• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
doronshadmi said:
Again:



Edit:

You did not get the idea of "transparent" (an existing thing that is used as a limit for some things, and other things goes through it).

By using only names without understand them you can also claim that Non-locality depends on the "Non-" part of the phrase "Non-locality”.

In that case I use Sameness, but the notion remains the same (the notion of connectivity).
Click to expand...


Again

The Man said:
You do not get the idea of "NOT" which is extremely, well, transparent.
Click to expand...


Once again we will get the extreme irony of you claiming someone is “using only names without understand them”. By your own opaque ignorance such irony is blocked from you but your ignorance is transparent to such irony for us.

For your edification ‘transparent’ just means clear. If something is blocked by a media, then that media is certainly not transparent to whatever it blocks. Again learn the concepts or even just the words you try to use in your arguments, then perhaps the irony of your claims might become transparent even to you.
 
The Man said:
Which again shows that you simply do not understand “NOT”.
Click to expand...
No The Man,

You are using “NOT” in terms of “logical connective”, without defining “connective”.

On the contrary I clearly show that NOT without connectivity is exactly a limit of local things.

Now please give your definition to “connective”.
 
doronshadmi said:
You simply can't get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5330118&postcount=6886, because you don't know what is "connective".

Without understanding "connective" your posts do not hold water.
Click to expand...

Without an understanding of NOT your posts about NOT do not hold water. Even were you to gain an understanding of NOT, history dictates that most of your post will still not hold water. However history also dictates that you will simply not gain an understanding of NOT.
 
doronshadmi said:
No The Man,

You are using “NOT” in terms of “logical connective”, without defining “connective”.

On the contrary I clearly show that NOT without connectivity is exactly a limit of local things.

Now please give your definition to “connective”.
Click to expand...

The Man said:
Again, by all means, you first Doron.

You could just simply look up the word in any standard reference, but that would entail you actually doing some work. It is far easier for you to simply ascribe your own ill-defined and more than likely self-contradictory meaning to the word "connective". In fact your history has shown that regardless of what actual and self-consistent definitions you are provided you will still prefer your own ill-defined and more than likely self contradictory meaning to the word "connective". So let’s just cut to the chase, shall we Doron.
Click to expand...


And of course

The Man said:
I’m sure everyone but you is getting a big kick out of the irony in you proclaiming someone is using terminology “without defining” it.
Click to expand...


So stop posturing Doron and step up to the plate. You are not going to get anywhere claiming “You are using “NOT” in terms of “logical connective”, without defining “connective”.” expect to make us laugh at the irony you just can’t see.
 
The Man said:
Again




Once again we will get the extreme irony of you claiming someone is “using only names without understand them”. By your own opaque ignorance such irony is blocked from you but your ignorance is transparent to such irony for us.

For your edification ‘transparent’ just means clear. If something is blocked by a media, then that media is certainly not transparent to whatever it blocks. Again learn the concepts or even just the words you try to use in your arguments, then perhaps the irony of your claims might become transparent even to you.
Click to expand...

A very poor understanding The Man.

Take for example a transparent glass.

It is an existing thing that is not ignored exactly as we do not ignore the existence of NOT in some logical system.

There are some things that a transparent glass blocks, and there are other things that goes though a transparent glass.

By using this analogy, I say that the existing NOT has no impact on non-local things, because they go through it.

This is not the case with local things, which are blocked by the existing NOT.
 
The Man said:
Two NOTs do not a double negation of P make. Try actually learning the concepts you are basing your arguments upon.
Click to expand...
You do not get it The Man, so you cannot say any meaningful thing about it.

Stay in your NOT-only Local reasoning and enjoy the rest of your life.

The irony is that you even do not understand NOT, which is exactly an existing thing that blocks local things , as shown in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5330445&postcount=6906.
 
Last edited:
And all this nonsense from Doron brings us back to the fundamental idiocy in Doronetics that S and NOT S are independent of each other. And that brings us back to my earlier observation: How useless.
 
jsfisher said:
And all this nonsense from Doron brings us back to the fundamental idiocy in Doronetics that S and NOT S are independent of each other. And that brings us back to my earlier observation: How useless.
Click to expand...

Which is apparently transparent to anyone but Doron.
 
jsfisher said:
And all this nonsense from Doron brings us back to the fundamental idiocy in Doronetics that S and NOT S are independent of each other. And that brings us back to my earlier observation: How useless.
Click to expand...
You do not get the difference between atom and complex, so?
 
doronshadmi said:
A very poor understanding The Man.
Click to expand...

If you are claiming that the rest of your post is based on your “very poor understanding” then I’m inclined to agree with you.

doronshadmi said:
Take for example a transparent glass.

It is an existing thing that is not ignored exactly as we do not ignore the existence of NOT in some logical system.
Click to expand...

You do “ignore the existence of NOT in some logical system” as you claim below.

doronshadmi said:
There are some things that a transparent glass blocks, and there are other things that goes though a transparent glass.
Click to expand...

The “glass” is opaque to what it blocks not transparent.

doronshadmi said:
By using this analogy, I say that the existing NOT has no impact on non-local things, because they go through it.
Click to expand...

Thus claiming that you do “ignore the existence of NOT in some logical system.”


doronshadmi said:
This is not the case with local things, which are blocked by the existing NOT.
Click to expand...

This is simply not the case as your poor understanding is demonstrated (as usual) by your poor analogy.
 
doronshadmi said:
You do not get it The Man, so you cannot say any meaningful thing about it.

Stay in your NOT-only Local reasoning and enjoy the rest of your life.

The irony is that you even do not understand NOT, which is exactly an existing thing that blocks local things , as shown in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5330445&postcount=6906.
Click to expand...

More irony form Doron and demonstrating that he and his OM simply can’t deal with NOT.


“NOT-only Local reasoning” would require some of your “non-local reasoning” Doron. You might have a little less trouble with NOT if you simply stopped ignoring it, but then ignorance is the basis of your assertions.
 
The Man said:
"NOT" is a logical connective having the logical property of connection by negation.
Click to expand...
“logical property of connection by negation” = “"NOT" is a logical connective”.

In other words, you have said nothing.
 
doronshadmi said:
You do not understand the word "relationship" even if you are using it.
Click to expand...

Well then I must be using some of your “non-local reasoning”, with you as the guiding example. Apparently that is all your “non-local reasoning” entails you just using some words you do not understand and just ignoring others like NOT.
 
The Man said:
“NOT-only Local reasoning” would require some of your “non-local reasoning” Doron. You might have a little less trouble with NOT if you simply stopped ignoring it,...
Click to expand...
Exactly, but you do not get even NOT-only, and as a result you do not get even your local-only reasoning, exactly because a useful framework is a complex, but it does not exist without the linkage between Non-local atom and Local atom, and you do your best in order to show that Non-locality does not exist.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Exactly, but you do not get even NOT-only, and as a result you do not get even your local-only reasoning, exactly because a useful framework is a complex, but it does not exist without the linkage between Non-local atom and Local atom.
Click to expand...


Doron you were the one claiming I should


doronshadmi said:
Stay in your NOT-only Local reasoning and enjoy the rest of your life.
Click to expand...

Which you also claim above to be “your local-only reasoning”. You have got yourself spun around so much with you whole ignoring NOT thing that you can not even effectively just accuse someone of “local-only reasoning”. Which is all the better Doron because as noted before whenever you do accuse someone of “local-only reasoning” you are simply expressing your own ““local-only reasoning”.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom