Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
jsfisher said:
Yes, so? Contextus was derived from contexere which in turn was derived from com+texere. Etymology is a wonderful thing. What's your point? Context does not mean to weave together.
Click to expand...
Context is exactly weaving together things into a common framework.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Context is exactly weaving together things into a common framework.
Click to expand...


Doron, don't you even have basic dictionary skills? Is your knowledge of everything so shallow you can't even look up a word for its meaning? Etymology is not the same as meaning. The word, context, does not mean "weaving together things into a common framework."

Even if it did, which it does not, what point are you trying to make?
 
doronshadmi said:
The Man in Plato's cave :boxedin: sees :covereyes only the shadows on the wall.
http://www.thehamletenigma.com/images/cave04.jpg
[qimg]http://www.thehamletenigma.com/images/cave04.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Nope, he just sees the wall by the light of the fire it reflects. What he can not see is the wall where no light reflects. So technically he sees ~"the shadows on the wall". Open your eyes Doron and climb out of your box and you may just find that what you thought were, and you interpreted as, “shadows on the wall” were actually ~"shadows on the wall".
 
jsfisher said:
Doron, don't you even have basic dictionary skills? Is your knowledge of everything so shallow you can't even look up a word for its meaning? Etymology is not the same as meaning. The word, context, does not mean "weaving together things into a common framework."

Even if it did, which it does not, what point are you trying to make?
Click to expand...
The current meaning of Context is still "weaving together things into a common framework".

Take things out of their Context and you ignore the property that "weaving them together"(which is non-local w.r.t any given thing).

OM is a non context-dependent framework because it is derived from the universal principle of any given context: The Linkage among the connected (localities) AND the connector (non-locality).
 
The Man said:
Nope, he just sees the wall by the light of the fire it reflects. What he can not see is the wall where no light reflects. So technically he sees ~"the shadows on the wall". Open your eyes Doron and climb out of your box and you may just find that what you thought were, and you interpreted as, “shadows on the wall” were actually ~"shadows on the wall".
Click to expand...

What enables you to compare between ~"the shadows on the wall" AND "the shadows on the wall"?
 
doronshadmi said:
The current meaning of Context is still "weaving together things into a common framework".

Take things out of their Context and you ignore the property that "weaving them together"(which is non-local w.r.t any given thing).
Click to expand...

You still having trouble reading a dictionary. Maybe the neighbor's 10 year-old can help you out. Don't be embarrassed; you'll get the hang of it eventually.

OM is a non context-dependent framework because it is derived from the universal principle of any given context: The Linkage among the connected (localities) AND the connector (non-locality).
Click to expand...

Oh, I see. You needed to misrepresent context so you can present a meaningless statement about doronetics.

Until that neighbor's kid helps you out, why don't we just skip over your abuse of the word, context. What is this universal principle of which you speak?
 
doronshadmi said:
What enables you to compare between ~"the shadows on the wall" AND "the shadows on the wall"?
Click to expand...

Who needs "to compare between ~"the shadows on the wall" AND "the shadows on the wall”", other than you? Why do you need “to compare between ~"the shadows on the wall" AND "the shadows on the wall""? The fact remains that one can see ~"the shadows on the wall" and that defines "the shadows on the wall".
 
doronshadmi said:
Non-locality\Locality Linkage.
Click to expand...

Great, so the universal principle is Non-locality\Locality Linkage. And you've already told us that this linkage is the framework for OM. You've have also told us that the framework is derived from the universal principle.

You can't see any problem with that, can you?
 
The Man said:
The fact remains that one can see ~"the shadows on the wall" and that defines "the shadows on the wall".
Click to expand...
The fact is that one gets ~A [logical connective] A individually (step-by-step) and simultaneously (at-once).

Furthermore, you have missed the allegory of Plato's Cave exactly because you are closed under the ignorance that is characterized by it.
 
jsfisher said:
Great, so the universal principle is Non-locality\Locality Linkage. And you've already told us that this linkage is the framework for OM. You've have also told us that the framework is derived from the universal principle.

You can't see any problem with that, can you?
Click to expand...

Do you see any problem in Y, which is a trunk(Linkage)\branches(Non-locality\Locality) Organic Structure, where the branches are not at the same level of the trunk (which avoids circularity)?
 
doronshadmi said:
Do you see any problem in Y, which is a trunk(Linkage)\branches(Non-locality\Locality) Organic Structure, where the branches are not at the same level of the trunk (which avoids circularity)?
Click to expand...


I see you are pointing out both the meaningless and the trivial. Was there a point you were trying to make?
 
jsfisher said:
Great, so the universal principle is Non-locality\Locality Linkage. And you've already told us that this linkage is the framework for OM. You've have also told us that the framework is derived from the universal principle.
Click to expand...

In other words this framework is defined only if the linkage among Non-locality\Locality is defined.

Without this linkage there is only the totality of the non-local aspect of the atomic self-state and the totality of the local aspect of the atomic self-state, and Complexity can't be manifested.

Since the common property of both aspects is the atomic self-state, it is used as the linkage among the totalities, Complexity is manifested and the complex framework is defined, without loosing mutuality (the non-local aspect) AND independency (the local aspect) under linkage.

By mutual-independency our framework is not totally closed under the excluded-middle law, and as a result we get the non-trivial manifestation of the included-middle, in addition to the excluded-middle by one Organic framework known as OM.
 
Last edited:
Doron,

This "parallel" quantity vs. "serial" quantity ...

Help me.

Parallel:
"That's Jack" + "Yes, that's Jack" + "Of course it's Jack + Jack ...
Same id repeated.

Serial:
"I see Billy + Margaret + Sally + Jack."
Different ids.
Serial quantity: the sum of Billy, Margaret, Sally, and Jack is 4.

Is there a "parallel" quantity?
If so what is the "parallel quantity" in the example above?

A bowl of oranges:
Here's an orange + another orange + another + orange again.
Not the self same orange but repeated orange id.
Is this parallel or serial?
Serial, I count (obtain quantity of) 4 oranges?
Parallel,
Is there a quantity? One orange? 1 class called "orange?"

Apparently I was missing whatever your core idea when I thought that "id" meant a class collector, and when I thought that "id" meant a unique individual identity.
Perhaps if you can tell me how we obtain a quantity or sum ... ?

Uh-oh!
The proverbial chair is snatched from under me again.
You said:
Singular comparison like (A = A), (A ≠ A), (~A = ~A), (~A ≠ ~A) is fundamentally different than Non singular comparison like (A ≠ ~A), (A = ~A), and it does not matter if these expressions are True or False.

The considered framework is based on both serial and parallel observations, which are based on both singular and non singular comparisons.

Under serial observation (focused on Singular comparisons) we get anti-symmetric collection of certain ids.

Under parallel observation (focused on Non singular comparisons) we get symmetric collection of uncertain ids.
Click to expand...

So Jack + Good Old Jack again is a "singular comparison." of a single id. That's a "serial observation."
But Sally + Jack is a "non-singular comparison" of more than one id. And that's a "parallel observation."
Quantity is obtained under the parallel observation.

Under "serial observation," Jack = Jack = Jack. It's just Jack + Jack again. All you get is Jack.
(but I thought that was the parallel observation of a single repeated id.)
The serial quantity of Jack is ?

Let's see. Maybe this is the meaning:
"non-singular comparisons" gather together elements that don't have a single common class id.
"singular comparisons" gather together elements that have a single common class id.
(individual, unique identity is not meant in connection to "parallel observation.")

So apple + orange + banana is a non-singular comparison.
And "fruit" as a common counting class is irrelevant to this parallel observation.

Ah, that "fruit" as a common classifier is ignored in counting these seprate items,
and more fundamentally that "items (being counted)" must be ignored as a common classifier upon which to obtain quantity in order to have a strictly "parallel" observation,
is a very tricky place to try to stand.
Trying to obtain quantity outside a collection based on a common class identity, I don't see how that's done.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
The fact is that one gets ~A [logical connective] A individually (step-by-step) and simultaneously (at-once).

Furthermore, you have missed the allegory of Plato's Cave exactly because you are closed under the ignorance that is characterized by it.
Click to expand...
Why to drag Plato into the works when his name is utterly useless to define the local linkage? There are two logical connectives in the name Doron: these are disjuntion D(OR)ON and negation DORO(N). Or are they?

We need to proof at least one case to be true in order to assume that both partials OR and N are indeed logical connectives. We focus on the negation N and base our proof on the fact that letter N is the 14th letter in the alphabet: N = 14.

The function of negation is to negate the premise. We can use the statement "It is cold" for an example.

A = It is cold
~A = It is not cold

Now, if A is true, then you expect its negation not to be true and vice versa. The results (=>) of all possible True/False combinations are organized in the False/True table bellow:

It is cold(T), It is not cold(T) => False
It is cold(T), It is not cold(F) => True
It is cold(F), It is not cold(T) => True
It is cold(F), It is not cold(F) => False

The table shows that the result True can occur only during the negation of the premise and the predicate T, F and F, T. (If it is true that it is cold, it can't be at the same time not cold. Duh.)

The above true table has its commonly used equivalent when True=1 and False=0. Using this substitution and compression, the equivalent truth table looks like this:

110
101
011
000

The compression renders the values in such a binary form that if we regard each case as a distinct binary number and add these together, we get

110 + 101 + 011 + 000 = 1110.

Since 1110(binary) = 14(decimal), and the 14th letter in the alphabet is N (14=N), then the letter N must be the initial of the word "Negation," coz the binary form comes from the Negation truth table. And that's conclude the proof that the letter N in DORON is indeed a logical connective, coz you are the expert on this particular logical connective.

The way the proof was arrived at ushers in the definition of the term "local linkage":

EYES____BRAIN

I leave the formalization of the definition to you, coz I don't have such elevated verbal capacity as you do.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom