Deeper than primes

[zooterkin]

"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.

Whoosh!

 

[doronshadmi]

Why do you keep repeating theses lies?

It is truth jsfisher.

 

[doronshadmi]

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

If I understood you then it can be written as:

D=Domain

(X not belong AND not not belong to D) AND (belongs AND does not belong to D) is Non-locality.

This is wrong since:

(X not belong AND not not belong to D) is The atomic state.

(belongs AND does not belong to D) is Non-locality.

(The atomic state) AND (Non-locality) is false.

Furthermore, we can exchange (belongs AND does not belong to D) -which is Non-locality- with (belongs XOR does not belong to D) -which is locality, and then write:

(The atomic state) AND (Locality), which is also false.

The Atomic state is the un-manifested at its self state, where Non-locality OR Locality are the minimal atomic manifestations (which are not the atomic self-state) that their linkage (based on their common and un-manifested atomic self state) enables Complexity.

 

[jsfisher]

It is truth jsfisher.

You are a liar, doronshadmi. Please show where I said your so-called proof-without-words was Geometry.

Since you so easily lie for no reason, how can you expect any credibility for any you post?

 

[Complexity]

What kind of dressing would you like on your salad?

 

[Apathia]

If I understood you then it can be written as:

D=Domain

(X not belong AND not not belong to D) AND (belongs AND does not belong to D) is Non-locality.

This is wrong since:

(X not belong AND not not belong to D) is The atomic state.

(belongs AND does not belong to D) is Non-locality.

(The atomic state) AND (Non-locality) is false.

Furthermore, we can exchange (belongs AND does not belong to D) -which is Non-locality- with (belongs XOR does not belong to D) -which is locality, and then write:

(The atomic state) AND (Locality), which is also false.

The Atomic state is the un-manifested at its self state, where Non-locality OR Locality are the minimal atomic manifestations (which are not the atomic self-state) that their linkage (based on their common and un-manifested atomic self state) enables Complexity.

Thank's for the reply.
I'm glad to see it was what I expected. But then again I see another way one could go with the matter of Non-Locality.

Anyway, your point to me being that I must remember to distingish Non-Locality as it is of itself, in its "self state" from how it works in linkage with Locality.

Again this structure of linkage is what creates a populated realm of numerical entities that are supposed to have both quantitative and qualitative properties.

Locality in its self state is purely qualitative.
Non-Locality in its self state is purely qualitative.
Quantity only exists in the structure of their linkage.
(Under which there is a linkage of quantity and quality)

In the mathematics we all learned in school, numbers are just a matter of how many objects there are in given classes.
In OM a number is a complex of the various ways locality and non-locality can link up. How many (fixed values) is just one aspect of that.

I'd still like to see some examples of number used in a qualitative way.
Please.
(And plaese don't simply repeat the use of 0 and ∞
to denote the atomic states as your sole example.)

 

[doronshadmi]

You are a liar, doronshadmi. Please show where I said your so-called proof-without-words was Geometry.

Since you so easily lie for no reason, how can you expect any credibility for any you post?

You don't have to write it jsfisher.

Your abstraction inability to grasp
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5818172&postcount=9446 , http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5795672&postcount=9323 ,
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5799260&postcount=9332 or
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5799837&postcount=9339.
is sufficient enough in order to support my claim.

Actually your demand to show the string of symbols where you wrote that my diagrams is Geometry, actually reinforce my claim that all your communication and reasoning skills are totally depend on strings of symbols, such that no other representation of some notion is acceptable (exactly becuae you think that my diagrams are limited to Metric Space).

 

[doronshadmi]

I'd still like to see some examples of number used in a qualitative way.

A number is a measurment tool that is derived from Memory\Object Linkage, which has also qualitative properties that are related to Ethics:

But then again I see another way one could go with the matter of Non-Locality.

Please show it.

 

[doronshadmi]

What kind of dressing would you like on your salad?

Plain nude is the best.

 

[zooterkin]

You don't have to write it jsfisher.

Your abstraction inability to grasp
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5818172&postcount=9446 , http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5795672&postcount=9323 ,
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5799260&postcount=9332 or
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5799837&postcount=9339.
is sufficient enough in order to support my claim.

Actually your demand to show the string of symbols where you wrote that my diagrams is Geometry, actually reinforce my claim that all your communication and reasoning skills are totally depend on strings of symbols, such that no other representation of some notion is acceptable.

Ah, so your understanding of how language works is on a par with your understanding of mathematics?

 

[doronshadmi]

Ah, so your understanding of how language works is on a par with your understanding of mathematics?

Do you mean something like

Whoosh!

?

 

[Giggywig]

Here is a quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimension :

snip
a point on the unit circle in the plane
snip

This is simply wrong, because in both examples a point (0-space) has 2 labels w.r.t 2-space, where in one case
it is (x,y)(=Cartesian coordinate) and on the other it is (length,angle)(= polar coordinate).

snip

You do know what the unit circle is, right?

 

[zooterkin]

Do you mean something like
?

That was another example of your failure to comprehend, yes.

 

[The Man]

You are confusing between a name that is given to some space (by the maximum number of labels that an 0-scape is used in order to measure the given space) and the space itself, which is atomic by nature (and this atomic property is its real definition).

No, Doron I am not, which is why a label is simply a label. That a label can be used to reflect some aspect of a particular space does not infer that any label reflects some aspect of some particular space. While you on the other hand continue to just make up labels like “atomic” stick them on to things and claim it is “by nature” when it is simply your own nature to just (and perhaps deliberately) confuse your own contrived labels with some “property” “by nature” you think that label imbues.

In other words, your labelled-oriented reasoning simply can’t grasp http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5822729&postcount=9449.

“labelled-oriented”? Sorry Doron that accurately describes your approach and “reasoning”. as we see below.

Again, the maximum number of labels that are needed in order to measure some space is not the definition of that space, but simply used also as a tool to distingiush between atomic aspects of spaces. The tool that is used to distinguish between atomics aspects is not the atomic aspects at their self state, where the self state is the real definition of a space.

0 < n < ∞ < ∞

0-space and ∞-space are not measurable at thier self state.

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.

We can Cleary see it in the case of any named-space, that has no measured labels at its self state since a space at its self state is atomic (not local AND not non-local).

So once again you assert your “measurment” is based on “measured labels” making your assertions and “reasoning” “labelled-oriented”.

∞-space is exactly the irreducibility of ∞-space (total Non-locality) to 0-space (total Locality) AND the non-increaseability of 0-space (total Locality) to ∞-space (total Non-locality).

∞-space is the basis of fogs, no matter if converges or diverges collection is considered.

Again you have failed to distinguish between the definition of a space by its atomic aspect, and its name that is given by the number of labels that are atteched to 0-space, which is used as one of the muasurment tools of the given space.

Once again Doron that failure remains yours as does you again asserting “your labelled-oriented reasoning” above.

You simply stacked under the complex result of a measured space and have no ability to get its atomic nature, which is not local AND not non-local.

“not local AND not non-local”? Those were your “atomic” aspects, so now you have another atomic aspect “atomic nature” that is “not local AND not non-local”?

In other words, you don’t understand spaces at all, and specifically you don’t understand the real meaning of names like 0-space, n-space, ∞-space or ∞-space.

No Doron we understand and utilize spaces all the time. What have you ever done with yours except to give them labels “like 0-space, n-space, ∞-space or ∞-space” and profess “your labelled-oriented reasoning “?

 

[The Man]

No you do not get it The Man, since you have an axiomatic disagreement about Non-locality.



The Man, since you have an axiomatic disagreement about Non-locality, you have no valid argument about OM.

Once again Doron your “belongs to AND does not belong to” ascription of your “Non-locality” simply disagrees with itself. You can label it an “axiomatic disagreement about Non-locality all you want, but it doesn’t change the fact that your “Non-locality” ascription is simply in “disagreement” with itself.

Here you can’t get that The “Black\White view” is not the basis of OM’s reasoning, but it is used as a starting point that demonstrates the need to be developed beyond the “Black\White view”.

Yep the starting point of your EMM coloring book, thus it’s foundation. You do remember foundation don’t you?

The foundations of some building is the ground itself, which is more fundamentel than any floor of that building.

Your understating skills to get EMM do not exist.

Sorry Doron I’m just not interested in coloring books, although I did notice that you managed to stay within the lines when coloring yours.

Yes I know The Man, your reasoning is some joyful accident.

Accident? The involvement of collections is intentional when considering, well, collections.

 

[Apathia]

A number is a measurment tool that is derived from Memory\Object Linkage, which has also qualitative properties that are related to Ethics:

[qimg]http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4006/4389327007_f968923c21_o.jpg[/qimg]


Please show it.

I forgot that's as good as it gets.
There is no application of number as quality. The value for ethics is simply that we are to recognize that a numbers are born of
Local/Non-Local,
QualityQuantity,
Memory/Object Interaction (or Linkage)
And there for realize the world is not merely objects set appart from our selves.

I confess the CK diagrams do nothing for me.
I understand that they are another graphic of Something/Something Else Linkage.
As such they are simply a repeat of the whole complements linkage structure thingy and not the example I was wrongfully asking for.

On a number of a occaisons I've spoken of the Buddhist perspective regarding the Non-Local.
I have to get to work now
but in brief, there are no "Atomic" (Doron's Atomic) entities.
There are just images.
And Non-Locality is as reflection in a mirror.
The mirror reflects a changing panorama of images, but none are of the mitrror or the reflecting itself.
Reflection is free of any content. Not a single rflected image sullies or taints it.

But reflection doesn't exist without the reflections and reflected.
Its all reflections of reflections, images of images.
So that there is no reflection without the reflections or reflections without reflection.
(I realize this is a crude analogy.)

Non-Locality is not without Locality,
Locality is not without Non-Locality.
They have no "Atomic" independence.
To advance them into Atomic independence is to posit a metaphysical ideology. (But anyone is free to get metaphysical if they like.)
(The Taoist perspective on this is interdependence.)

Warning another very crude analogy:
You cannot capture the mirror in a mirrior, much less itself.
There are only relfected images.
Set one mirror before another, and you get the celebrated infinite hall of mirrors. All just an unbounded image.

Yet the mirrors have only a finite space between them.

The Infinite is just an image.
And there is not infinite without the finite, no finite without the infinite.
And they can be found within each other, because both aren't "Atoms" but ideological images of a reality that is truly Complex.

 

[The Man]

Here is the quote of what you said about “philosophical view of existence”

And here is a quote of you, which provides the answer to your question: “How is one “hitting one's head with a hammer”?”

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:

I know exactly what I wrote Doron, do you have any actual points or questions?

What existing law The Man, is it some physical law that prevents the actual existence of such an experiment?

Those pertaining to assault and assault with a deadly weapon as well as those pertaining to human experimentation.

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.

No just from the stated futility of the experiment, the subject/experimenter could never know the conclusion.

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.

Actually I have no knowledge of any “non-actual existence of such an experiment” and the actual evidence certainly does not sustain your assertions 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”. Self injurious (as well as that injuring others) behavior is often a simple fact of the human condition (which is also why I specifically did not recommend such experimentation)

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.

As I have said before they often do “reinforce each other”. As to a “comprehensive framework” I simply do not see that as a requirement as ethics and logic can and often do “reinforce each other”. Any additional “framework” would just restrict some of that reinforcement while simply not accommodating those conditions where “Etichs and Logics” do not “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:

All I am opposing Doron is you simply not developing your notions and your false claims about math in general. As well as the imposition of some self-contradictory, naive, coloring book ethics nonsense such as yours as any kind of acctual “framework” whatsoever.

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” ?

Don’t you think it’s time you actually started reading posts? You can start with where I specifically stated the disadvantages of those perspectives and limitations.

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

Your OM has no direction, oh you certainly have some lofty dreams about what you would like your OM to do, but that does not give you or your OM any direction particularly considering the self-contradiction that still stands as the basis of your OM.

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?

Pleas let us know when you actually gain some understanding of logic, ethics or both. Then you might be able to understand that non-naive ethics is not a “Black\White view”, but binary logic is.

 

[doronshadmi]

but it doesn’t change the fact that your “Non-locality” ascription is simply in “disagreement” with itself.

No The Man, again you demonstrate how your local-only reasoning leads you to see "facts" that are exactly the result of your local-only reasoning.

Actually you do not understand your own reseach project ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5829316&postcount=9480 ).

a label is simply a label

Yes I know The Man, this "profound" statement is a demonstration of your best ability to grasp notions, exactly as shown about your ability to grasp OM.

“labelled-oriented”? Sorry Doron that accurately describes your approach and “reasoning”. as we see below.

Sorry The Man, did you forget so quickly that "a label is simply a label"? (as we see above).

So once again you assert your “measurment” is based on “measured labels” making your assertions and “reasoning” “labelled-oriented”

Since all you get can't be developed beyond "a label is simply a label" you have missed the notion that a definition of some space is not the labels that are used to measure it. But we can't expect much from a person that uses "a label is simply a label"-reasoning.

“not local AND not non-local”? Those were your “atomic” aspects, so now you have another atomic aspect “atomic nature”

Another example of the inability of The Man (which uses only "a label is simply a label"-reasoning) to grasp the difference between the atomic self-state (which is not local AND not non-local) and some aspect of that state (which is Local OR Non-local).

Such a person can't distinguish, for example, between "silence" and silence itself, which is not the word (or the label) "silence".

No Doron we understand and utilize spaces all the time.

You can drive a car without any understanding of the technology and/or physical laws that enables to do that.

I am talking about driving and understanding a car.

Yep the starting point of your EMM coloring book, thus it’s foundation.

Now The Man's step-by-step thinking style airs its view. How "lovely".

The involvement of collections is intentional when considering, well, collections.

At last something new from The Man's shop. Instead of "a label is simply a label"-reasoning, we have the "new" product known as "a collection is simply a collection"-reasoning.

the subject/experimenter could never know the conclusion

Self injurious (as well as that injuring others) behavior is often a simple fact of the human condition (which is also why I specifically did not recommend such experimentation)

So you are able know the conclusion (the result) of such an experiment, otherwise you can't recommend not doing such experimentation. So your mind plays a main role in your experiment, which claims that the subject/experimenter could never know the conclusion.

Well, OM's reasoning is more optimistic than your "the subject/experimenter could never know the conclusion"-reasoning.

Call it naïve-reasoning, but I prefer it over your "the subject/experimenter could never know the conclusion"-reasoning.

Any additional “framework” would just restrict some of that reinforcement while simply not accommodating those conditions where “Etichs and Logics” do not “reinforce each other”.

Yes, why not The Man? We really must not interfere when some politicians intend to do some genocide by using only Logics. After all we have to save also those conditions where “Ethics and Logics” do not “reinforce each other”, isn't it The Man?

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?

Pleas let us know when you actually gain some understanding of logic, ethics or both. Then you might be able to understand that non-naive ethics is not a “Black\White view”, but binary logic is.

So, once again, how do you develop a non-naïve framework that can help us to survive a technology that currently is mostly derived from binary logic?

Are you going to write about me again instead of at least try to answer to that question?

 

[jsfisher]

You don't have to write it jsfisher.

I'll take that as an admission that you knowingly, deliberately lied. I'm not sure what sort of world you live in, Doronshadmi, but in mine, deliberate liars have the ethics of pond scum.

 

[doronshadmi]

because both aren't "Atoms" but ideological images of a reality that is truly Complex.

By OM, true Complexity is the result of the infinite irreducibility of Non-locality to Locality and/or the infinite non-increaseability of Locality to Non-locality, under Non-locality/Locality Linkage.