Deeper than primes

[Skeptic]

My coloring book is a nothing but a finite example of Complexity.

So that's where you get your math knowledge from!

This "Head"-only paradigm gave us the ability to understand that we are not the center of everything

... says the man who thinks Cauchy and Gauss are not fit to lick his boots...

 

[Skeptic]

In other words, you don't get EEM.

Nobody does. Because it's gibberish. You can't "get" gibberish because there's nothing to "get".

 

[doronshadmi]

... says the man who thinks Cauchy and Gauss are not fit to lick his boots...

We have here a person that can't get things beyond the personal perspective of the considered subjects.

...
Nobody does. Because it's gibberish. You can't "get" gibberish because there's nothing to "get".

As a result he gets nothing.

 

[Complexity]

At least you are fairly certain

Sarcasm.

How embarrasing for you that I had to point this out to you.

 

[The Man]

No, OM is not an operating system and we are not controlled bits of such a system. What I say is exactly the opposite:

Numbers are Memory/Object Linkage so they are not totally independent of us.

In that case OM is also us and we have profound influence on OM's use.

So it is “not an operating system and we are not controlled bits of such a system” but “OM is also us and we have profound influence on OM's use”. So you are specifically referring to how we “influence” each other and “OM's use” which “is also us”. So it is how you would like people to “influence” and “use” each other.

Now I see that you have some paranoia about OM as some kind of control system on human minds.

Nope just curious as to what or how you think your OM might affect the actions of people.

Well, don't you worry, the notion of a control system on human minds is derived exactly from your mechanic school of thought, who does not understand Complexity and the meaningful influence of the players on the show, that need responsibility development in order to not play their final act of this show (to determine the value of L because of self-destruction).

I’m certainly not worried. Why are you? Your OM has demonstrated absolutely no utility and that includes influencing and/or controlling anyone, but you (mostly because you are just so worried).

Computers are nothing but some tools that reflect us, including our ethical behaviors.

Computers have “ethical behaviors”? You seem to be deliberately confusing your own ethical interpretations with the operations of computers.

Again you deal with me and do not deal with the question, shell we conclude that you actually have no answer?

You asked for my suggestions and I gave them to you. That you simply don’t like them isn’t my problem, but I still recommend “that you simply try to stop being so paranoid and actually study logics and ethics”.

 

[The Man]

No, EEM is about developing complexity (abstract or not) wherever it can be found ( http://www.scribd.com/doc/17039028/OMDP ), and we are some complex forms.

In other words, you don't get EEM.

Oh I get it all too well. So since we are not the only “complexity” your “EEM” would be ‘protecting’ and “developing” then your “EEM” would consider the destruction of the entire human race as ethical as long as it resulted in the ‘development’ of “some complex forms”. Your “EEM” simply makes ethically acceptable the very “L value” outcome you fear.

 

[Apathia]

Shall we take "yes" as "there is no simplicity, there is only complexity"?

As you are using those terms, I'd say there is no Simplicity and no Complexity.

I am talking about a scientific method that can do that [be a moral authority], because it works from the common foundation of every phenomenon, whether it is recognized as "Heart" or "Head".

This common foundation is called direct perception, and it is the basis of any kind of mental activity, including the physical realm.

The level of misunderstanding of both the scientific method and moral decision making is so great here, that I am at a complete loss as to how to make any reply.

Direct perception is the natural foundation of both Heart AND Head, such that they complement each other into a one complex form.

Go ahead and dismiss me as being hopelessly blind, but I have no "direct perception" of the X/Y Linkage Foundation.
I see only a neat but of limited application intellectual, idealistic construct.
A linguistic contivance that claims to be prior to language.
It isn't. Nor is it the natural structure of language.

 

[doronshadmi]

So it is how you would like people to “influence” and “use” each other.

1) OM is a tool (very preliminary at this stage) and not a goal.

2) This tool is focused on the ability to define the linkage between opposites without arriving to contradiction (mutual destruction).

3) Some results of such a linkage are known as heart-properties known as empathy, compassion, Love, Tolerance, Humor, and more, which are developed exactly because they are derived from a non-trivial communication between opposites.

4) Binary Logics, which its consistency is valued by avoiding mutual destruction between opposite, has no communication abilities between opposites, because according to Binary Logics the middle is excluded, and as a result there is no such thing like opposites' communication under Binary Logics.

5) Most of our technologies for the past 600 years are derived from Binary Logics, which is a framework that has no ability to communicate between opposites; exactly because by Binary Logics the middle is excluded (we are using a black\white framework that, also according to The Man, "has been the hallmark of tyrants throughout the ages.")

6) In my opinion it is about time to be developed beyond Binary Logics as the main tool of our current technological developments, where OM is a preliminary work in that direction, which is focused on the technology of the consciousness that may lead us to develop the linkage (the development of the communication) between opposites in non-destructive ways.

7) One of the result of such a linkage (the development of the communication) is non-local numbers or fogs, which are the result of the irreducibility of the non-local to the local or the non-increaseability of the local to the non-local, exactly because the opposites known as Non-locality or Locality saves their self properties (their independent identities) through the linkage.

8) Furthermore, concepts like Uncertainty, Redundancy, Simultaneity etc. are OM's fundaments and are not considered anymore as "white noise" that has to be eliminated in order to get some fixed results (like sums, for example).

Computers have “ethical behaviors”?

Since they are our agents, they also reflects our ethical skills.

You asked for my suggestions and I gave them to you. That you simply don’t like them isn’t my problem, but I still recommend “that you simply try to stop being so paranoid and actually study logics and ethics”.

The Man instead of being my shrink, please simply answer to my question, which is:

What are your suggestions to reinforce the linkage between Ethics and Logics, in order to avoid, us much as possible self-made destruction?

"actually study logics and ethics”

Done all along the way, and exactly because of this intensive study I have found that OM's development or any other tool that is developed beyond excluded middle "communication" between opposites, is one of the most important projects that have to be done in these days.

 

[doronshadmi]

Oh I get it all too well. So since we are not the only “complexity” your “EEM” would be ‘protecting’ and “developing” then your “EEM” would consider the destruction of the entire human race as ethical as long as it resulted in the ‘development’ of “some complex forms”. Your “EEM” simply makes ethically acceptable the very “L value” outcome you fear.

No The Man, you still do not understand that EEM will do its best in order to save and develop the quality and the quantity of the diversity of complex forms (abstract or non-abstract), so the chance that EEM will consider the destruction of the entire human race as ethical action, simply demonstrate your mechanical and excluded-middle reasoning about a concept like Complexity.

Furthermore you still understand the internal dynamical forces that govern the behavior of our civilization (for example: Politics) as non self-made Force-majeure, so we can't expect much from a person that understand Complexity in terms of excluded-middle reasoning and internal dynamical forces of our civilization as non self-made Force-majeure.

That is not in the limited position of The Man's reasoning, will find that EEM is the last method that will be forced to consider the destruction of the entire human race in order to save Complexity.

The current discommunication between Logics and Ethics is in a "better" position than EEM in order to actually execute the destruction of the entire human race, even without the need of any consideration, but persons like The Man, which understand Complexity in terms of excluded-middle reasoning and internal dynamical forces of our civilization as non self-made Force-majeure, can't get that.

 

[doronshadmi]

As you are using those terms, I'd say there is no Simplicity and no Complexity

Please provide your terms of these concepts.

 

[Apathia]

Apathia said:

As you are using those terms, I'd say there is no Simplicity and no Complexity

Please provide your terms of these concepts.

I should have said, "As you are using those words, what you call Simplicity and Complexity do not exist, except as concepts in your philosophy."

There is no "Atom" of Simplicity. And no "Atom" of Complexity.
Your words for your concepts will do.
It's your conceptual construct I'm not buying, not the words you use.

This is like someone saying to a Hindu, "I don't believe in Vishnu and Shiva."
And the Hindu answering, "What names of Vishnu and Shiva do you believe in?"

Perhaps it's because so many times in these pages, I have listened and tried to understand your basic ideas and sometimes successfully put them in my own words. And explored what you say without a blanket dismissal.
So maybe it seems now I'm just quibbling about words.

But here, something in the Ethical context:
In America we are always struggling with the rights of individual persons vs. the rights of the community.
Some of us put the priority on Individuality. Some on Community.
You rightly assert that we must recognize a dynamic between those two poles.

But it's not that Community exists as an "atom" of itself, or that Individuality exists as an "atom' of itself. These are linguistic abstractions.
The dynamic in the real world is that communities don't exist without individual persons and individual persons don't exist without community.
Psych-socially speaking individual personhood and community are inseparable.

So we realize it's not a war between the rights of the individual and the rights of the community, but a quest to integrate and advance the rights that inseparably serve both the individual for the sake of the community and the community for the sake of the individual.

Where do we begin? With you and me in community, not with abstract independent "atoms" of "Community" and "Individuality."
The organic nature of this dynamic is that the rights and needs of the community and of individual interpenetrate and are found within each other.
It is a much more intimate relationship than a logic table of the possible combos of the abstract concepts of Community and Individuality.

And this is just an example of a dynamic where there are two sets of concerns to be juggled. Life has more messy situations all the time.

You are asking how can we "complement" all these issues to insure our survival?
I'm saying that closer to the core of our survival is recognizing how life's issues interpenetrate and integrate.
And such organic goings on are much messier than an attempt to mathematize ethical concepts.

 

[doronshadmi]

Apathia this is a beautiful post.

Let me correct some of your interpretations of OM.

There is no such a thing like "atom" for Simplicity and "atom" for Complexity in OM.

There are opposite atomic aspects (Non-local or Local) that enable Complexity as a result of the linkage between them, such that the identity of the opposite atomic aspects is saved during linkage exactly because they are derived form atomic self state, which enables them to be linked without contradicting each others identities.

According to OM's view Complexity is possible exactly because it is a manifestation of a non-destructive linkage between opposites (where under non-destructive linkage between opposites the identities of the opposites are not eliminated, otherwise there cannot be any complex phenomenon, abstract or not).

You still miss the exact nature of this linkage, where two opposites are not only independent, but they are mutually independent of each other, where mutuality is their common atomic self-state and their independency is their unique identities as opposites.

OM is not less than the common and the unique as a one realm.

Community or some individual of that community are already complex phenomena (a community is based on persons, and a person is based on his biological complexity) so OM asks: What enables Complexity in any given scale level, whether it is at the level of civilizations or at the level of a single hydrogen atom.

These notions are derived from direct perception, which is a pre-linguistic state that enables language, but I explicitly said that silence is not the word (or thought) "silence", and this distinction is essential of OM's understanding.

Please read very carefully http://www.scribd.com/doc/17039028/OMDP and try to get the core (the direct perception state).

As long as you omit direct perception as OM's main principle, you don't get OM.

To be interpenetrated and integrated is already a state of Complexity, but OM goes deeper in order to find the foundations of Complexity.

You claim that such organic goings on are much messier than an attempt to mathematize ethical concepts.

Ethical concepts are also a form of Complexity and so is Math and Logics.

OM is a tool that is used in order to fundamentally get Complexity, and it is done by direct perception, which again, it is a pre-linguistic state that enables any mental expression, whether it is Empathy or Logical analysis.

By OM heart and head are a one organic complex thing.

 

[Complexity]

I'm going to start charging it for each use of my name.

I'd let it ride, but it is so proud of its ignorance. Some things should not stand.

 

[Apathia]

I'm going to start charging it for each use of my name.

I'd let it ride, but it is so proud of its ignorance. Some things should not stand.

Get a trade mark on it as George Lucus did with "droid."
Because of that if I ever try to publish a novel I wrote, I'm going to have to go through it and substitute some other word to avoid a copywrite violation.

 

[Apathia]

Apathia this is a beautiful post.

Let me correct some of your interpretations of OM.

There is no such a thing like "atom" for Simplicity and "atom" for Complexity in OM.

There are opposite atomic aspects (Non-local or Local) that enable Complexity as a result of the linkage between them, such that the identity of the opposite atomic aspects is saved during linkage exactly because they are derived form atomic self state, which enables them to be linked without contradicting each others identities.

According to OM's view Complexity is possible exactly because it is a manifestation of a non-destructive linkage between opposites (where under non-destructive linkage between opposites the identities of the opposites are not eliminated, otherwise there cannot be any complex phenomenon, abstract or not).

You still miss the exact nature of this linkage, where two opposites are not only independent, but they are mutually independent of each other, where mutuality is their common atomic self-state and their independency is their unique identities as opposites.

OM is not less than the common and the unique as a one realm.

Community or some individual of that community are already complex phenomena (a community is based on persons, and a person is based on his biological complexity) so OM asks: What enables Complexity in any given scale level, whether it is at the level of civilizations or at the level of a single hydrogen atom.

These notions are derived from direct perception, which is a pre-linguistic state that enables language, but I explicitly said that silence is not the word (or thought) "silence", and this distinction is essential of OM's understanding.

Please read very carefully http://www.scribd.com/doc/17039028/OMDP and try to get the core (the direct perception state).

As long as you omit direct perception as OM's main principle, you don't get OM.

To be interpenetrated and integrated is already a state of Complexity, but OM goes deeper in order to find the foundations of Complexity.

You claim that such organic goings on are much messier than an attempt to mathematize ethical concepts.

Ethical concepts are also a form of Complexity and so is Math and Logics.

OM is a tool that is used in order to fundamentally get Complexity, and it is done by direct perception, which again, it is a pre-linguistic state that enables any mental expression, whether it is Empathy or Logical analysis.

By OM heart and head are a one organic complex thing.

Boldings mine.
Pardon but it seems you just reassert that Complexity and Simplicity are mutually idependent ontological entities.

Here's the gist of our difference:
I'm saying that nothing has an independent, inherent existance, identity, or essence of its own. But we can still make conventional distinctions while realizing that in essence (or metaphysically speaking) all is of one seam of no-identity.

It seems to me that your X/Y Complementary approach is intuitive to you, so you declare it a matter of "direct perception."
People who don't get it then must be counted as lacking an essential awareness.

Yet. there are people (myself included) whose "direct perception" is that all things and concepts are empty of ontological or metaphysical reality.

But apart from all that, I'd be happy for you to see that there are ethical ways of seeing that differ from your particular construction.
Fortunately Humans will be compassionate apart from their metaphysical beliefs.
That's where my hope for our kind is. Not that we can somehow be persuaded to all adopt the same philosophy or religion.

I'm happy with people carrying on with their personal philosophies and religions if those are their personal instruments of heart opening and spiritual intimacy.
But it is sad when a religion or a philosophy becomes a windowless room where one retreats to an ideology without making soul connections.
(I know this pathology well, because I've had so many episodes of being in my "head" with a closed heart.)

 

[doronshadmi]

Pardon but it seems you just reassert that Complexity and Simplicity are mutually idependent ontological entities.

No, I asserted that Complexity is the result of the mutual independency of the Local with the Non-local because on one hand the Local or the Non-local are derived from the same atomic self-state, but on the other hand they have opposite identities that are kept during linkage.

Without sameness and difference in a one realm, there is no Complexity.

I'm saying that nothing has an independent, inherent existance, identity, or essence of its own.

In that case there is only sameness and Complexity cannot be found.

If there is only difference, then also in this case Complexity cannot be found, because each identity is totally isolated.

Again, OM is not less than Mutual Independency.

Yet. there are people (myself included) whose "direct perception" is that all things and concepts are empty of ontological or metaphysical reality.

In that case you do not exist in any form and can't express what is quoted above.

 

[Apathia]

No, I asserted that Complexity is the result of the mutual independency of the Local with the Non-local because on one hand the Local or the Non-local are derived from the same atomic self-state, but on the other hand they have opposite identities that are kept during linkage.

Without sameness and difference in a one realm, there is no Complexity.


In that case there is only sameness and Complexity cannot be found.

If there is only difference, then also in this case Complexity cannot be found, because each identity is totally isolated.

Again, OM is not less than Mutual Independency.


In that case you do not exist in any form and can't express what is quoted above.

Emperically speaking: a world of varied forms.
Metaphysically speaking: no inherent essence.

Because there no fixed ontological essences (or Platonic forms) change is is possible and the norm. Plenty of complexity for all.
I do exist as a changing form in appearance. But not as an ontological or metaphysical being.
My I is not a metaphysical soul.

You and I are of an integral whole and at the same time are seperate forms.

In human languages we have words of discription such as "difference" and "sameness."
It does not follow that these are metaphysical principles that in cahoots account for the same and the different.
The simpler observation behind sameness and difference is merely contrast. And that's an observation not an ontological principle.

 

[doronshadmi]

Emperically speaking: a world of varied forms.
Metaphysically speaking: no inherent essence.

By OM, any form of speaking is derived from direct perception.

Because there no fixed ontological essences (or Platonic forms) change is is possible and the norm. Plenty of complexity for all.

There are no platonic forms at the level of the atomic self state.

The manifestation of the atomic state is not characterized by platonic forms, but by at least two opposite identities, that if linked, are resulted by "Plenty of complexity for all" whether it is an hydrogen atom or some civilization (where complexity is abstract or not).

I do exist as a changing form in appearance. But not as an ontological or metaphysical being. My I is not a metaphysical soul.

Call it whatever you like, you are the result form/change linkage, where form is derived from stability and change is derived from dynamics.

You and I are of an integral whole and at the same time are seperate forms.

Because we are a linkage between opposites (whole/separate linkage, in this case).

In human languages we have words of discription such as "difference" and "sameness." It does not follow that these are metaphysical principles that in cahoots account for the same and the different.

Again, silence is not "silence" by direct perception.

The simpler observation behind sameness and difference is merely contrast. And that's an observation not an ontological principle.

By direct perception Complexity is at least Participation/Observation Linkage, where a complex that is aware of Complexity, does its best in order to develop both its Qualitative\Quantitative aspects.

OM is some preliminary tool that may help to develop the responsibility, which is involved with Complexity's development.

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

By you there is only change (nothing is fixed) (the Buddhist approach).

By The Man an infinite complex can be summed (has a fixed result)(the Binary Logics approach).

OM is the non-trivial linkage (derived from direct perception) between your extreme views, such that a finite complexity is summed and an infinite complexity is fogged.

 

[Apathia]

By OM, any form of speaking is derived from direct perception.


There are no platonic forms at the level of the atomic self state.

The manifestation of the atomic state is not characterized by platonic forms, but by at least two opposite identities, that if linked, are resulted by "Plenty of complexity for all" whether it is an hydrogen atom or some civilization (where complexity is abstract or not).


Call it whatever you like, you are the result form/change linkage, where form is derived from stability and change is derived from dynamics.


Because we are a linkage between opposites (whole/separate linkage, in this case).


Again, silence is not "silence" by direct perception.


By direct perception Complexity is at least Participation/Observation Linkage, where a complex that is aware of Complexity, does its best in order to develop both its Qualitative\Quantitative aspects.

OM is some preliminary tool that may help to develop the responsibility, which is involved with Complexity's development.

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

By you there is only change (nothing is fixed) (the Buddhist approach).

By The Man an infinite complex can be summed (has a fixed result)(the Binary Logics approach).

OM is the non-trivial linkage (derived from direct perception) between your extreme views, such that a finite complexity is summed and an infinite complexity is fogged.

I mentioned platonic forms, but I do understand that your metaphysical identities are not the same as Plato's Ideal forms.

You are correct about me and the Buddhist approach.
But I'm not seeing that The Man has some kind of opposite extream view to mine. That would be something like everything is fixed in its true nature and change is just an illusion.
I don't know what his prefered philosophical stance is.

I've said that treating infinity as a complete is more comapatble with the Buddhist perspective, for in the Buddhist perspective infinity is not a metaphysical entity and finding that the finite is within the infinite and the infinite within the finite is almost expected.

OM is some preliminary tool that may help to develop the responsibility, which is involved with Complexity's development.

I would say that's the function of most philosophical wisdom. The goal is to live in awareness, responsibility, and compassion for others.

I saw a little girl riding a bicycle yesterday. She still had the training wheels on it, but I could tell that she was ready for her father to take them off.

 

[The Man]

1) OM is a tool (very preliminary at this stage) and not a goal.

A tool that “is how you would like people to “influence” and “use” each other”. You do understand that tools have intended uses and are designed with consideration of the goals in their usage, don’t you? Well thank you for finally admitting that since your “OM” has no or is not “a goal” that you intended it to be useless. Guess what, you succeeded.

2) This tool is focused on the ability to define the linkage between opposites without arriving to contradiction (mutual destruction).

Your “tool” has failed as it results in and is based upon a direct contradiction. You do understand that “opposites” are already ‘linked’ in a non-contradictory fashion by merely being, well, opposites, don’t you?

3) Some results of such a linkage are known as heart-properties known as empathy, compassion, Love, Tolerance, Humor, and more, which are developed exactly because they are derived from a non-trivial communication between opposites.

“communication between opposites”? Just how do you imagine these “opposites” ‘communicate’?

4) Binary Logics, which its consistency is valued by avoiding mutual destruction between opposite, has no communication abilities between opposites, because according to Binary Logics the middle is excluded, and as a result there is no such thing like opposites' communication under Binary Logics.

“mutual destruction between opposite”? How is that ‘avoided’ in binary logic when True AND False is False. Just what do you think is “opposites' communication”

5) Most of our technologies for the past 600 years are derived from Binary Logics, which is a framework that has no ability to communicate between opposites; exactly because by Binary Logics the middle is excluded (we are using a black\white framework that, also according to The Man, "has been the hallmark of tyrants throughout the ages.")

Where have I said binary logic "has been the hallmark of tyrants throughout the ages."? It was specifically binary ethics I was referring to. You still seem to be confusing (again I think deliberately) simple binary logic with some form of ethics.

6) In my opinion it is about time to be developed beyond Binary Logics as the main tool of our current technological developments, where OM is a preliminary work in that direction, which is focused on the technology of the consciousness that may lead us to develop the linkage (the development of the communication) between opposites in non-destructive ways.

In my opinion you should actually try studying logic. “technology of the consciousness”? Got any examples of such technology or are you just “focused on” something you made up in your own mind? Again just how do “opposites” ‘communicate’ ? You seem to be simply anthropomorphizing aspects of logic like opposites.

7) One of the result of such a linkage (the development of the communication) is non-local numbers or fogs, which are the result of the irreducibility of the non-local to the local or the non-increaseability of the local to the non-local, exactly because the opposites known as Non-locality or Locality saves their self properties (their independent identities) through the linkage.

So you think “opposites” are ‘communicating’ to you or with you (as some included middle I surmise) thorough your “direct perception” and feeding you your “non-local numbers or fogs” nonsense? If that is the case I would add you getting a shrink to my suggestions.

8) Furthermore, concepts like Uncertainty, Redundancy, Simultaneity etc. are OM's fundaments and are not considered anymore as "white noise" that has to be eliminated in order to get some fixed results (like sums, for example).

Certainly “Redundancy” and/or “Simultaneity” has no bearing on a “fixed results (like sums…”, but “Uncertainty” certainly can and that simply makes the resulting ‘sum’ uncertain to a certain degree or fixed within those limits of that uncertainty. The “white noise" still remains simply and entirely yours Doron. Again your own personal uncertainty or “fog” does not imbue mathematics with your same “fog” (particularly about “concepts like Uncertainty, Redundancy, Simultaneity etc.”)

Since they are our agents, they also reflects our ethical skills.

So now computers have “ethical skills”? You obviously still do not understand why computers are not tasked with making ethical determinations.

The Man instead of being my shrink, please simply answer to my question, which is:

What are your suggestions to reinforce the linkage between Ethics and Logics, in order to avoid, us much as possible self-made destruction?]

The suggestions have already been given to you, whether you have a shrink or not I still recommend them. Also as I said above I would recommend you getting a shrink if you think opposites are ‘communicating’ and in particular if you think they are ‘communicating’ to or with you.

Done all along the way, and exactly because of this intensive study I have found that OM's development or any other tool that is developed beyond excluded middle "communication" between opposites, is one of the most important projects that have to be done in these days.

Go back and do it again as you have obviously missed or simply misunderstood majoer portions, concepts and developments.