Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
doronshadmi said:
Very simple.

At the moment that the researcher and the researched are organs of a one realm by direct perception, any action cannot be but a reinforcement of the linkage between the Simple (atomic) and Complex (expressible) aspects of a one realm.

Organic Numbers are the exact reduction of that one realm, where this redaction totally exposes that realm be striping it from any complicated mystical or verbal-based maneuvers.

As this is done by direct perception of the one realm, any aware organ of that realm naturally uses Ethics and Logics at the basis of any of its actions (abstract or not) as a natural organ of a one realm.
Click to expand...

"At the moment that the researcher and the researched are organs of a one realm by direct perception, ..."

That's what crucial, isn't it Doron?
Realization of a consciousness in which the observer and the observed, self and other are of one organism is the ground of compassion and empathy.

Does working with the partitions of OM linkages naturally engage a person in this enlightened consciousness?

That doesn't appear to be the case. As you've seen demonstrated in this thread, people can work with the partitions, make programs to generate them, but not make any sort of "non-local" connection.
They immediately, intuitively, see the parallel elements of an organic number as simply off local serial numbers.
They have to have some kind of "direct perception" before they can associate these figures with what you intend them to represent.

What is to be done?

The regular participants here are not generally individuals who experience Unitary states of consciousness. But they're not sociopaths. They know what it means to see their others as more than objects local to a fixed class or agenda.


Of people who have had Unitary states of consciousness (I'll count myself as one.) and find them significant to the way they relate to others and the environment,

How do you make OM more relevant for them?

You may have found out already in communication with them, that they don't naturally get that ./__ Linkage mediates their prehension of Unity.
For example, in my case this structure seems an artifice after the fact and a somewhat metaphysical construction.

Direct Perception isn't a symbology. But not only that, it's not a mental construct. it's a way of seeing, and more than that, a way of relating.
(That Way is not a method.)
 
doronshadmi said:
As long as you don't disagree with me by using direct perception as the basis of your reasoning, there is no use to continue to discuss on these issues.
Click to expand...

Direct perception is just a cover-up for your inability to handle mathematical rigor. Direct perception is subjective, mathematical rigor is universal.
 
Apathia said:
Direct Perception isn't a symbology. But not only that, it's not a mental construct. it's a way of seeing, and more than that, a way of relating.
(That Way is not a method.)
Click to expand...
Direct Perception is simply life itself where senses' inputs or verbal expressions are some aspects of it.
 
Last edited:
Apathia said:
You are happy for me too early in the game.
I can understand what the Organic Numbres are supposed to represent, but I don't yet see how they become an ethical utiliity.
doronshadmi said:
Very simple.

At the moment that the researcher and the researched are organs of a one realm by direct perception, any action cannot be but a reinforcement of the linkage between the Simple (atomic) and Complex (expressible) aspects of a one realm.

Organic Numbers are the exact reduction of that one realm, where this redaction totally exposes that realm by striping it from any complicated mystical or verbal-based maneuvers.

As this is done by direct perception of the one realm, any aware organ of that realm naturally uses Ethics and Logics at the basis of any of its actions (abstract or not) as a natural organ of a one realm.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


jsfisher said:
So, The Man was right. Your intend is to just dumb 'em down to the point where technological advances are impossible. Interesting strategy.
Click to expand...
How do you come to this conclusion exactly (according to what is written above)?
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
How do you come to this conclusion exactly (according to what is written above)?
Click to expand...

Perhaps if you turned your direct perception on to the full post of yours to which I was responding, you will see how I came to that conclusion, exactly.
 
doronshadmi said:
Direct Perception is simply life itself where senses' inputs or verbal expressions are some aspects of it.
Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong, Doron.
I was thinking that your main assertion was that "Direct Perception" is Consciousness aware of itself, and that whenever Consciousness is aware of itself, Organic Mathematics is being used. And that the use of Organic Mathematics necessarily brings the user into "Direct Perception."

OK, it's not a contradiction for you to then assert that Organic Mathematics is the natural mathematics of living systems. And that living things, especially ones aware of themselves, are always using Organic Mathematics.

In your first thread here you said that this was the "hidden assumption."

It appears that it is very difficult to get the creatures who are using OM everyday to see what is supposed to be natural to their perception and consciousness.

A most ironic dilemma.
 
Apathia said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, Doron.
I was thinking that your main assertion was that "Direct Perception" is Consciousness aware of itself, and that whenever Consciousness is aware of itself, Organic Mathematics is being used. And that the use of Organic Mathematics necessarily brings the user into "Direct Perception."

OK, it's not a contradiction for you to then assert that Organic Mathematics is the natural mathematics of living systems. And that living things, especially ones aware of themselves, are always using Organic Mathematics.

In your first thread here you said that this was the "hidden assumption."

It appears that it is very difficult to get the creatures who are using OM everyday to see what is supposed to be natural to their perception and consciousness.

A most ironic dilemma.
Click to expand...

It is a dilemma as long as you get Direct Perception as some phenomena.

But Direct Perception is like the enables no phenomena AND any possible phenomena.

When you are Direct Perception you are that sea, and thet is no dilemma of being that sea.

Let us be more focused on some actual problems, for example Zeno's Achilles\Turtle (Tortoise) Race, which may help you to understand OM's contribution to this famous paradox.

Please read http://www.scribd.com/doc/17504323/WZATRP8 .

Thank you.
 
doronshadmi said:
It is a dilemma as long as you get Direct Perception as some phenomena.

But Direct Perception is like the enables no phenomena AND any possible phenomena.

When you are Direct Perception you are that sea, and thet is no dilemma of being that sea.
Click to expand...

Doron,

If that is simple all that you mean by "Direct Perception,"
Then, I'm with you all the way.

It's when you talk of getting "Non-Local/Local Linkage," Redundancy/Uncertainty Linkage," and other supposed, fundamental cognitive structures that I have questions.

In your Direct Perception pdf it's clear that we are expected to get your foundation for all that's "researchable" by Direct Perception. It's not a paper about Unitary Consciousness, or the "Singularity."

I get being that "sea." I've been there.
And I can understand the wave analogy.
But that's a metaphor to distinguish Unitary Consciousness from the consciousness of objects.
The "waves" come with the consciousness of objects.
And that is also where comes your application of linkages.

It seems to me that you are using "Direct Perception" for more than just one state of consciousness.
 
doronshadmi said:
Let us be more focused on some actual problems, for example Zeno's Achilles\Turtle (Tortoise) Race, which may help you to understand OM's contribution to this famous paradox.

Please read http://www.scribd.com/doc/17504323/WZATRP8 .

Thank you.
Click to expand...

I'll have to give this a great deal of examination.
On the suface it seems you are asserting "B" as the winner.
The race never ends!
Achilles is never able to overtake the Tortoise!
 
Last edited:
Apathia said:
I'll have to give this a great deal of examination.
On the suface it seems you are asserting "B" as the winner.
The race never ends!
Achilles is never able to overtake the Tortoise!
Click to expand...

No,


There are two aspects to this, so called, Paradox:

-----------------------------------------------------------

Aspect 1:

1) It is a Paradox, because by analyze that Race the Turtle is a winner of an endless Race, but in reality we know that Achilles wins the Turtle and the Race is over.

2) This Paradox holds as long as we understand the Race as a Realm that enables
(Achilles wins AND Achilles loses) as a result, where this result is a contradiction
form Classical Logic point of view (Superposition is not a part of Classical Logic).

3) In my paper I show (by using Classical Logic, and by avoiding things like Superposition etc…) that the Paradox is solved simply because Achilles wins OR Achilles loses are two different Races, where:

a) in "Achilles wins" Race (I Call it Case A) the Time parameter of the formula Distance = Speed*Time is not changed during the Race (and a result Achilles wins right at the second loop of the Race).

b) in "Achilles loses" Race (I Call it Case B) the Time parameter of the formula Distance = Speed*Time is changed during the Race (and as a result Achilles loses in a non-finite loops Race).

So first of all the (Achilles wins AND Achilles loses) result of the same Race is avoided (Case A and Case B are two different Races), and there is no Paradox even from Classical Logic point of view.

4) The main stream of mathematical community of the past 2500 years have missed this simple solution, and tried to solve it like this:

Most of the current community of mathematicians argue that Zeno's Achilles\Turtle Race is not a paradox in the real life because we can summarize non-finite values (where each value > 0) that are added to some initial value. By doing that we are able to get an accurate value, which is different from the initial value. For example: 1 is the initial value and 1+1/2+1/4+1/8+…= 2, where 2 is an accurate value that is different from the initial value 1. Actually the whole idea of Limits is somehow motivated by the desire to solve the Zeno's Paradox. So by this community non-finite smaller values converge to a finite and accurate value (known also as the limit point of these non-finite smaller values). By this technical maneuver the main stream of mathematical community claim that they have solved Zeno's Achilles\Turtle Race Paradox, because they are claiming that infinity many different values can be summarized into a finite value, whether this finite value is a limit point in Space and\or in Time. And since this is the case then this is the exact reason of why Achilles wins the Race ((Achilles wins AND Achilles loses) contradiction is avoided).

5) Since I show in (3) that we do not need this complicated maneuver in order to solve Zeno's Paradox, we can use our energy in order to research the whole idea of the notion of Limits. This research has to be done even if it is shown (in (3)) that we do not need Limits in order to solve Zeno's Achilles\Turtle Race, in classical terms.

Sometimes the reason for some development no longer exists but the development is found useful, so the main stream of the mathematical community still can claim that even if the original reason for Limits development no longer exists, there is no reason to re-investigate the notion of Limits, because they are useful. There is a sense in this claim since Limits are used in many areas and a lot of applications (abstract or not) are based on them. But there is no sense in the reasoning that its aim is to avoid any further re-investigate and re-consideration of the notion of Limits.

6) This is exactly what I do in my paper by re-considering the notion of Limits as a natural step after I showed (in (3)) that Zeno's Achilles\Turtle Race can be classically solved without the need of Limits.

7) This research is done on Case B that now can air its non-finite view, because Case B is no longer a part of any paradox.

8) It is immediately discovered by the re-consideration the notion of Limits, that this notion is fundamentally wrong, exactly as shown in part (b) of (3) (for more details please read very carefully page 2-5 of http://www.scribd.com/doc/17504323/WZATRP8 , where a rigorously show:


a) Why Case B is a door for a new mathematical universe that cannot be seen from the Limits point of view.

b) Why Case B lead to an accurate understanding of the non-finite, where the notion of Limits actually prevents this accurate understanding.

c) The very existence of the Achilles\Turtle Race is accurately researched and understood, which is something that is beyond the notion of Limits, simply because Limits are exactly the reduction of any possible notion into local-only point of view.

d) By using now notions that are not grounded by the Limit local-only point of view,
the mathematical science is ready to deal with the finest linkage between Non-locality and Locality directly from their very first level.

9) One may argue: "But it is a fact that the concept of Limits is very useful in a lot of mathematical areas".

My answer to this argument is this: "Limits are a rough tool that works only on a finite realm, because Calculus actually uses approximations of non-finite cases, by translating them to some finite cases that can be used in the physical realm. But by doing this the real beauty of the non-finite realm is washed out, for some piece of finite material".

10) But the real damage is done by the community of people that are called "pure" mathematicians. It is expected from this community to do their best in order to very carefully investigate abstract notions that are not limited by any physical restrictions.
But when we see what they are doing for at least the past 1000 we get a horrible picture of persons that simply doing their best in order to avoid any real understanding of fine thing like non-finite.

The funeral of this most important understanding was done by parsons like Cauchy Weierstrass, Cantor, Dedekind and more members of this community.

A lot of technical manipulations based on complicated verbal-based expressions can be found at their legacy, which gives enough livelihood for the next generations of "pure" mathematicians. This legacy finds from time to time its way to the physical realm, and used by rough approximations in order to produce more pieces of finite materials, which helps to supports the existence of this community.

This community seats on one of the most important sources of the human race, called the Non-finite, and blocks its real development in our daily life.

The need of accurate understanding of the non-finite in our daily life is going to be crucial in the very near future, and it has to be stressed that the non-finite is not extensions of notions that are taken from the finite, as it is done for the past 400 years by the community of "pure" mathematicians.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Aspect 2:

The, so called, rigorous methods like Limit, do not provide any solution the real Zeno's Achilles\Turtle Race Paradox, which is: "How Motion is possible, in the first place.

By using OM you immediately solve this problem because Non-locality is not reduced to Locality.

Furthermore, by using OM you immediately understand that what is called "the Problem of Motion" is nothing but a side effect of scholars that reduce anything to Locality, and in a Local only realm (abstract or not) Motion is beyond understanding.
 
Well, thanks Doron.
I'm afraid this is all still fuzzy to me.

So I'll have to do some homework first, before I can get back to sorting this out.

Good job, though, on changing the subject. It was futile for me, anyway.
 
Aspect 2 may be ripe for a philosophical aside on the meaning-of-motion issue. Connecting it to OM in a meaningful way appears to be the challenge.

Unfortunately for Aspect 1, it is riddled with straw men, misunderstandings, and faulty reasoning.
 
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
Aspect 2 may be ripe for a philosophical aside on the meaning-of-motion issue. Connecting it to OM in a meaningful way appears to be the challenge.

Unfortunately for Aspect 1, it is riddled with straw men, misunderstandings, and faulty reasoning.
Click to expand...

No.

Aspect 1 is exactly stripping off the straw man's clothing and discover behind it the naked king.
 
Last edited:
Apathia said:
Well, thanks Doron.
I'm afraid this is all still fuzzy to me.

So I'll have to do some homework first, before I can get back to sorting this out.

Good job, though, on changing the subject. It was futile for me, anyway.
Click to expand...

apathia,

This is exactly the same subject.
 
doronshadmi said:
No.

Aspect 1 is exactly stripping off the straw man's clothing and discover behind it the naked king.
Click to expand...

I see you understand neither the term paradox nor straw man.

Be that as it may, doesn't it bother you the tiniest bit that in your "stripping off the straw man's clothing" you get the wrong result?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom