Deeper than primes

[jsfisher]

Since there is no such a thing like a complete infinite set....

That is a limitation of doronetics, not of Mathematics. And, since doronetics has yet to produce anything resembling a result, this one limitation isn't your biggest problem.

 

[doronshadmi]

...mutual dependence...

Since Mutuality and Dependency are synonym there cannot be any complementary relation between them.

In other words, you can't get the complementary relation between Mutuality (Non-Locality) and Independency (Locality).

Who cares?

Here is where you fail.

Your perception has no ability to get superposition of ids.

 

[doronshadmi]

What a surprise.

What a non-surprise, again local-only perception of the considered subject.

Again, according to The Uncertainty Principle (ABC…) and (A,B,C…) complement each other, such that if the system is measured in terms of (ABC…) it can't be also be measured in terms (A,B,C…) and vice versa.

And you, jsfisher, simply can't comprehend that by your local-only perception.

 

[jsfisher]

Since Mutuality and Dependency are synonym....

Nope.

 

[doronshadmi]

Nope.

Yep.

 

[doronshadmi]

That is a limitation of doronetics, not of Mathematics. And, since doronetics has yet to produce anything resembling a result, this one limitation isn't your biggest problem.

One of the results is called a fog, which is derived from infinite interpolation/extrapolation that your sum-only view can't comprehend.

 

[zooterkin]

One of the results is called a fog, which is derived from infinite interpolation/extrapolation that your sum-only view can't comprehend.

Go on, then, give a worked example with actual numbers.

 

[jsfisher]

Yep.

I see. So in Doron's world of make-believe, he and Moshe can have a mutual friend, and that would mean Moshe and Doron are dependent.

 

[jsfisher]

One of the results is called a fog, which is derived from infinite interpolation/extrapolation that your sum-only view can't comprehend.

That's not a result, just a made-up name. You make up lots of names, but never get to an actual result. Hell, you never even really define anything, just tell us what you call it.

But, go ahead and surprise us all. As zooterkin asked, provide a worked example, please.

Or show us how the uncertainty principle is expressed in OM.

Or correct your mistakes in your 3X3 tree thingy presentation.

Or...well...produce an actual result.

 

[doronshadmi]

I see. So in Doron's world of make-believe, he and Moshe can have a mutual friend, and that would mean Moshe and Doron are dependent.

No.

Doron and Moshe are Mutually Independent, exactly because they have a mutual environment among individuals.

 

[doronshadmi]

That's not a result

Yes it is. You simply can't get its qualitative foundation.

Or...well...produce an actual result.

What is an actual result for you?

 

[jsfisher]

No.

Doron and Moshe are Mutually Independent, exactly because they have a mutual environment among individuals.

You seem to be moving away from your claim mutual and dependent were synonyms. Is that because you are retracting your prior statement, or is just another exercise in contradiction?

 

[jsfisher]

Yes it is. You simply can't get its qualitative foundation.

Build all the foundations you like. When you can generate a result from them, do let us know. So far, though, you'd got nothing other than post hoc claims without substance.

What is an actual result for you?

Since you have claimed OM is aligned with Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, show us the novel and compelling way OM would express the principle. Don't just tell us how much your twisted concepts are like what you think the uncertainty principle is; present some real formulation of the principle. That would be an interesting result.

 

[Apathia]

 

[doronshadmi]

You seem to be moving away from your claim mutual and dependent were synonyms.

You seem to miss that Dependency is already given by Mutuality (in this case the common environment) among Individuals.

Again, Mutual-Independent means that the researchable is not totally Mutual and not totally Independent.

 

[doronshadmi]

[qimg]http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4068/4711080643_d71d687fc4_b.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://h1.ripway.com/Apathia/escher27s_relativity.jpg[/qimg]

1) Think about a spaceship, without a particular direction of gravitation.

2) Think about different places around the surface of the spaceship called Planet Earth, which are drawn in a one picture by ignoring a common gravitational centre.

 

[doronshadmi]

Build all the foundations you like. When you can generate a result from them, do let us know.

You still miss it jsfisher.

Fogs or sums are both the results of the linkage of these qualities.

Since you have claimed OM is aligned with Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, show us the novel and compelling way OM would express the principle. Don't just tell us how much your twisted concepts are like what you think the uncertainty principle is; present some real formulation of the principle. That would be an interesting result.

Already done.

You simply can't get the difference between (AB) and (A,B) because your reasoning is closed under (A,B).

Again, according to The Uncertainty Principle (ABC…) and (A,B,C…) complement each other, such that if the system is measured in terms of (ABC…) it can't be also be measured in terms (A,B,C…) and vice versa.

And you, jsfisher, simply can't comprehend that by your local-only perception that is closed under (A,B,C…) (no superposition of ids).

Jsfisher, you and The Man share the same limitation:

You have already been quite clear before that your "superposition" does not involve any superposition of ids.

Who cares? …

Here is where you fail.

Your perception has no ability to get superposition of ids.

The "Nothing is new here" at the beginning of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6045590&postcount=10175 means that I write the same novel things all along this thread, but you simply can't get them because you are closed under local-only reasoning.

 

[Apathia]

1) Think about a spaceship, without a particular direction of gravitation.

2) Think about different places around the surface of the spaceship called Planet Earth, which are drawn in a one picture by ignoring a common gravitational centre.

Think Picasso!
http://www.funny-potato.com/picasso-school.html

Joking aside, there's a suggestion in the comparison of OM, Escher, and Cubism
about the play of perspectives.

 

[Apathia]

A popular use of foggy numbers:

How many donuts do you have in that bag?

a dozenish.

-ish is frequently used in especially British English as an aproximizer.

Of course the OM idea is a bit more ishy, because the bag contains not just donuts identified as such but objects of different and indefinite identity.

OM is so ishy!

And while we're here, let's not forget our favorite painting of the ishiness of time:

 

[doronshadmi]

At this stage I wish to add more fuel to the flames of your ignorance of ONs.

The notion of Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is derived from a tradition of measurement that is based on Local-only perception of the measured.

As a result the accurate measured results of the non-local (wave) aspect of a given wavicle prevent the accurate measured results of the local (particle) aspect of that wavicle (and vice versa) and we generally get a serial system of distinct measurements that are ordered between the wave aspect of the wavicle and the particle aspect of the wavicle.

But according to OM this is nothing but a serial step-by-step perception of a wavicle, and a wavicle can be also taken in parallel perception.

By doing this the distinct forms of a given Organic Number are taken at-once, and the measured result is exactly the simultaneity of the distinct forms, which gives an accurate result of parallel measurement of a given wavicle, which is exactly what it is at-once, a wavicle.

A wavicle is taken as a logical strange fruit, exactly because it is measured only by serial reasoning.