Deeper than primes

[Little 10 Toes]

This is called a step-by-step reasoning, which is a particular case of OM, exactly as prallel reasoning is.

OM's framework is at least parallel AND step-by-step reasoning.

The Man, jsfisher and the rest of the posters here do not get OM, because they "get" it only in terms of step-by-step reasoning.

We don't get it since you can't explain it. For example, I'm asking these questions for the SIXTH time:

From first look (1) and (2) are valid definitions of Non-locality and Locality.

A or B are non-composed things that have different qualities w.r.t each other.

If they are linked, then the result is a composed complexity.

What are "non-composed things"? What qualities are we examining? What is "linked"? What "result"?

 

[epix]

This is called a step-by-step reasoning, which is a particular case of OM, exactly as prallel reasoning is.

OM's framework is at least parallel AND step-by-step reasoning.

The Man, jsfisher and the rest of the posters here do not get OM, because they "get" it only in terms of step-by-step reasoning.

That's probably why Toe can't get an answer from you not even on the 6th try, as he (sorry, if she) bemoaned the lack of your response. 1, 2, 3, 4 . . . is a step-by-step only inquiry that lacks the necessary "at least parallel" ingredient that the OM's framework runs on and you can't therefore fully understand the questions, providing that you know what you are talking about in the first place.

 

[epix]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6232250&postcount=11159

Aha. So plug in "the Bing Bang scenario as described by the Standard Model and not by Doronetics."

 

[doronshadmi]

The Man,

I have another one:

Try to get the difference between "No temperature" and "0 temperature".

 

[epix]

The non-composed are the building-blocks and the composed is the result of their linkage.

Let me translate it for myself: The non-composed elements are the building blocks and the composed element is the result of their linkage (of unspecified character.)

As I understand it...

O = non-composed element
O_O_O_... = composed element

A counter-intuitive idea is the claim that a collection of points can fully cover a given line.

It's not counter-intuitive, coz the kids in junior high get the idea on the first mentioning. What I think is counter-intuitive is not to follow the example provided by chemistry.

C = element
O = element
C_O = compound

If you switch for some rational reason from "line segment A, B" to "compound A, B" then the term is more comprehensible then "non-composed element," coz there is no intuitive association to imagine such an abstract -- no standing theory has ever dared to include a descriptive term like that. Hence a helper association no worky.

You seem to be fascinated with the prefix "non." Speaking of a linkage... Phenome_non-composed element.

I just brushed the white keys on my Yamaha keyboard with Colgate.

Stop it, Doron. Show some mercy and re-name, re-classify, re-define, re-volution, freedom of thought!

 

[The Man]

The answer to "how many?" is different when you deal with Multitude or Magnitude.

0 apples is based on the concept of Multitude, and in this case the result is the absence of apples.

0 dimension is based on the concept of Magnitude, and in this case the result is a point.

"How many dimensions?" is a meaningful question which is based on the concept of Multitude, and one one the valid answers is "0 dimensions".

So your “0 dimension” or “point” does not have a dimension as you claimed before?

"How many dimension …?" is an invalid question, exactly as your reasoning about the "0 dimension" is.

The rest of your post is based on this invalid reasoning.


No, it can be used as magnitude or multitude, as clearly shown by this post.

This entire post and the one before is based simply on your, probably deliberate, misunderstanding of the words multitude and magnitude.

No, 0 magnitude is, for example, length 0, and length 0 is a point, where a point is not the absence of the concept of length as "no length" is.

Again “no length” is not the “absence of the concept of length” it is simply the absence of length one still requires some concept of length in order to ascertain that length is in fact, well, absent.

"No length" does not have a location (local or non-local), where length 0 has.

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

A point has no length and it is specifically a location in a co-ordinate system so if “"No length" does not have a location” as you claim, then what is your “length” for your “point”.

EDIT:

Maybe this can help:

Try to grasp the difference between "0 length" (which is the absence of length, according to your reasoning) and "length 0".

Maybe this will help

Try to grasp the difference between "0 dimension" (which is the absence of dimension including, well, length) and "dimension 0" which is some fantasy dimension you are evidently ascribing to your “point” so you can pretend that it can “include” your “line”.

The Man,

I have another one:

Try to get the difference between "No temperature" and "0 temperature".

On what temperature scale?

You do understand that temperature is a measure of average kinetic energy, don’t you?

You seem to be confusing, again perhaps deliberately, a value (specifically 0) on some particular, and perhaps arbitrary, scale and the absence of what that value represents (average kinetic energy in the case of temperature).

Again if you think a 0 dimensional object does not lack dimensions then please tell us how many dimensions you think it has. Before you said it has “a dimension” which would indicate 1 dimension, but just recently you claimed it as “0 dimensions” as quoted above. So far all you have done, as usual, is simply contradict yourself. Perhaps this is one of your “non-local” things where it has “a dimension” AND “0 dimensions”?

 

[epix]

Let me translate it for myself: The non-composed elements are the building blocks and the composed element is the result of their linkage (of unspecified character.)

As I understand it...

O = non-composed element
O_O_O_... = composed element


It's not counter-intuitive, coz the kids in junior high get the idea on the first mentioning. What I think is counter-intuitive is not to follow the example provided by chemistry.

C = element
O = element
C_O = compound

If you switch for some rational reason from "line segment A, B" to "compound A, B" then the term is more comprehensible then "non-composed element," coz there is no intuitive association to imagine such an abstract -- no standing theory has ever dared to include a descriptive term like that. Hence a helper association no worky.

You seem to be fascinated with the prefix "non." Speaking of a linkage... Phenome_non-composed element.

I just brushed the white keys on my Yamaha keyboard with Colgate.

Stop it, Doron. Show some mercy and re-name, re-classify, re-define, re-volution, freedom of thought!

I meant "composed element."
(That Doronetics makes A Catechism of Christian Doctrine self-evident poetry. LOL.)

 

[The Man]

Perhaps this will help.



If you want to talk about “magnitudes” and dimensions lets use an example that represents a dimension by magnitude (though all dimensions are represented by their magnitude), length for example. Now lengths of 1, 5 or 0 in magnitude are all points along a one dimensional space (a line). None of those points themselves have any length or magnitude (as they are zero dimensional) but they do represent the magnitude of some length from the origin (the 0 point) by ordering. The dimensional aspect (length) comes from the one dimensional space itself (the line). The line could just as well represent temperature, voltage, dollars or apples. As it is only the space being considered (the length scale) that has any dimensional aspect, the locations only represent portions of that length scale (one dimensional space) by the segments any given pair of such points defines. As the 0 point has no separation from itself it defines no length even in that one dimensional space.

ETA

Just as the 5 point has no separation from itself it also represents no length in that one dimensional space, but does represent a magnitude of 5 in length from the origin or the 10 point (as well as magnitude of 10 in length from the -5 or 15 points).

 

[epix]

The answer to "how many?" is different when you deal with Multitude or Magnitude.

0 apples is based on the concept of Multitude, and in this case the result is the absence of apples.

0 dimension is based on the concept of Magnitude, and in this case the result is a point.

Wrong. "0 apples" is not "based on the concept of Multitude"; it is a result obtained by a process of counting that is practiced in the Kingdom of Whole Numbers. "Multitude" is not a concept, it is an undeterminable result that relates to quantity, and multitude>1.

By definition, n-dimension is a result of counting and therefore relates to "Multitude," not to "Magnitude," as you think it does, coz the idea behind the definition is based on the number of co-ordinates necessary to locate a point drawn on a multi-dimensional object. If there is no object, the point drawn on no object has zero dimension.

 

[The Man]

Wrong. "0 apples" is not "based on the concept of Multitude"; it is a result obtained by a process of counting that is practiced in the Kingdom of Whole Numbers. "Multitude" is not a concept, it is an undeterminable result that relates to quantity, and multitude>1.

By definition, n-dimension is a result of counting and therefore relates to "Multitude," not to "Magnitude," as you think it does, coz the idea behind the definition is based on the number of co-ordinates necessary to locate a point drawn on a multi-dimensional object. If there is no object, the point drawn on no object has zero dimension.

Well put epix, and I think "Multitude" appeals to the indeterminate nature of Doron’s OM. 1 is singular, 2 a couple, 3 or perhaps 1 more is still just a few but 5 or so becomes about several. As the quantities increase the natural language designations become less specific, and a multitude (as many) is more indefinite than the rest. Though as you allude to above, multitude tends to a discrete consideration (a multitude of dimensions) while magnitude to continuous (some magnitude that could be a multitude). As jsfisher noted, some time before, some specific definitions of dimension have moved from the discrete to the more continuous (as in fractals). However, none of that diminishes the difference between 0 dimensional and 1 (or just > 0) dimensional. Unless Doron is now going to claim a fractal point, of >0, but < 1 dimension. Which still does not let him “include” his “non-composed” line in his “non-composed” point, as only a 0 dimensional object can’t be, well, composed (by lower dimensional or equally dimensional subsets). He has yet to realize that what “enables” composition is dimension(s). So in giving any of his “non-composed elements” dimension(s) he in fact permits them to be composed of lower or even equally dimensional elements. Again as jsfisher noted before, once it has dimension it is divisible and some divisions (ratios) of the same dimension result in a dimensionless value.

The concept of quantity derives from the concept of magnitude (thus resulting in a potential multitude) or an entity having some quantity (magnitude) as a quantum.

However, in quantum physics the magnitude, of say energy in an electro-magnetic field is transferred to a charged particle (in that field) by some quanta of gauge boson particles, called photons. With few photons (in some period of time) the energy (technically a four vector and for electromagnetism a four-potential is the impedes) is discreetly transferred. Though, with a multitude of (many) photons (in some given time) the possible energy distribution (among those photons) can become more disperse (in that time) thus the magnitude of energy transfer becomes more continuous and less discrete. Fortunately math works both ways, discrete and continuous. It seems for some reason Doron has fixated on the discrete aspect (thus the “non-composed” “building blocks) without, evidently, actually understanding the math or concepts that “enables” both.

 

[doronshadmi]

Fortunately math works both ways, discrete and continuous. It seems for some reason Doron has fixated on the discrete aspect (thus the “non-composed” “building blocks) without, evidently, actually understanding the math or concepts that “enables” both.

The continuous aspect is derive from the property of Non-locality w.r.t the discrete aspect, which is derive from the property of Locality, and vice versa.

The result of the linkage among Non-locality and Locality is composed, and fractals are valid examples of such a result.

 

[doronshadmi]

Try to grasp the difference between "0 dimension" (which is the absence of dimension including, well, length) and "dimension 0" which is some fantasy dimension you are evidently ascribing to your “point” so you can pretend that it can “include” your “line”.

Good example, dimension 0 is the dimension of a point, which has an exact location w.r.t dimension 1 (dimension of a line) which is located at AND beyond the given point.

Your "No dimension" = "Dimension 0" is the core of your invalid reasoning.

 

[doronshadmi]

If there is no object, the point drawn on no object has zero dimension.

A point is an object that has dimension with value 0, and value 0 is the exact magnitude of any given point.

0 points is the absence of objects that have a dimension with value 0, and this absence is measured by using the concept of Multitude.

 

[doronshadmi]

Again if you think a 0 dimensional object does not lack dimensions then please tell us how many dimensions you think it has. Before you said it has “a dimension” which would indicate 1 dimension, but just recently you claimed it as “0 dimensions” as quoted above. So far all you have done, as usual, is simply contradict yourself.

You do not distinguish between 0 that is related to the concept of the Multitude like "0 dimension 0 objects" , and 0 that is related to the concept of the Magnitude like "dimension 0 object".

 

[doronshadmi]

It's not counter-intuitive, coz the kids in junior high get the idea on the first mentioning.

Yes, a kid like The Man, which climes that no dimension fully covers a line, really gets the idea on the first mentioning, isn't it?

The Man and you simply do not grasp that a collection of points can't fully cover a line, whether a point has no dimension (according to The Man's brilliant reasoning) or dimension 0.

 

[doronshadmi]

ooopppss...

 

[doronshadmi]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space

According to quantum mechanics, empty space (the "vacuum") is not truly empty but instead contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of existence.

In othe words, according to QM non-local things like waves and local things like particles are venished into and derive form the un-manifasted:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_constant

A mathematical constant is a special number, usually a real number, that arises naturally in mathematics. Unlike physical constants, mathematical constants are defined independently of physical measurement.

Whether it is real or not, any numerical value is the result of the non-local and the local w.r.t each other.

It seems for some reason Doron has fixated on the discrete aspect (thus the “non-composed” “building blocks) without, evidently, actually understanding the math or concepts that “enables” both.

It seems for some reason The Man has fixated on the discrete aspect (the local aspect) of OM's Non-locality\Locality Linkage.

 

[epix]

Yes, a kid like The Man, which climes that no dimension fully covers a line, really gets the idea on the first mentioning, isn't it?

The Man and you simply do not grasp that a collection of points can't fully cover a line, whether a point has no dimension (according to The Man's brilliant reasoning) or dimension 0.

That's because you have not presented anything coherent that would fetch a second thought. I wonder how your ideas would look like when dressed in plain English.

 

[epix]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space


In othe words, according to QM non-local things like waves and local things like particles are venished into and derive form the un-manifasted:

You may not understand this part of QM, otherwise you wouldn't categorize waves and particles the way you did: on "local things" and "non-local things."

The term "locality" refers in general to influence: particles were though to be affected only by their "immediate" surrounding -- they were "locally influenced." That term saw its birth when QM advanced to the point where this notion couldn't account for all interactions. For example, it was thought that changes of particles Q and M (Q to O and M to m and their combinations) were caused by mutual interaction on the local level. But some models showed that a particular change, such as QM to OM, may not have been the result of the local interactive influence. The cause had to be attributed to other type of influnce such as

DORON ------------------------> QM to OM. (Or the interaction between objects A=DORON and B=Q.)

The influnce wasn't not "local," it was very puzzling and had to be dealt with:

Einstein assumed that principle of locality was necessary, and there could be no violations of it. He said:

“ The following idea characterises the relative independence of objects far apart in space A and B: external influence on A has no direct influence on B; this is known as the Principle of Local Action, which is used consistently only in field theory. If this axiom were to be completely abolished, the idea of the existence of quasienclosed systems, and thereby the postulation of laws which can be checked empirically in the accepted sense, would become impossible.

Of course there is a chance that you intuitively understand something that Einstein didn't stand the chance to grasp, but we will never know, coz the the other chance, the chance that you'll be able to send your idea across is virtual zero.

 

[doronshadmi]

EDIT:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimension

In mathematics and physics, the dimension of a space or object is informally defined as the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify each point within it.[1][2] Thus a line has a dimension of one because only one coordinate is needed to specify a point on it.

By this notion, a line has a dimension of one because we do not need more than one value in order to define the exact location of 0-dimensional element on it.

In other words , n-dimension has n value, because we do not need more than n values in order to define the exact location of 0-dimension element on it.

So the ability to define an exact location w.r.t some dimension is determined by the number of values that are related to an 0-dimensional element, and if there is "no dimension" (according to The Man's reasoning) then no element exists and no value can be related.

n=1 to ∞
k=0 to n-1

The exact location of k-dimensional element is determined by no values that are related to an k-dimensional element, because k-dimensional element w.r.t k dimension is equivalent to that dimension. So we used 0 values to define the location of k-dimensional element w.r.t k dimension, and yet the k-dimensional element has a dimension, which is valued by k.

As for n-dimension w.r.t k-dimensional element, n-dimension is non-local w.r.t any given k-dimensional element, where both have dimensions ("No dimension" is not an option).

In Mathematics ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimension )

... the circle is 1-dimensional even though it exists in the 2-dimensional plane. This intrinsic notion of dimension is one of the chief ways in which the mathematical notion of dimension differs from its common usages. These can be handy to know about.

The same holds in the case of a point (0-dimensional object) that exists w.r.t the 1-dimensional line.

"No dimension" does not exist w.r.t the 1-dimensional line, so 0-dimensional point is not equivalent to “No dimension”, and this is exactly the reason of why it is possible to define the location of 0-dimensional element w.r.t. 1-dimension, by using a single coordinate.