Deeper than primes

[Little 10 Toes]

What do you mean?

Easy. You have claimed that you have worked on this for about 30 years. Surely you have something that incorperates OM.

 

[jsfisher]

1 is a set:

Wrong! Under a certain scheme, the natural numbers can be modeled as sets. That doesn't make them sets, however.

 

[jsfisher]

Your local-only viewpoint of OM.

Using undefined terms in a sentence, as you have done here, doesn't convey any meaning.

Why not just invest a few posts to give substance to your terminology? Oh, yeah, you can't, because your terms have no meaning.

 

[Little 10 Toes]

Yes doronshadmi, how about defining terms, not just giving examples.

 

[The Man]

Poor The Man, you are like a person the wishes to see darkness by aiming a flashlight on it.

Poor Doron, wants to help save humanity from itself, but cannot even save himself from himself.

Your determination to define the exact location of ...1 of the expression “0.000...1” , painfully demonstrates your inability to get Non-locality.

Your refusal to accept your own assertions demonstrates how painfully inadequate your own assertions are, even just to you.

The rest of your post is based on this inability and it has nothing to do with any informal or formal bla bla bla verbal-only expression.

Wait so now I must be expressing non-locality since it had nothing to do with any “bla bla bla verbal-only expression”, the bane of your “direct perception”. Make up your mind Doron, since you simply make up just about everything else, it is rather ironic that you cannot seem to simply make up your mind.

You simply can't use direct perception in order to get ...1 of 0.000...1

You simply can’t define “direct perception” in any way that makes it useful

 

[The Man]

Using undefined terms in a sentence, as you have done here, doesn't convey any meaning.

Why not just invest a few posts to give substance to your terminology? Oh, yeah, you can't, because your terms have no meaning.

Yes doronshadmi, how about defining terms, not just giving examples.

Agreed, that would at least indicate your intention, Doron, not to insist upon a naïve theory for your OM.

 

[doronshadmi]

Direct perception deals with the existence of things.

Definitions only use them (as clearly shown in the case of the empty set, where one of the elements that do belong to the empty set, is the empty set).

I suggest you a reasoning which is more fundamental than definitions, but you still do not get it, and stacked on the level of (verbal) definitions.

Here are some baby steps that are based on direct perception that can help to get the qualitative difference between Locality and Non-locality.


There is a 0-dim element.

0-dim element is located in exactly one location.

There is a 1-dim element.

A 1-dim element can be located AND not-located with respect to the location of the 0-dim element.

Since 0-dim element is located in exactly one location, we say that 0-dim element is a local element.

Since 1-dim element is located in more then a one location, we say that 1-dim element is a non-local element.

n=1 to ∞

k=0 to ∞

By generalize this notion we say that n-dim element is non-local with respect to k-dim element, and k-dim element is local with respect to n-dim element.

 

[doronshadmi]

Wrong! Under a certain scheme, the natural numbers can be modeled as sets. That doesn't make them sets, however.

 

[doronshadmi]

Wait so now I must be expressing non-locality since it had nothing to do with any “bla bla bla verbal-only expression”, the bane of your “direct perception”. Make up your mind Doron, since you simply make up just about everything else, it is rather ironic that you cannot seem to simply make up your mind.

You have already informed that direct-perception is done right at the source of thoughts. In order to use direct-perception as the basis of reasoning, you read the post by using your eyes, then use your thoughts by refining them until you are at the source of thoughts, which enables you to get the researched subject by using direct-perception of it.

Your reasoning is stacked at the level of thoughts, which prevents from you to get things by direct-perception.

As a result you translate everything only in terms of Locality because at the level of thoughts your reasoning cannot be but based on collection of localities, which is the very nature of thoughts.

At the moment that your mind is opened to the source of thoughts, then and only then you can get Non-locality in addition to Locality.

 

[doronshadmi]

You simply can’t define “direct perception” in any way that makes it useful

Wrong.

By using direct perception we discover the non-local numbers that are actually non-entropic by nature exactly because the exact location along the real-line does not exit.

This uncertain location is the signature of a non-finite source of energy that exists at the fabric of the realm, which is the result of the linkage between the different qualities of Locality and Non-locality.

By following this reasoning we may develop the appropriate technology that is based on non-entropic phenomena.

Furthermore, non-entropic technology is essential to the development of complex systems like us.

 

[laca]

Real analysis works in the physical world, if it translated to finite results.

Exactly. That is what I meant by "it works". We have no use for infinite results, nor for anything other than the physical world. Do you suggest your "theory" is working in the "spiritual" world?

OM deals with the difference and linkage between actual infinity (non-locality) and potential infinity of collections of localities that can’t be non-locality.

There is no actual infinity.

As a result we get a non-entropic space that can be useful for the survival of complex systems like us.

Show me the money!!! I mean show us how your "theory" is "useful for the survival of complex systems like us". If you can do that, you'll be famous. If not, well, you FAIL.

 

[laca]

1 is a set:

Well, if 1 is a set, I'm a population.

 

[jsfisher]

Wrong! Under a certain scheme, the natural numbers can be modeled as sets. That doesn't make them sets, however.

Your difficulty grasping this incredibly simple distinction surprises no one.

I suppose you'd go into cardiac arrest if you were told that set members being unordered and set members being unique goes completely unmentioned in the axioms of set theory.

 

[Little 10 Toes]

Let's focus on Local and Non-Local definitions

First of all, I see that you're up to your old tricks doronshadmi.
Post 6187 posted 11:25am, edited 12:35pm
Post 6189 posted 11:45am, edited 12:23pm
Post 6190 posted 12:19pm, edited 12:22pm

Any reason why you decided to edit those posts after laca posted his two messages?

Direct perception deals with the existence of things.

I can see when someone is getting sleepy. How can "sleepy" exist?

Definitions only use them (as clearly shown in the case of the empty set, where one of the elements that do belong to the empty set, is the empty set).

Definitions only use what? And to be correct, the empty set is a subset of itself. Look at wikipedia.

I suggest you a reasoning which is more fundamental than definitions, but you still do not get it, and stacked on the level of (verbal) definitions.

You haven't even given us any reasoning. You dance around words. If I'm trying to describe a shade of blue to you, I just can't say blue. Am I talking light blue, navy blue, dark blue, baby blue, pastel blue?

Here are some baby steps that are based on direct perception that can help to get the qualitative difference between Locality and Non-locality.

Hopefully there will be some definitions...

There is a 0-dim element.

It's ok to type out the word dimension. So this 0-dimension element is also known as a point. Because you are using dimension, I will assume that we are basing this conversation in the realm of geometry.

0-dim element is located in exactly one location.

So a point is at a specific, well, point.

There is a 1-dim element.

The one dimensional object is a line. I notice that you don't tell us that we know it's location. Why?

A 1-dim element can be located AND not-located with respect to the location of the 0-dim element.

Why can a line not be located? If a line is made up of points, and you have said that a point is located in exactly one location, why can't I find it's location? If I draw a line segment from the original point to the line, I can tell where the line is located. This is like telling someone to turn left and turn right at the same time. Please go into details about how a line can be located and not-located.

Since 0-dim element is located in exactly one location, we say that 0-dim element is a local element.

Ok. Local means we know its location.

Since 1-dim element is located in more then a one location, we say that 1-dim element is a non-local element.

I will not agree on this statement untill you explain how/why a line cannot be located and located in relation with a line.

n=1 to ∞

k=0 to ∞

By generalize this notion we say that n-dim element is non-local with respect to k-dim element, and k-dim element is local with respect to n-dim element.

So a 2-dimensional element is non-local with respect to a 3-dimensional element, and a 3-dimensional element is local with respect to a 2-dimensional element.

Please provide an example of a 100-dimentional element and a 101-dimentional element.

Also, since I know the location of a point (0-dimensional element) is it local or non local to a cube (3-dimensional element)? What if I now have a line (1-dimensional element) and the cube? If I have two points (0-dimensional elements) are they local or non-local to each other?




So, in a very basic overview:

• Local (location is known)
• Non-local (location not known)

 

[jsfisher]

So, in a very basic overview:

• Local (location is known)
• Non-local (location not known)

Contradiction by Doron in 5...4...3...

 

[The Man]

Direct perception deals with the existence of things.

When are you going to deal with the word “existence” and give your continued use of it some actual meaning in this discussion?

Definitions only use them (as clearly shown in the case of the empty set, where one of the elements that do belong to the empty set, is the empty set).

How did a Hobbit ‘exist’ until it was defined by J.R.R Tolkien?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobit

A set containing the empty set as the only ‘element’ would be a power set of the empty set, not the empty set. That a subset of the empty set is still just the empty set is only a result of the fact that it has no members or “elements”. Part of no members or “elements” is still no members or “elements”. The important thing to note is that the empty set is not a proper subset of itself because it is the same as itself (again simply trivial).

I suggest you a reasoning which is more fundamental than definitions, but you still do not get it, and stacked on the level of (verbal) definitions.

Even if that were true it would simply make said reasoning undefined and simply naïve.

Here are some baby steps that are based on direct perception that can help to get the qualitative difference between Locality and Non-locality.


There is a 0-dim element.

0-dim element is located in exactly one location.

There is a 1-dim element.

A 1-dim element can be located AND not-located with respect to the location of the 0-dim element.

Since 0-dim element is located in exactly one location, we say that 0-dim element is a local element.

Since 1-dim element is located in more then a one location, we say that 1-dim element is a non-local element.

n=1 to ∞

k=0 to ∞

By generalize this notion we say that n-dim element is non-local with respect to k-dim element, and k-dim element is local with respect to n-dim element.

So still not going to actually define “direct perception” or “existence”?

 

[The Man]

Wrong.

By using direct perception we discover the non-local numbers that are actually non-entropic by nature exactly because the exact location along the real-line does not exit.

This uncertain location is the signature of a non-finite source of energy that exists at the fabric of the realm, which is the result of the linkage between the different qualities of Locality and Non-locality.

By following this reasoning we may develop the appropriate technology that is based on non-entropic phenomena.

Furthermore, non-entropic technology is essential to the development of complex systems like us.

Well then define “direct perception”. Defining it would specifically distinguish it from other forms of perception. You do remember distinction don’t you? What you claimed was a “first order property” of your OM, but now seem to have completely abandoned.

ETA:

Oh ,by all means please, also define “non-entropic technology” and “non-entropic phenomena” . You just enjoy stringing words together that you think make your assertion sound significant, don’t you? Certainly there is nothing “non-entropic” about your notions, they are entirely based on randomness and disorder. The overall entropy of the universe increases each time you post.

Another ETA:

Just to try and give you a clue, because you assert that your “non-local numbers” have no “exact location along the real-line” would specifically make them entropic or random and disordered “along the real-line”.

 

[The Man]

You have already informed that direct-perception is done right at the source of thoughts. In order to use direct-perception as the basis of reasoning, you read the post by using your eyes, then use your thoughts by refining them until you are at the source of thoughts, which enables you to get the researched subject by using direct-perception of it.

How is one not “at the source” of their own thoughts? Are these thoughts of yours being beamed to you from someone or somewhere else or would you simply prefer that they were?

Your reasoning is stacked at the level of thoughts, which prevents from you to get things by direct-perception.

Clearly thinking is not involved in your “reasoning” or apparently in your “direct perception”.

As a result you translate everything only in terms of Locality because at the level of thoughts your reasoning cannot be but based on collection of localities, which is the very nature of thoughts.

At the moment that your mind is opened to the source of thoughts, then and only then you can get Non-locality in addition to Locality.

Wait, now “the very nature of thoughts” is “Locality” which would make your “direct-perception” “at the source of thoughts” entirely, well, ‘local’. Once again you simply demonstrate yourself to be the most direct opponent to your own notions.

 

[doronshadmi]

Wait, now “the very nature of thoughts” is “Locality” which would make your “direct-perception” “at the source of thoughts” entirely, well, ‘local’. Once again you simply demonstrate yourself to be the most direct opponent to your own notions.

No, the source of thoughts is non-local w.r.t any collection of thoughts and you get this simple fact at the moment that you are able to use direct-perception.

Again you demonstrate how anything is translated by you to Locality, exactly because your reasoning is limited to the level of thoughts.

How is one not “at the source” of their own thoughts? Are these thoughts of yours being beamed to you from someone or somewhere else or would you simply prefer that they were?

The source of thoughts is the non-personal and non-local state that exists at the basis of any collection of local things (abstract or not). Again you demonstrate your inability to get this fact, because your awareness is closed under Locality and so is your reasoning.

How did a Hobbit ‘exist’ until it was defined by J.R.R Tolkien?

J.R.R Tolkien invented a Hobbit, which is totally different than defining things.

Defining things determines the limitations of already existing things in order to use them for our propose.

Inventing things is using our imagination in order to create X out of non-existence.

A set containing the empty set as the only ‘element’ would be a power set of the empty set, not the empty set. That a subset of the empty set is still just the empty set is only a result of the fact that it has no members or “elements”. Part of no members or “elements” is still no members or “elements”. The important thing to note is that the empty set is not a proper subset of itself because it is the same as itself (again simply trivial)

You have missed the point here.

The empty set must exist independently of its definition in order to be one of the sets that are not its members. If definition = invention then the empty set cannot be one of the sets that do not belong to the empty set because definition=invention invents the empty set and in that case it can’t be one of the sets that do not belong to it.

In other words, if X is invented then X can’t be used as one of the elements that determine the properties of X, because then we are using a circular reasoning.

Even if that were true it would simply make said reasoning undefined and simply naïve.

No, your local-only reasoning is naive because it can’t deal with real complexity.

ETA:

Oh ,by all means please, also define “non-entropic technology” and “non-entropic phenomena” . You just enjoy stringing words together that you think make your assertion sound significant, don’t you? Certainly there is nothing “non-entropic” about your notions, they are entirely based on randomness and disorder. The overall entropy of the universe increases each time you post.

Another ETA:

Just to try and give you a clue, because you assert that your “non-local numbers” have no “exact location along the real-line” would specifically make them entropic or random and disordered “along the real-line”.

Entropy happens only in closed systems where things are at energetic equilibrium such that no flow of energy can be found in that closed system.

Things are changed if the system is opened to income of new energy.

The inability of 0-dim elements to completely cover a 1-dim element is a model of an open system, where there is always a room for new locations and as a result such a system is naturally opened and therefore non-entropic by nature.

For more details please see this old stuff:

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/LPD.pdf

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/Eventors.pdf

I may correct some of it, but the main idea is there.

The overall entropy of the universe increases each time you post.

Here you are using again you local-only reasoning, which prevents from you to understand the universe as an open system that is the result of the linkage between Non-locality and Locality.

For exaple, you can't get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5018555&postcount=5840.

Allso you can't get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5037911&postcount=5899.

So still not going to actually define “direct perception” or “existence”?

Direct perception is the right way to get the existence of things. Direct perception is the source of definitions, and not vice versa.

 

[laca]

Entropy happens only in closed systems where things are at energetic equilibrium such that no flow of energy can be found in that closed system.
Things are changed if the system is opened to income of new energy.

Err... Entropy happens?

Here you are using again you local-only reasoning, which prevents from you to understand the universe as an open system that is the result of the linkage between Non-locality and Locality.

Oh my. So let me get this straight:

Everyone except you is limited to "local-only reasoning". Only your "non-local" reasoning can explain the universe, its mysteries, the complex systems like us, etc.

So then, why are you wasting your time in a forum when you could be out there explaining the mysteries of our universe, complex systems and so forth?

Because your "theory" isn't worth the paper it's written on. Prove me wrong. I'd be truly grateful if you did.