Deeper than primes

[HatRack]

You are talking nonsense, deductive-only systems are trivial where real complexity gets on stage.

The nonsense is all yours. Deductive-only systems work great and precisely, for many complex things. The field of physics wouldn't be around without mathematics, and without physics, chemistry and biology would be nowhere near as advanced. It may be unreasonable to apply mathematics to things such as large biological systems, but that is simply because of limitations on our part.

And don't forget about computer science and engineering, two fields which have benefited greatly from their mathematical and physical foundations. Compilers are heavily based on mathematical theory, as is computer vision. Without an understanding of quantum physics, which is based solely on mathematics, we wouldn't have the advanced integrated electronics of today which are used to implement microprocessors.

The fact that no one can apply mathematics to something as complex as a biological cell to precisely predict all of its responses to external stimuli is a problem with us and our current technology, the problem is not with mathematics. Produce something useful with your theory, something that actually compares to the technology of today (courtesy of traditional mathematics), and maybe someone will listen and attempt to decipher your gibberish. The problem is, you can't.

 

[epix]

Originally Posted by epix
I never mentioned the word "nothing"

And this is exactly the problem.

Well, there is the problem with the E set:

E = {D, O, R, O, N}
F = {S, H, A, D, M, I}

The E set contains two identical members, so it cannot be considered a set. The only way to fix the problem and to achieve the highest similarity is to substitute O(letter) with 0(number). Note that the defining letters are not random, as they are not allowed to be. It's the cardinality of both the list and the set that decides upon the kind of defining terms.

{D, O, R, O, N} = 5 = E
{S, H, A, D, M, I} = 6 = F

due to the alphabetical order.

In reverse, both the list and the set are defined as

{D, O, R, O, N} = E
{S, H, A, D, M, I} = F

Once you change the first O to become 0, a redefinition should take place to reflect upon the change:

{D, 0, R, O, N} = 5 = E => Emptiness
{S, H, A, D, M, I} = 6 = F => Fullness

But the defining letters/initials wouldn't extend into the names. You need to change the second O to read 0 for the logical redefinition to take place. That's why Haldegard connected Emptiness with Nothing, or N0thing, where the second letter goes from O to more logical 0 ( "At the context." Remember?)

So it's getting down to why {D, O, R, 0, N} and not {D, 0, R, O, N}. Once there is a full justification, the demon in your head is satisfied and may go back. Haldegard teaches mathematics of mental underworld at Modus Tollens University in Hell.

 

[doronshadmi]

The nonsense is all yours. Deductive-only systems work great and precisely, for many complex things.

No they don't, for example quantum tunneling, which is a fundamental term of advanced integrated electronics, does not obey your hypothetical notion of Limits (barriers), and it is developed exactly because quantum phenomenon exists simultaneously at both sides of your deductive-only hypothetical notion of Limit (barrier). The energy of the sun is expressible exactly because of quantum tunneling, and the ability to develop quantum computers is deeply rooted in non-local phenomena that can't be explained by the hypothetical notion of Limits (barriers). Chemistry and Biology would be really developed only if the deductive-only hypothetical Limit will get off stage.

but that is simply because of limitations on our part.

Exactly, this limitations on our part are your deductive-only hypothetical notion of Limit (barrier).

The fact that no one can apply mathematics to something as complex as a biological cell to precisely predict all of its responses to external stimuli is a problem with us and our current technology, the problem is not with mathematics.

Mathematics is not a platonic golden-idol out there to be worshiped, Mathematics obeys the rules of evolution exactly like any naturally complex phenomena, and one of the fundamentals of naturally complex phenomena is called mutations of fundamental terms that have a tremendous influence on a given complexity.

Deductive-only frameworks still survive because of blind community of persons that develops its closed and platonic sterile, disjoint and context-dependent isolated frameworks, where the consistency of these isolated frameworks collapses at the moment they are exposed to real complexity, where Uncertainty, Redundancy and Non-locality play main roles.


HatRack, as I clearly claim, your deductive-only reasoning is a pure poison of blind force, exactly because it blocks the understanding of real life complexity, and we as expressions of this complexity are playing these days a very dangerous game by continue to educed the next generations according to the deductive-only reasoning, that has a built-in inability to define the cross-context terms between Ethical\Logical\Technological skills of our civilization (and again do do be mistaken, I clearly reject the current weak expression of Ethics among our civilization, which is fragmented into disjoint cultures, where one of the disjoint cultures is the anti-evolutionist deductive-only culture of "pure" mathematics, which has a trivial understanding of real complexity exactly as any culture that does not have universal principles, whether these principles are Ethical\Logical\Technological).

You still do not grasp the full meaning of Godel's incompleteness theorems on deductive axiomatic frameworks that deals with arithmetic.

Such frameworks have always true theorems that can't be proved by the axioms of these frameworks, and we do not need more than that in order to understand that deductive-only frameworks are unable to deal with real complexity, where Uncertainty, Redundancy and cross-contexts properties are their fundamentals.

 

[HatRack]

You failed to address the main point of my post. To spell it out in plain and simple language, the main point of my post is that traditional mathematics has contributed countless things to society while Doronetics has not contributed a single thing.

for example quantum tunneling, which is a fundamental term of
advanced integrated electronics, does not obey your hypothetical notion of Limits (barriers), and it is developed exactly because quantum phenomenon exists simultaneously at both sides of your deductive-only hypothetical notion of Limit (barrier).

Doron, your arguments are very foolish. Quantum tunneling is predicted by quantum mechanics and is fully expressible in terms of traditional mathematics. Your feeble attempt at associating mathematical limits with impassible barriers is borderline insane, when mathematics itself makes no such claims about the physical world.

 

[doronshadmi]

You failed to address the main point of my post.

There is nothing to be addressed because you don't have any main point.

You failed to address the main point of my post. To spell it out in plain and simple language, the main point of my post is that traditional mathematics has contributed countless things to society while Doronetics has not contributed a single thing.

The results of a novel paradigm, are not found in the past, so your argument does not hold water.

Doron, your arguments are very foolish. Quantum tunneling is predicted by quantum mechanics and is fully expressible in terms of traditional mathematics. Your feeble attempt at associating mathematical limits with impassible barriers is borderline insane, when mathematics itself makes no such claims about the physical world.

Really?

EDIT: Traditional mathematics uses the Limit concept and Probability theory, which is based on collection of local objects like real or complex numbers.

Non-locality, which is the real thing that enables Quantum tunneling, can't be handled by your limited deductive-only reasoning.

 

[doronshadmi]

You could have just said straight up you don't understand the issue. No reason for this aside.

No jsfisher, straight up or straight down, your ignorance of real complexity "works" in both directions.

 

[HatRack]

There is nothing to be addressed because you don't have any main point.

Even though I clearly stated my main point in the following sentence.

The results of a novel paradigm, are not found in the past, so your argument does not hold water.

Dodge noted. My assertion that you cannot come up with a single practical application of Doronetics that traditional math cannot come up with still stands.

Really?

Yes.

EDIT: Traditional mathematics uses the Limit concept and Probability theory, which is based on collection of local objects like real or complex numbers.

FTFY. When talking about traditional mathematics, do not introduce new vocabulary without precisely defining it within terms of traditional mathematics.

Non-locality, which is the real thing that enables Quantum tunneling, can't be handled by your limited deductive-only reasoning.

Another embarrassing blunder on your part. Once again, the theory of quantum mechanics and its traditional mathematical underpinnings PREDICTS quantum tunneling. Deductive reasoning has given us quantum theory and has continued to make predictions of real world, measurable phenomena on those grounds. No one has any need for your nonsense in order to "enable" quantum tunneling.

 

[doronshadmi]

Even though I clearly stated my main point in the following sentence.





Dodge noted. My assertion that you cannot come up with a single practical application of Doronetics that traditional math cannot come up with still stands.



Yes.



FTFY. When talking about traditional mathematics, do not introduce new vocabulary without precisely defining it within terms of traditional mathematics.



Another embarrassing blunder on your part. Once again, the theory of quantum mechanics and its traditional mathematical underpinnings PREDICTS quantum tunneling. Deductive reasoning has given us quantum theory and has continued to make predictions of real world, measurable phenomena on those grounds. No one has any need for your nonsense in order to "enable" quantum tunneling.

You are missing the fact that practical application are not based only on deductive-only reasoning, because deductive-only reasoning has nothing to do with experiments' results, that change the deductive results by inductive results.

Quantum tunnelling is a consequence ( see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_tunnelling ) (and not a a deductive-only prediction) of the wave-particle duality of matter (based on experiments' results) and is often explained using the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, so sell your "traditional mathematical underpinnings PREDICTS quantum tunneling" to your ingorent community.

Now we see that you do not understand the linkage between deductive and inductive reasoning in order to get a real life result.

In your case you are not aware of your "Dodge noted".

EDIT:

and has continued to make predictions of real world

Yes, your deductive-only reasoning can predict the form of the ballistic curve of dead bird thrown in the air, but it has no way to predict the path of a living bird thrown in the air.

When talking about traditional mathematics, do not introduce new vocabulary without precisely defining it within terms of traditional mathematics.

Another demonstration of the traditional mathematics reasoning.

Your limited community can't deal with cross-contexts reasoning, which is non-local by nature.

 

[sympathic]

Your limited community can't deal with cross-contexts reasoning, which is non-localsense by nature.

See edit inside.

 

[doronshadmi]

See edit inside.

sympathic, What You Is What You

 

[jsfisher]

No jsfisher, straight up or straight down, your ignorance of real complexity "works" in both directions.

So you say, but, hey, my stuff still works. Yours, not so much.

 

[doronshadmi]

So you say, but, hey, my stuff still works. Yours, not so much.

And it will work better if cross-contexts abilities will be developed in addition to the current context-dependent mathematical frameworks.

 

[jsfisher]

And it will work better if cross-contexts abilities will be developed in addition to the current context-dependent mathematical frameworks.

So you say, but have been completely unable to demonstrate. Why is that?

 

[doronshadmi]

So you say, but have been completely unable to demonstrate. Why is that?

I say that you completely unable to get the following:

The unreasonable ineffectiveness of mathematics is a catchphrase, alluding to the well-known article by physicist Eugene Wigner, "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences". This catchphrase is meant to suggest that mathematical analysis has not proved as valuable in other fields as it has in physics.

For example, I. M. Gelfand, a famous mathematician who worked in biomathematics and molecular biology, as well as many other fields in applied mathematics, is quoted as stating,

Eugene Wigner wrote a famous essay on the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in natural sciences. He meant physics, of course. There is only one thing which is more unreasonable than the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in physics, and this is the unreasonable ineffectiveness of mathematics in biology. [1]

K. Vela Velupillai wrote of the ineffectiveness of mathematics in economics.[2][3]

Roberto Poli of McGill University delivered a number of lectures entitled The unreasonable ineffectiveness of mathematics in cognitive sciences in 1999. The abstract is:

My argument is that it is possible to gain better understanding of the "unreasonable effectiveness" of mathematics in study of the physical world only when we have understood the equally "unreasonable ineffectiveness" of mathematics in the cognitive sciences (and, more generally, in all the forms of knowledge that cannot be reduced to knowledge about physical phenomena. Biology, psychology, economics, ethics, and history are all cases in which it has hitherto proved impossible to undertake an intrinsic matematicization even remotely comparable to the analysis that has been so fruitful in physics.) I will consider some conceptual issues that might prove important for framing the problem of cognitive mathematics (= mathematics for the cognitive sciences), namely the problem of n-dynamics, of identity, of timing, and of the specious present. The above analyses will be conducted from a partly unusual perspective regarding the problem of the foundations of mathematics.[4]

Jeremy Gunawardena has investigated the unreasonable ineffectiveness of mathematics in computer engineering. He delivered a seminar on the topic in 1998 at the University of Sydney. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unreasonable_ineffectiveness_of_mathematics )

 

[The Man]

Negative existence is a case of existence.

Specifically a negative “case of existence”, which would be less, well, "existence” than “a case of” no “existence” like your “Emptiness”. So again the question was why don’t you consider it, and is its lack of consideration just because you like to claim your “Emptiness has no predecessor”?

I an talking about predecessor and successor in terms of magnitude of existence, such that Emptiness has no predecessor and Fullness has no successor. Your limited notion gets predecessor and successor only at the level of existing collections of negative, positive, imaginary etc. ids.

Once again “predecessor and successor” are just aspects of ordering with a “predecessor” being a “successor” in reverse order, while your “magnitude of existence” still remains undefined and lacks any quantification what so ever for its, well, “magnitude”. Once again Doron the limits are simply yours, self imposed and unnecessary, in this case being your limitation of simply not considering negative existence.

There are negative values of existence at the level of collections, as well as complex objects, which are the results of the linkage between indivisible atoms that are cross-contexts or under contexts.

“Oh, waiter I ordered the Cesar Salad, not the Word Salad”!

However you do assert “There are negative values of existence”, so your “Emptiness” now has a “predecessor” (negative existence) even in your obvious and limited preferred ordering.

 

[jsfisher]

I say that you completely unable to get the following:

Speculate all you like, but you raised the issue, and so far it is you that has been unable to make an intelligent comment on it to support your interest.

So far, then, based on the available evidence, it is you that is completely unable to understand the issue.

 

[doronshadmi]

Specifically a negative “case of existence”, which would be less, well, "existence” than “a case of” no “existence” like your “Emptiness”.

The Man, I hope the you will get the following:

1 is a positive existence, -1 is a negative existence and no one of them is the "content" of {}, where this "content" is Emptiness (or non-existence, if you like).

 

[jsfisher]

Add the negative numbers to the list of things Doron fails to understand.

 

[doronshadmi]

So far, then, based on the available evidence, it is you that is completely unable to understand the issue.

Speculate all you like, it is you that is completely unable to understand the issue.

For example, this part is beyond your formal reasoning:

My argument is that it is possible to gain better understanding of the "unreasonable effectiveness" of mathematics in study of the physical world only when we have understood the equally "unreasonable ineffectiveness" of mathematics in the cognitive sciences (and, more generally, in all the forms of knowledge that cannot be reduced to knowledge about physical phenomena. Biology, psychology, economics, ethics, and history are all cases in which it has hitherto proved impossible to undertake an intrinsic matematicization even remotely comparable to the analysis that has been so fruitful in physics.)

 

[doronshadmi]

Add the negative numbers to the list of things Doron fails to understand.

Add Emptiness (and Fullness) to the list of the concepts jsfisher fails to understand.