I see you're continuing with your one-man crusade to redefine (I use the term loosely) every word in the English language.
What is beyond your finger is not part of your finger.
Deeper than primes
- Thread starter doronshadmi
- Start date
-
- Tags
- deeper than primes
- Status
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
It only demostrates your misunderstanding of Distinction as used by the diagonal method among collections of <0,1> forms.
This is another example of your misunderstanding of Distinction as used by collections of <0,1> forms.
Last edited:
His mental state of mind
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
No "X" is not "a part of what is beyond" "X". What is beyond "X" specifically excludes "X" just as "X" specifically excludes what is beyond "X", they are mutually exclusive.
Sure "The finger is a part of the body" which simply means that "the body" includes "the finger" and thus "body" and "finger" are not mutually exclusive. Your analogy fails again, as usual.
Oh, and getting "X AND beyond X simultaneously" doesn't change the fact that they are specifically mutually exclusive, but evidently you just can't get that at the same time or any time so far.
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
Thank you for supporting my claim.
In this case X=finger and it is a part of what is beyond it (the body), and not vice versa.
Last edited:
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
Being mutually exclusive means that both things are simultaneously beyond each other.
This is not the case with finger\body relation.
This is not the case with whole\parts relation, such that the part is a partial case of the Whole but the Whole is not a partial case of any given part or collection of parts.
EDIT:
The Man, it simply evidently shown all along this thread that you can't comprehend Non-locality as a higher level that enables one to observe mutually exclusive things, in the first place.
If obsereved at the same lavel, then they are mutually exclusive, but if obsereved form a higher level, then they are partial cases (local cases) of the higher level (which is non-local w.r.t them).
Last edited:
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2005
- Messages
- 24,532
Whether it is or it isn't an axiom is not the issue. If you'd actually read and understand what was written you might see that the question was, and has been for a while, about how you'd go about constructing the diagonal in the first place.
It should be trivial to describe the steps involved, yet you cannot.
No, this is another example of your minimal reading skills. The point raised was that you reached a blatantly incorrect result using your bogus methods. Any reasonable person would conclude the method must therefore be at fault. Not Doron, though.
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
Yes it is.
Your mechanical reasoning which reduces Distinction into indices=natural numbers illusion, simply can't comprehend it.
jsfisher you do not understand the diagonal because you do not understand the <0,1> form.
It should be simple to understand the <0,1> form, yet you cannot.
You are right jsfisher, any reasonable person would be able the understand the <0,1> form, yet you cannot.
Last edited:
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
What is this fixation you have with time and simultaneity?
“Being mutually exclusive” simply means they exclude each other.
Which is why your “finger\body” analogy fails, “X” and “beyond X” are mutually exclusive while “finger” and “body” are not. I do wish you would read a post before you respond to it.
So what? “X” is not part of “beyond X” and “beyond X” is not part of “X”. Your “whole\parts relation” or “finger\body” analogy still fails for “X” and “beyond X, which are mutually exclusive.
Doron even though they are mutually exclusive “X” and “beyond X” can still be part of something that includes, well, “X” and “beyond X”. However that still does not change the specific fact that neither “X” nor “beyond X” are parts of, nor have any parts in common with, each other. Your “Non-locality” nonsense does not change any of that either, nor is it required for “X” and “beyond X” to both be parts of something that includes, well, “X” and “beyond X” while still being mutually exclusive with each other. Again the only one who needs your superfluous “Non-locality” nonsense is you and hopefully one day you will realize that even you don’t need it. However since you have invested so much of your time and yourself into it as well as placing what you consider to be the fate of our civilization upon it, it is likely to be equally long, if ever, for you to accept just how bankrupt that investment has been.
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2005
- Messages
- 24,532
I can comprehend quite a bit including your inability to explain the steps you'd follow to construct the diagonal.
Why cannot you explain these simple steps, Doron?
Your newly-discovered axiom of incompleteness says that set {H,A,N,D} is not complete. In full compliance, one member of the set needs to be taken out. The task of removing one member of the set was given to a group of college graduates. The researchers were testing the effect of higher education on human mind and were interested to see how many college graduates recognize that H,A,N,D is a collection of three consonants and one vowel, and so member A has a unique character and therefore should become the preference in the given task.
The researchers became dismayed upon finding that the most of the college graduates took out letter N. But if a significant majority decided to chose N, then there had to be an apparent criterion of choice, which had to be known to the researchers as well. But it wasn't.
So the researchers approached a group of college professors and ask them to mark one letter from three consonants -- a letter that seems to be unlike any other:
1) H
2) N
3) D
A slight majority opted for D (unlike H and N, letter D includes a curve) and not for N. So the wisdom-passing taking place in colleges wasn't that great.
Why was it so that the majority of college graduates chose to remove N from {H, A, N, D}?
Since the researchers couldn't figure out the reason, they finally approached some of the college graduates who chose N and asked them about the reason behind their preference. But as it turned out, there was no logical preference -- most of the people said that it felt as if "something told them" to pick N.
That was hard to digest: there was a strong statistical evidence that some peculiar simultaneous neural activity took place in the heads of those selected college graduates. Suppose that there was "something." Did that something made a non-random choice by "instructing" the respondents to intuitively pick N?
A is the only vowel in the set; D is the only symbol that includes a curve. So what was unique about N?
Morgan, it was mighty strange, but we had the best people to look at the phenomenon. There was no reason that would be better than the one that would chose A or D. The strongly intuitive choice was either random or inferior to our way we do thinking.
That's not true! The members of the set are organized in such a way that they create word HAND. So the choice is taken accordingly. Human hand includes 1 thumb and 4 fingers. That means '14' refers to human hand. Since the 14th letter of the alphabet is N, it becomes an obvious choice of preference. And don't call me Morgan -- my name is Yogurt.
Yogurt? Yahweh, no?
Oh, that's right -- Yahweh.
Where are you going, Doron? According to your axiom of incompleteness, the number of steps is infinite. You are on your own -- you and the part of your body called "head."
I see that you now apply your axiom of incompleteness whenever your go, as X=finger suggests. When X is complete, then X=fingers.
Proof:
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
“X” and “beyond X” are simply not parts of each other.
But if observed from a higher level, then they are parts (or shell we say local) w.r.t to the higher level, where the higher level is the whole (or shell we say non-local) w.r.t “X” and “beyond X”.
The higher level is not a part of "X" or “beyond X”, yet it is used as a common environment for both of them.
Simultaneity means that no step-by-step observation is involved.
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
Why can't you get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6820757&postcount=14148, jsfisher ?
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
Exactly the opposite.
Any attempt to isolate a partial case (finite or infinite) from the whole is logically impossible, and the inverse of the diagonal of a given (finite or infinite) collection of <0,1> forms, simply demonstrates that given a collection with <0,1> forms , there is always a <0,1> form, which is based on the same principle of the <0,1> forms of the given collection, and yet it is beyond the range of the given collection.
This is exactly the signature of Whole\Parts Relation, which explicitly and rigorously demonstrates the inability of any given collection of parts to be at the level of the whole, and it also demonstrates the inability of the parts to be on their own (isolated) if observed from the higher level of the whole.
Last edited:
Steps for applying your diagonal rule, please, Doron.
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2005
- Messages
- 24,532
Whereas yours is merely an irrelevant and incorrect assumption concerning my abilities, my statement is completely factual. You have not explained how your diagonal element would be constructed.
Can you explain it? I don't believe you can; no one here believes you can, I suspect.
But it can be done, as you nicely demonstrated above.
Anyattempttoisolateapartialcase(finiteorinfinite). . .
Here is another successful attempt to isolate a part from the whole and use it for a particular purpose without worrying about an analogy with a computer which doesn't work when one of its components -- the hard drive -- is removed and asked to perform it's function outside the computer. It's called "the identity matrix."
What is the whole in this particular case?
Well, there are 26 binary numbers that start with 000000 and end with 111111. The organization of the numbers create a rectangle made of 6x64 binary digits. Under this condition, the creation of a digital diagonal is impossible, coz it can be created only inside a square matrix. Since
m2 < 2m for any integer m
the square matrix must always include less rows then the complete set. Ironically, your <0,1> argument calls for an isolation of the square matrix from the whole |2m| set to create a diagonal argument for finite sets, even though such isolation is "logically impossible":
I don't expect you to understand the contradiction, so hit me with some fancy stuff to make me wrong again, so we can move ahead. (We got another A/D test that relates to incompleteness coming up.)
Last edited:
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2005
- Messages
- 24,532
Yes, that is a sound advice. However, Doron never got past step 1 and, if the last 340 or so pages are any indication, he never will.
- Status