all of post random-number.

 

[jsfisher]

You need to represent 1 bottle by =_____|

You also need to be aware of the consumer\consumee interaction and its effect on your direct perception.

 

[catbasket]

You are not aware that what is written above is exactly the result of your inability to use direct peception to get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7572

 

[zooterkin]

Please tell use Doron how your “best” stroking of your ego with your OM would prevent “phenomena like nuclear Iran”?

Nowhere is this stroking more clear than the 'references' where Doron gets to list himself alongside Einstein, Hilbert et al:

[1] Einstein Albert: On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, Annalen der Physik,
17:891, June 30, 1905 (English translation by W. Perrett and G.B. Jeffery).

[2] Einstein Albert (1915): "Die Feldgleichungen der Gravitation (The Field Equations of
Gravitation)", Koniglich Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften: 844–847.

[3] Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen: Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of
Physical Reality Be Considered Complete? Phys. Rev. 47, 777 - 780 (1935).

[4] Aspect Alain: Experimental Tests of Realistic Local Theories via Bell's Theorem,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 47, 460 (1981).

[5] J. S. Bell, On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox, Physics 1, 195 (1964).

[6] Bohm David (1952). "A Suggested Interpretation of the Quantum Theory in Terms of
"Hidden Variables" I". Physical Review 85: 166–179

[7] L. Lovasz: One Mathematics http://www.cs.elte.hu/~lovasz/berlin.pdf .

[8] Moshe Klein, Doron Shadmi: Organic Mathematics, International Journal of Pure and
Applied Mathematics, volume 49 No. 3 2008, 329-340
http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/IJPAM-OM.pdf .

[9] Hilbert David: Mathematical Problems, Bulletin of The American
Mathematical Society, Volume 37. Number 4, Pages 407-436, S 0273-
0979(00)00881-8.

 

[The Man]

Nowhere is this stroking more clear than the 'references' where Doron gets to list himself alongside Einstein, Hilbert et al:

Yeah, don't you just love how Doron references those works without actually using anything from them? Not to mention, as usual, his own interpretations of the cited references are completely wrong.

In 1935 the EPR thought experiment was published [3], and since then it leads an approach that disagrees with the probabilistic interpretations of physical theories and experimental results. EPR original aim was to show that QM's probabilistic interpretations enable non-local phenomena that allow information's transfer faster than the speed of light (which is an essential constant of Einstein's SRT and GRT).

Doron, again for your edification, a reference paper should actually use material from those referenced sources. Just mentioning them in passing or substituting your own erroneous interpretations for actual material from those sources does not constitute material from a referenced source.

 

[doronshadmi]

I see you changed your reference from "The Man your "working" stuff" to "jsfisher your "working" stuff". As to your claim that "I am doing my best in order to transform it to a real working stuff", your "best" is apparently not very effective. Please tell use Doron how your “best” stroking of your ego with your OM would prevent “phenomena like nuclear Iran”? Perhaps your point is that if OM was taught is Iranian schools they would have such a poor understanding of math that such technical challenges would be beyond them? With you as the shining example of OM effectives, I could not disagree if that were your point.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4913897&postcount=5312