• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ah the “unmanifest” unity that when ‘manifested’ becomes a duality which is an illusion because “it is not a unity”. I think you migth just need some better ‘manifestations’ or 'manafesting'.

You and Doron should get along handsomely.
Let 1 = "unity"
Let 2 = "duality"
Let P. = "initial"
Let P = 16 (the 16th member of set Alphabet)

Proposition: If 16^(1/2) = 4 and 4=D and D.="initial", then iff D. => Doron, then P. => Punshhh.


unity and duality
there's no mercy, there's no pitty
there's no basement, there's no roof
every statement requires Proof

:confused:
:rolleyes:
Math sucks!
 
Last edited:
Ah the “unmanifest” unity that when ‘manifested’ becomes a duality which is an illusion because “it is not a unity”. I think you migth just need some better ‘manifestations’ or 'manafesting'.

You and Doron should get along handsomely.





Would that be an actual duality or an illusionary duality and how would you tell them apart, relatively speaking? What if said existent duality was relatively unified, that is relative to other dualities?





So “Unity” “all the way down” is the “only explanation for existence”? Why? Because it is, well, ‘unified’ “all the way down”? Well, except for that whole manifest duality part, which fortunately is illusionary “as it is not a unity”. Are you sure there arn't some turtles in there somewhere too? Not even llusionary turtles that cannot approximate the innate nature of geese as they are not geese?




At least one point is present in the duality of, well, two points.






Yep it sure sounds like you two have been reading the same fortune cookies or bubblegum cards.





As are a lot of concepts, like that “unity” you mentioned, though some abstract concepts are demonstrably more practical than others.





That’s not a paradox it’s a dichotomy and it seems a false one at that.

Sounds like your riding on the back of a turtle.

Anyone else going to join you?
 
My argument is that there is co-existence between intervals like 1-dimensional elements, and any pair of 0-dimensional elements, such that the pair of 0-dimensional elements defines the length of the 1-dimensional element, where the 1-dimensional element enables the distinct existence of each 0-dimensional element, under the 1-dimensional\0-dimensional co-existence.

Remove the 1-dimensional element and there is no pair of distinct 0-dimensional elements.

Remove the pair of the distinct 0-dimensional elements, and the size of the 1-dimensional elements is unknown.

This is not changed also in the case of closed 1-dimensional element (where in this case the same 0-dimensional element has initial AND end values that can't exist without the 1-dimensional element, which is closed on itself).

In other words, no 0-dimensional element has distinct values without its co-existence with 1-dimensional element, whether the 1-dimensional element is opened or closed, and no 1-dimensional element has its size without the measured values at 0-dimensional state(s).

The necessity of the co-existence of measured elements, is actually derived from the Unity, which is the naturally un manifested source of any possible co-existence of, so called, dimensional elements, where no one of them is Unity itself, but it is no more than an agent of Unity at the level of co-existence of infinitely many dimensional degrees of existence that are local or non-local with respect to each other (for example: a 1-dimensional element is non-local w.r.t 0-dimensional elements, because it can exist at once at least at both 0-dimensional locations, where any given 0-dimensional element can exist at most in one and only one location w.r.t a given 1-dimensional element).

It must be stress that any given n>0 dimensional element is non-local w.r.t to all dimensional (up to 0) elements that are smaller than it, where these smaller dimensional elements are local w.r.t it.

As I get it, Non-locality AND Locality are the fundamental agents of the naturally un manifested ( known as Unity), which enables the realm of co-existence of different elements, where the natural source of each element is the un manifested Unity.
 
Ah the “unmanifest” unity that when ‘manifested’ becomes a duality which is an illusion because “it is not a unity”. I think you migth just need some better ‘manifestations’ or 'manafesting'.

You and Doron should get along handsomely.





Would that be an actual duality or an illusionary duality and how would you tell them apart, relatively speaking? What if said existent duality was relatively unified, that is relative to other dualities?






So “Unity” “all the way down” is the “only explanation for existence”? Why? Because it is, well, ‘unified’ “all the way down”? Well, except for that whole manifest duality part, which fortunately is illusionary “as it is not a unity”. Are you sure there arn't some turtles in there somewhere too? Not even llusionary turtles that cannot approximate the innate nature of geese as they are not geese?




At least one point is present in the duality of, well, two points.






Yep it sure sounds like you two have been reading the same fortune cookies or bubblegum cards.





As are a lot of concepts, like that “unity” you mentioned, though some abstract concepts are demonstrably more practical than others.





That’s not a paradox it’s a dichotomy and it seems a false one at that.

The Man's awareness is floating upon the surface of thoughts (emotionally and intellectually).

He does not have the needed simplicity to transcendent beyond the thoughts' process in order to be aware of the simplest state of awareness, which is the un manifested unified source of both physical and spiritual manifestations as a one organic realm.
 
Last edited:
My argument is that there is co-existence between intervals like 1-dimensional elements, and any pair of 0-dimensional elements, such that the pair of 0-dimensional elements defines the length of the 1-dimensional element, where the 1-dimensional element enables the distinct existence of each 0-dimensional element, under the 1-dimensional\0-dimensional co-existence.

Remove the 1-dimensional element and there is no pair of distinct 0-dimensional elements.

Why ever not?
 
My argument is that there is co-existence between intervals like 1-dimensional elements, and any pair of 0-dimensional elements, such that the pair of 0-dimensional elements defines the length of the 1-dimensional element, where the 1-dimensional element enables the distinct existence of each 0-dimensional element, under the 1-dimensional\0-dimensional co-existence.

Remove the 1-dimensional element and there is no pair of distinct 0-dimensional elements.

Remove the pair of the distinct 0-dimensional elements, and the size of the 1-dimensional elements is unknown.

This is not changed also in the case of closed 1-dimensional element (where in this case the same 0-dimensional element has initial AND end values that can't exist without the 1-dimensional element, which is closed on itself).

In other words, no 0-dimensional element has distinct values without its co-existence with 1-dimensional element, whether the 1-dimensional element is opened or closed, and no 1-dimensional element has its size without the measured values at 0-dimensional state(s).

The necessity of the co-existence of measured elements, is actually derived from the Unity, which is the naturally un manifested source of any possible co-existence of, so called, dimensional elements, where no one of them is Unity itself, but it is no more than an agent of Unity at the level of co-existence of infinitely many dimensional degrees of existence that are local or non-local with respect to each other (for example: a 1-dimensional element is non-local w.r.t 0-dimensional elements, because it can exist at once at least at both 0-dimensional locations, where any given 0-dimensional element can exist at most in one and only one location w.r.t a given 1-dimensional element).

It must be stress that any given n>0 dimensional element is non-local w.r.t to all dimensional (up to 0) elements that are smaller than it, where these smaller dimensional elements are local w.r.t it.

As I get it, Non-locality AND Locality are the fundamental agents of the naturally un manifested ( known as Unity), which enables the realm of co-existence of different elements, where the natural source of each element is the un manifested Unity.

Yes its so simple and yet so difficult to explain to people who have not grasped its simplicity.

I find it helpful to use visualisation;

Imagine a membrane or a plane like the still surface of water.
This membrane is infinite in length and width*

Imagine it as uniform and a unity as nothing else exists**

It is undefined, it cannot be conceived of using thought, as thought requires definition. There is no time or space as these relate to defined relative things.

Now imagine a ripple on the surface, we have a definable form, as the amplitude of this ripple increases a drop of water(or separate thing) comes loose from the surface. We have a separate 3 dimensional thing.

As more drops are formed we can define relative size of things made of these drops/things relative to each other and relative to the total group of things.

Until this point there is no measure of size to determine the size of the drop?thing, it is N +or- infinity.

From the moment of the first ripple time is a necessary, as there is a progression of changing states. This gives us a time frame to work with.

Until this point there is no time, it is T +or- eternity.

This is similar to the symmetry breaking immediately after the BBE (in Big Bang theory), during which the sub atomic particles where formed, resulting in;

atoms
space
time

In my visualisation which is analogous to this;

drops/things = atoms(sub atomic particles)
relative size = space
a progression of changing states = time.

The universe of atoms we know today were formed from a unity through a symmetry breaking event. Resulting in time, space and a complexity of relative forms naturally occuring.

* I find it usefull to imagine it infinitely far away from your position aswell.

**I find it usefull to consider that it is infinitely small forming a point like a singularity. Nothing else can exist as it is outside time and space, it is everything and nothing.
 
My argument is that there is co-existence between intervals like 1-dimensional elements, and any pair of 0-dimensional elements, such that the pair of 0-dimensional elements defines the length of the 1-dimensional element, where the 1-dimensional element enables the distinct existence of each 0-dimensional element, under the 1-dimensional\0-dimensional co-existence.

Remove the 1-dimensional element and there is no pair of distinct 0-dimensional elements.

Remove the pair of the distinct 0-dimensional elements, and the size of the 1-dimensional elements is unknown.
How do you remove the pair of the distinct 0-dimensional elements? By division? Or by subtraction?

OOPS. Silly, weak reasoning me . . .
 
Yes its so simple and yet so difficult to explain to people who have not grasped its simplicity.

I find it helpful to use visualisation;

Imagine a membrane or a plane like the still surface of water.
This membrane is infinite in length and width*

Imagine it as uniform and a unity as nothing else exists**

It is undefined, it cannot be conceived of using thought, as thought requires definition. There is no time or space as these relate to defined relative things.

Now imagine a ripple on the surface, we have a definable form, as the amplitude of this ripple increases a drop of water(or separate thing) comes loose from the surface. We have a separate 3 dimensional thing.

As more drops are formed we can define relative size of things made of these drops/things relative to each other and relative to the total group of things.

Until this point there is no measure of size to determine the size of the drop?thing, it is N +or- infinity.

From the moment of the first ripple time is a necessary, as there is a progression of changing states. This gives us a time frame to work with.

Until this point there is no time, it is T +or- eternity.

This is similar to the symmetry breaking immediately after the BBE (in Big Bang theory), during which the sub atomic particles where formed, resulting in;

atoms
space
time

In my visualisation which is analogous to this;

drops/things = atoms(sub atomic particles)
relative size = space
a progression of changing states = time.

The universe of atoms we know today were formed from a unity through a symmetry breaking event. Resulting in time, space and a complexity of relative forms naturally occuring.

* I find it usefull to imagine it infinitely far away from your position aswell.

**I find it usefull to consider that it is infinitely small forming a point like a singularity. Nothing else can exist as it is outside time and space, it is everything and nothing.
More meaningless crap.
 
How do you remove the pair of the distinct 0-dimensional elements? By division? Or by subtraction?

OOPS. Silly, weak reasoning me . . .

Please do not bring facts or knowledge into the discussion between doron and punshhh.
 
My visualisation of you becomes more and more like Homer Simpson with each post you make.

I see you as Bart,only dumber. Was Homer Simpson a member of a champion quiz team? Does he play the guitar,fiddle,mandolin,bouzouki,dulcimer and banjo to a high standard? That is news to me. I will have to boast here,my nickname around here is the Encyclopedia. I don't know if I've earned the sobriquet but I do know something about cosmology and quantum physics. You know nothing about many subjects. Are you still seeing pixies and fairies in the foliage?

Proof
I'm the one with the fiddle



 
Last edited:
I see you as Bart,only dumber. Was Homer Simpson a member of a champion quiz team? That is news to me. I will have to boast here,my nickname around here is the Encyclopedia. I don't know if I've earned the sobriquet but I do know something about cosmology and quantum physics. You know nothing about many subjects. Are you still seeing pixies and fairies in the foliage?

A spider came up and tickled my nose this morning while I was sunbathing, just at the point of an epiphany. Keeps happening, I don't know what spiders have got to do with it.
Maybe they've got their fingers on the pulse
 
A spider came up and tickled my nose this morning while I was sunbathing, just at the point of an epiphany. Keeps happening, I don't know what spiders have got to do with it.
Maybe they've got their fingers on the pulse

I edited my post. You won't feel a pulse where you keep your finger.
 
Yes I was visualising this one point, from the perspective of dichotomy, as
infinitely small/large. As a one point is not present in the duality.




Yes I visualise this as the local manifesting as a mirror image or reflection of the unity. An infinite complexity representing through dichotomy the nature of the unity.


.
Can you explain to this Homer Simpson clone the meaning of the farrago above?
 
How do you remove the pair of the distinct 0-dimensional elements? By division? Or by subtraction?

OOPS. Silly, weak reasoning me . . .
By not using them as measurement tools of a given 1-dimensional element.
 
Last edited:
As with most other terms, Doron is using his own special meaning for 'ignorant'.
Says a person that has no knowledge about the science of consciousness, which mostly was developed in the Eastern world, for the past 5000 years.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom