• 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:
No you do not get it The Man, since you have an axiomatic disagreement about Non-locality.
Click to expand...
How can that be? You haven't yet shown any axiom about non-locality, despite that we've asked numerous times about it . 5,374 posts and counting... :p
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
“?-reasoning”? So you just don’t know what your reasoning is?
Click to expand...
A typical question of a person that gets everything by “!” mark (Black\White view), and as a result he does not understand “?” mark as a non Black\White view.
 
ddt said:
How can that be? You haven't yet shown any axiom about non-locality, despite that we've asked numerous times about it . 5,374 posts and counting... :p
Click to expand...
If X belongs XOR does not belong to a given domain, then X is local w.r.t that domain.

If X belongs NXOR does not belong to a given domain, then X is non-local w.r.t that domain.

More details are in:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/16542245/OMPT (pages 22-24, pages 26-29)

A person that uses only local view gets Non-locality as a contradiction.
 
Some correction of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5825100&postcount=9458:

Instead of:
doronshadmi said:
n-space is the finite complex measurment of some n-space, which is atomic at its self state.

∞-space is the infinite complex measurment of some ∞-space, where ∞-space is a fog (complex only state) that does not have self atomic nature.
Click to expand...
It has to be:
doronshadmi said:
n-measurment is the finite complex measurment of some n-space, which is atomic at its self state.

∞-measurment is the infinite complex measurment of some ∞-space, where ∞-space is a fog (complex only state) that does not have self atomic nature.
Click to expand...
 
The Man said:
I specifically recommend against such experimentation and it was your own stated “head/hummer interaction” that I recommended as a possible “philosophy of life”. How is one “heating one's head with a hammer”?
Click to expand...
Here is the quote of what you said about “philosophical view of existence”
The Man said:
Come to think of it, a hummer might not be a bad philosophical view of existence. Thanks, Doron you’re finally starting to make sense, that blowing/sucking complementation/interaction and all.
Click to expand...
And here is a quote of you, which provides the answer to your question: “How is one “hitting one's head with a hammer”?”
The Man said:
If you think a hammer does not exist (except in your mind) then try to think the hammer away as you bash yourself in the head with it (or have someone else do it if they don’t mind) until you prove the hammer does not exist, your mind does not exist or you finally choose to mind the existence of the hammer (and perhaps the other person) outside of your mind and bashing you in the head. I doubt you will execute the first blow before you recognize the existence of the hammer over the existence of your mind.
Click to expand...
By your thought experiment you clearly use a person that hits his own head with an hammer, or using some other person to do the job of hitting some person’s head with an hammer.

You also added that:
The Man said:
** This research project is not recommended and would be considered illegal under existing law
Click to expand...
What existing law The Man, is it some physical law that prevents the actual existence of such an experiment?

Probably no, so this existing law is actually based also on Ethics, because only by classical Logics there is nothing that prevents the actual existence of your “research project”. So your “**” is derived from some linkage of Ethics with Logics.

Furthermore, the non-actual existence of such an experiment is derived from the deep understanding of the goal to protect and develop Complexity and specially the Complexity that is aware of itself and it is also responsible for the results of its actions.

So it is about time to tell also to yourself that we have to do our best in order to develop a comprehensive framework where Etichs and Logics reinforce each other.

OM is some preliminary effort to develop such a framework, as written in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5814052&postcount=9429, and you, The Man, are doing your “best” in order to block any development of such a project, and the reason is your Black\White view about Ethics and Logics, as shown in that quote:
The Man said:
However ethics unfettered by logic is by definition irrational and ethics entirely constrained by logic (particularly binary logic) tends to be uncompassionate.
Click to expand...
Black=“ethics unfettered by logic”

White=”ethics entirely constrained by logic”

The Man, don’t you think that it is about time to be developed beyond this “Black\White view” ?

You disagree with OM's direction about such a project, and this is fine with me.

Please Let us know for a change what are your suggestions in order to develop a non “Black\White view” version
of Ethics\Logics framework?
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
And here is a quote of you, which provides the answer to your question: “How is one “heating one's head with a hammer”?”

By your thought experiment you clearly use a person that heats his own head with an hammer, or using some other person to do the job of heating some person’s head with an hammer.
Click to expand...

Hitting, Doron, hitting.


ETA: We'll start with the basics, before attempting to explain the other levels of misunderstanding you are achieving.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
If X belongs XOR does not belong to a given domain, then X is local w.r.t that domain.

If X belongs NXOR does not belong to a given domain, then X is non-local w.r.t that domain.

More details are in:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/16542245/OMPT (pages 22-24, pages 26-29)

A person that uses only local view gets Non-locality as a contradiction.
Click to expand...

That doesn't seem to me to take in the full non-locality.
I'd add that when X neither belongs to nor does not belong to and at the same time both belongs to and does not belong to to a given domain, it is non-local with respect to that domain.

The thing about non-locality is that it negates negation and empties emptiness.

A is not-A but at the same time it is not-not-A, and it is A.

But it seems to me you are trying to use a kind of non-localized locality or a localized non-locality, so that you can have a new logic to superceed the old and to enable what necessarily transcends logic to be captured in a logic.

Of course there are modal, fuzzy, intuitionist and other logics that set out to do somewhat the same. But yours is the only one that frames that as a meshing of Locality and Non-Nocality.

The localized non-locality or the non-localized locality creates a special, ontological realm or "magnitude" (in the "clouds") for indeterminate and
non-fixed quantites.

(Apathia once again throws the same old stuff against the wall to see what will stick or fall off this time around.)
 
Apathia said:
That doesn't seem to me to take in the full non-locality.
I'd add that when X neither belongs to nor does not belong to and at the same time both belongs to and does not belong to to a given domain, it is non-local with respect to that domain.

The thing about non-locality is that it negates negation and empties emptiness.

A is not-A but at the same time it is not-not-A, and it is A.

But it seems to me you are trying to use a kind of non-localized locality or a localized non-locality, so that you can have a new logic to superceed the old and to enable what necessarily transcends logic to be captured in a logic.

Of course there are modal, fuzzy, intuitionist and other logics that set out to do somewhat the same. But yours is the only one that frames that as a meshing of Locality and Non-Nocality.

The localized non-locality or the non-localized locality creates a special, ontological realm or "magnitude" (in the "clouds") for indeterminate and
non-fixed quantites.

(Apathia once again throws the same old stuff against the wall to see what will stick or fall off this time around.)
Click to expand...

Hi Apathia,
Please look at:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5825100&postcount=9458 and some coorection of it in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5825395&postcount=9465 before we continue.
 
doronshadmi said:
Please provide some concrete examples.
Click to expand...
Well, let's see. You missed the fact that The Man was pointing out your error in saying 'heating' rather than 'hitting'. You misunderstood when he pointed out that he was not recommending a head/hammer interaction despite what you alleged, and again when he endorsed your proposed head/hummer interaction. Is that enough?
 
Small correction of my post:

The localized non-locality or the non-localized locality creates a special, ontological realm or "magnitude" (in the "clouds") for indeterminate and
non-fixed quantites.
Click to expand...

Make that:

The localized non-locality or the non-localized locality creates a special, ontological realm or "magnitude" (in the "clouds") for numbers of indeterminate and non-fixed quantites.

Thase are specifically the "Non-Local Numbers" of Doron's OM, such as irrational and trancendental numbers.
 
doronshadmi said:
Hi Apathia,
Please look at:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5825100&postcount=9458 and some coorection of it in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5825395&postcount=9465 before we continue.
Click to expand...

I have copied and pasted both into my File of Interesting Doron Posts.
If they address the issue I'm usually bugging you with, I'll continue with them.
If they are just the latest restatement of your program without clarification or expansion, I'll step back into the shadows.

It appears they don't address the matter of a full understanding of what Non-Locality means.
 
doronshadmi said:
If X belongs XOR does not belong to a given domain, then X is local w.r.t that domain.

If X belongs NXOR does not belong to a given domain, then X is non-local w.r.t that domain.

More details are in:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/16542245/OMPT (pages 22-24, pages 26-29)

A person that uses only local view gets Non-locality as a contradiction.
Click to expand...

I see no axioms, only English word salad. We've gone over this already numerous times. My comment was really not meant that you try another time, only to point out what had already been established: that you're not capable of drawing up any axioms for your "theories".
 
zooterkin said:
Well, let's see. You missed the fact that The Man was pointing out your error in saying 'heating' rather than 'hitting'. You misunderstood when he pointed out that he was not recommending a head/hammer interaction despite what you alleged, and again when he endorsed your proposed head/hummer interaction. Is that enough?
Click to expand...

"Heating" (instead of "hitting") is a technical problem that is based on my wrong use with a speller, and has nothing to do with any misunderstanding of that subject.

The source of the recommendation of The Man to avoid the actuality of his research project, is not understood to him, because it is based also on Ethics and not only on, so called, objective physical laws, that The Man wished to stress their power over one’s awareness.

A notion that its aim is to prove the objective power of physical laws over one’s awareness, totally misses the non-trivial expressions of that laws, which actually based on Simplicity\Complexity Linkage, which stands at the basis of The Man’s research project.

In other words, The Man missed the profound conclusion of his own project, because he used some extreme view (things are totally independent of our mind) against another extreme view (things are totally dependent on our mind).

An extreme-only view of X is based on what I mark as !-reasoning and misses the additional option of the complex linkage among the extremes (what I mark as ?-reasoning, in addition to !-reasoning).

Fogs are the natural result of ?-reasoning, Sums are the natural result of !-reasoning, and OM is ?-reasoning OR !-reasoning framework.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom