Deeper than primes

[jsfisher]

As I have said, the researcher's awareness development is deeply involved in Cybernetics and Robotics development.

Your inability to get that is a direct result of your tagged-boxes reasoning style.


Like The Man and epix, you can't comprehend http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7266088&postcount=15629 .

So, you have no OM result. Why am I not surprised?

 

[epix]

Who is this "We"?

We the Western Weasels.

 

[epix]

This kind of behavior is typical to auditory\sequential-only learners, which prevent from them to get the whole picture, before they reply to some part of it.

I think I rather accept other explanation to the predicament that auditory-only perceptive Vincent van Gogh had to face whilst experimenting with new forms of visual art.

The Real Story Behind van Gogh's Severed Ear

He's known as the tortured genius who cut off his own ear, but two German historians now claim that painter Vincent van Gogh lost his ear in a fight with his friend, the French artist Paul Gauguin.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=7506786&page=1

 

[doronshadmi]

You continued lack of originality in your retorts is noted.

You continue to hide in your "already established" box.

Now, can you please address the issue you have been so clumsy at evading?

Now, can you get out of your "already established" in order to be able to get original things?

 

[doronshadmi]

So, you have no OM result. Why am I not surprised?

So, you can't get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7266088&postcount=15629 by staying in your "already established" . Why am I not surprised?

 

[The Man]

Let's simplify it for you.

A = FALSE
B = TRUE

Form

B     B
A [I]AND[/I] A

is a superposition of ids, and because of that superposition the id of the inputs of AND connective are not well-defined, and no clear result can be given.

Well, since I have already simplified it for you as much as possible, I'll just repeat it for you again. What your variables represent does not matter, that your "superposition" by your own assertions doesn't involve the principle of superposition doesn't matter, because the ordering of the variables does not change the result (with a commutative operator or connective) which in case you haven't put it together yet, can also be a variable.

A clear result can be given only if there is no superposition of ids among AND connective inputs, and only then the commutative property of AND connective can be used, for example, comutativity is used in the following cases:

Once again by your own assertions there is no superposition in your "superposition of ids", but again it doesn't matter as a variable accommodates whatever you think your "superposition of ids" can represent (that's why it is, well, variable).

A AND A, A AND B, B AND A, B AND B

and it can't be used in the following superposition case:

B     B
A [I]AND[/I] A

exactly because the inputs are not well-defined under id's superposition.

Fine, then use whatever variable you want to represent your "superposition of ids" without the principle of superposition. A variable is intentionally used because what it represents is specifically not as well defined as it might be in just some particular instance. So you are still just as wrong now as you were before when I put it simply for you. You still seem to be deliberately confusing a property of the connective or operator with some ill-conceived and equally ill-defined property of your " ids" (the veriables).

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

There is another thing about your reply, which is:

It can be clearly seen how you reply separately to each part of my post, according to the particular order of how it was written, and you don't first read all of the post in order to understand it, before you reply to some part of it.

This kind of behavior is typical to auditory\sequential-only learners, which prevent from them to get the whole picture, before they reply to some part of it.

Once again your 'direct perception' fails you.

 

[The Man]

An excellent post that demonstrates your poor understanding of Cybernetics and Robotics, exactly because you so ignorantly replaced robots with things that are not necessarily involved with Cybernetics.

Oh, so now your claim of "we first have to develop the Cybernetics between our subjective and non-subjective aspects." is " not necessarily involved with Cybernetics". I think everyone got that before.

The Man, until this very moment you did not show some reply, which is relevant to your ability you air your view about current and future development of Cybernetics and\or Robotics.

Wrong once again, I have always replied and in this case as before to your specific lack of relevance to the "current and future development of Cybernetics and\or Robotics."

It is even worse, you have failed to understand that

is no more that a brief starting point for further and more detailed discussion on that subject, which you actually fail to do.

Again a "starting point" that doesn't specifically involve anything about the "current and future development of Cybernetics and\or Robotics.". The failure remains just yours Doron

'Please insert more quarters to play again.'

The cybernetic development between the subjective and non-subjective state of mind, is the natural basis for technology's development, where cybernetics plays a main role, and Robotics is defiantly such a technology.

Once again lacking any specificity to the "current and future development of Cybernetics and\or Robotics."

'Please insert more quarters to play again.'

 

[The Man]

Your unwarranted criticism of OM and your refusal to accept it as the key that opens the door to the future is a position that you will come to regret, for OM draws the horizon line the sharpest. The nature is not able to create plastics, for example, yet look around yourself to see this material aplenty. If OM had existed some five hundred years ago, it would have offered a hypothetical look into atom binding. To let such mundane things as the furniture walk toward the future is a sign of a context-dependent-only reasoning that may support the present well, but it's impotent to bring about the future.

The progressive future is altered present, otherwise the future becomes stagnating present inherited from the past. It is OM that lifts the lid on the pot of opportunities that no one would even dare to dream of; it is OM that can dress all tabus and impossibilities for the appointment with the wonders of the future. Here is an example of a bold move toward the future that only OM can make.

We can take the ribonucleic acid, RNA, and change its biochemistry the way nature couldn't accomplish even in trillion years; we can change RNA into RNI and introduce the molecule into a present organism through gene slicing and recombination:

(RNA => RNI) and (FUTURE /splice => F U - - - T U R E)

Now we insert the modified molecule into the symbolic organism called "future." Ta-daaaa . . .

FURNITURE



I think it's an Organic Massage bed -- something that would relegate back-pains into medieval history.

Well, by "OM"'s 'standards' these must be 'non-destructive' plastics, an innovation yet to be obtained. Let's all genuflect to the organic orgasm that is "OM" and a future where even destruction becomes, well, non-destructive.

 

[doronshadmi]

I think I rather accept other explanation to the predicament that auditory-only perceptive Vincent van Gogh had to face whilst experimenting with new forms of visual art.


http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=7506786&page=1

In both possible versions a destructive action were done, exactly because of the lack of organic perception of a given realm.

 

[doronshadmi]

Well, since I have already simplified it for you as much as possible, I'll just repeat it for you again. What your variables represent does not matter, that your "superposition" by your own assertions doesn't involve the principle of superposition doesn't matter, because the ordering of the variables does not change the result

The Man your use or variables is limited only to well-defined values.

Please demonstrate some AND result, such that its inputs are not determined because of a superposition of, for example, two options like TRUE or FALSE.

You can't get any result until both input variables have well-defined values.

Since your understanding of variables is limited only to variables with well-defined values, the case of value's superposition, which avoids AND connective results, is beyond your scope.

In other words, you have no ability the get the actuality of values under superposition.

 

[doronshadmi]

Oh, so now your claim of "we first have to develop the Cybernetics between our subjective and non-subjective aspects." is " not necessarily involved with Cybernetics". I think everyone got that before.

It is necessarily involved with Cybernetics, but not your replacement of robots with other things. For example, by your poor reasoning you define the following equalities:

"greater degrees of a vehicle’s capabilities to carry passengers and greater symbiosis with them"

=

"greater degrees of a player’s individual abilities and greater symbiosis with the team"

=

greater degrees of the furniture’s functionality and greater symbiosis of style with the surroundings"


All this nonsense was written by you in order to avoid any discussion of Cybernetics that starts by the following two aspects about Robotics (other aspects can be used if you wish), which deals with "greater degrees of robots' autonomous abilities and greater symbiosis with them."

You can blame only yourself by your inability to discuss about those two aspects, because of your inability to use knowledge taken from Cybernetics and Robotics.

Once again lacking any specificity to the "current and future development of Cybernetics and\or Robotics."

You by your own ridicules reply on this subject, determine the impossibility to discuss on that subject by using further details about the two suggested starting points, which deal with "greater degrees of robots' autonomous abilities and greater symbiosis with them."

I have always replied ...

So what. Most of your replies are aimed to avoid any further discussion that does not follow your context-dependent-only reasoning,
and your "brilliant" replay in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7278368&postcount=15662 clearly demonstrates such aim.

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

So for the last time, please air your view about current and future development of Cybernetics and Robotics, where the starting point of this discussion is the dynamic balance between "greater degrees of robots' autonomous abilities and greater symbiosis with them."

 

[epix]

In both possible versions a destructive action were done, exactly because of the lack of organic perception of our realm.

How does OM deal with subtraction, which is as destructive as you can imagine. Subtraction can induce suicidal thoughts in the mind of numbers. Look at that nice and docile number 6. But enter subtraction and . . .

6 - 6 = 0

The result is zero, zilch, nothing -- six is gone furiously self-subtracting itself to non-existence.

Has Organic Mathematics laid down any axiomatic framework for non-destructive subtraction, or has the advanced computing method eliminated the concept of no quantity briefly called "zero" from its philosophical basis?

I think that zero is allowed within the number system only as a result of non-subtraction. I guess that OM literature allows 0 + 0 = 0, but not 0 - 0 = 0.

 

[doronshadmi]

How does OM deal with subtraction, which is as destructive as you can imagine. Subtraction can induce suicidal thoughts in the mind of numbers. Look at that nice and docile number 6. But enter subtraction and . . .

6 - 6 = 0

By Organic view 0 is the balance of 6-6, such that the whole expression is not less than 0=6-6 or 6-6=0.

You still unable to get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7255966&postcount=15594 .

 

[The Man]

The Man your use or variables is limited only to well-defined values.

Nope, again since you evidently missed it, a variable is used specifically because the "value" is not that, well, "well-defined"

Please demonstrate some AND result, such that its inputs are not determined because of a superposition of, for example, two options like TRUE or FALSE.

Well, unfortunately since your "superposition" remains undefined other than your assertion that it does not involve the principle of superposition. This makes it rather difficult to determine exactly what you don't want the inputs be determined by. However, your specification of the commutative logical conjunction "AND" specifies that the ordering of those inputs will not alter the result, to which we can just ascribe to the result (regardless of the properties of the operation or connective) the variable "R" (for Result).

You can't get any result until both input variables have well-defined values.

Nope, the result is just the variable "R" as specified above. Again the lack of well-defined values is why there are variables and not instead, well, well-defined values, even for a result like "R".

Since your understanding of variables is limited only to variables with well-defined values, the case of value's superposition, which avoids AND connective results, is beyond your scope.

Once again your simple and apparently deliberate ignorance of the variability of variables belies your assertions.

What? So now "AND" isn't even connective? Must be a typo, even for you.

In other words, you have no ability the get the actuality of values under superposition.

In the same words you used before your "superposition" "does not involve the principle of superposition". How unfortunate for you and your "superposition". So, by all means, please, define your "superposition" that "does not involve the principle of superposition".

 

[The Man]

It is necessarily involved with Cybernetics, but not your replacement of robots with other things. For example, by your poor reasoning you define the following equalities:

"greater degrees of a vehicle’s capabilities to carry passengers and greater symbiosis with them"

=

"greater degrees of a player’s individual abilities and greater symbiosis with the team"

=

greater degrees of the furniture’s functionality and greater symbiosis of style with the surroundings"

Nope, I did not equate them, so why do you? It was the rest of your nonsense that was equivalent

The variance in the wording simply demonstrates the lack of specificity of your boilerplate "OM" assertions to any topic. As that is what you have evidently always intended.

All this nonsense was written by you in order to avoid any discussion of Cybernetics, which starts by two aspects about Robotics, which deals with
"greater degrees of robots' autonomous abilities and greater symbiosis with them."

You can blame only yourself by your inability to discuss about those two aspects, by using knowledge taken from Cybernetics and Robotics.

So use some "knowledge taken from Cybernetics and Robotics" and we can discuss it. "greater degrees of robots' autonomous abilities and greater symbiosis with them." displays no such knowledge. Wow, robots are to certain degrees autonomous and we depend on them as they depend on us (symbiosis), did you just get that out of a crackerjack box?

You by your own ridicules reply on this subject, determine the impossibility to discuss on that subject by using further details about the two suggested starting points, which deal with "greater degrees of robots' autonomous abilities and greater symbiosis with them."

The lack of any specific details remains yours, Doron. By all means please start giving some when you have any.

So what. Most of your replies are aimed to avoid any further discussion that does not follow your context-dependent-only reasoning,
and your "brilliant" replay in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7278368&postcount=15662 clearly demonstrates such aim.

Again stop simply trying to posit aspects of your own failed reasoning onto others.

----------------------
So for the last time, please air your view about current and future development of Cybernetics and Robotics, where the starting point of this discussion is the dynamic balance between "greater degrees of robots' autonomous abilities and greater symbiosis with them."

" for the last time"? Oh, I doubt that, and once again the onus is upon you and you alone to demonstrate your purported relevance. That robots are to certain degrees autonomous and we depend on them as they depend on us (symbiosis) is your "starting point" and where most people, these days, would start with no actual knowledge of "Cybernetics and Robotics". So by all means please proceed.

 

[zooterkin]

OM is a paradigm-shift of the current formal agreement of the mathematical science.

In other words, it has to actually be used by mathematicians in order to show its actual achievements.

And how do you know this, given that you then say:

Until now no professional mathematician even tried to do the needed paradigm-shift, exactly because mathematician's awareness is not an aspect of traditional mathematics.

As long as mathematician's awareness is out of the scope of the mathematical science, OM will not become actual.

It seems somewhat ironic that OM needs to be used by mathematicians in order to work when you keep dismissing the whole of mathematics as being blind to reality. Why can't you do anything with it?

 

[doronshadmi]

It seems somewhat ironic that OM needs to be used by mathematicians in order to work when you keep dismissing the whole of mathematics as being blind to reality.

Exactly.

Why can't you do anything with it?

Because one man is not enough for actual paradigm-shift, where according to it the mathematician's awareness is a significant factor of the mathematical science.

 

[doronshadmi]

Nope, I did not equate them,

So are you actually say that you arbitrarily changed my claim about the need to face the non-trivial challenge to define the balance between "greater degrees of robots' autonomous abilities and greater symbiosis with them", as one of the most important aspects of current and future development of Cybernetics and Robotics?

Your ridiculous behavior about this subject is even worse than what I thought.

It was the rest of your nonsense that was equivalent

You arbitrarily change some part of what I wrote, doing it couple of times and live the other parts unchanged, and then you claim that "It was the rest of" my "nonsense that was equivalent".

The Man, you destroy what I say by your own hands, and then conclude that what I wrote is nonsense. You have a pathetic reasoning.

The variance in the wording simply demonstrates the lack of specificity of your boilerplate "OM" assertions to any topic. As that is what you have evidently always intended.

The variance in the wording is your arbitrary ridicules game. You are running after your own destruction in your closed mind.

So use some "knowledge taken from Cybernetics and Robotics" and we can discuss it. "greater degrees of robots' autonomous abilities and greater symbiosis with them." displays no such knowledge. Wow, robots are to certain degrees autonomous and we depend on them as they depend on us (symbiosis), did you just get that out of a crackerjack box?

Another demonstration of the inability of your poor reasoning to understand the things that are needed in order to define the non-trivial balance between "greater degrees of robots' autonomous abilities and greater symbiosis with them."

The lack of any specific details remains yours, Doron. By all means please start giving some when you have any.

After you refused couple of times to start a discussion on that subject I gave some framework to start with. Now you actually say that you are unable to do your step and contribute more details to this starting point? Do you think that I have to do whole the job for you?? just forget it, you have at least 3 options, which are:

1) To provide more details to this starting point.

2) To admit that you have nothing to say about current and future development of Cybernetics and Robotics.

3) To determine the starting point about this subject in a different way, and I will join you by providing more details.

" for the last time"?

Exactly! Please choose one of the options.

If you are not going to do that before I provide more details to the starting point, I am going to ignore anything that you say about Cybernetics and Robotics (if what you did until now demonstrates your best ability to discuss on that subject, then there is no chance that you have any meaningful thing to say about this subject anyway).

 

[doronshadmi]

Nope, again since you evidently missed it, a variable is used specifically because the "value" is not that, well, "well-defined".

Wrong.

A variable may have many values, but only one value at a time is considered.

I am talking about superposition of values, such that several values are simultaneously related to a given variable.

In this case AND connective result can't be defined, because the inputs are in a superposition.

Furthermore a symmetrical state of inputs' superposition is unordered, which brings us back to the beginning of the discussion about the existence of unordered values.

 

[doronshadmi]

The variance in the wording simply demonstrates the lack of specificity of your boilerplate "OM" assertions to any topic. As that is what you have evidently always intended.

You simply unable to get generalization in terms of non-particular and non-subjective aspects, which complement the particular and subjective aspects into a one unified organic realm.

No wonder that you can't comprehend http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7243778&postcount=15576 .