Deeper than primes

[The Man]

The Man, have a pleasant life in your strict box, I am not going to continue the discussion on this fine subject with you.

Like we haven't heard that before, though there is always just the slightest possibility that this time you aren’t just lying.

 

[epix]

Like we haven't heard that before, though there is always just the slightest possibility that this time you aren’t just lying.

Lying (or giving someone "asymmetric information") doesn't seem to be just Doron's way of smoothing out the wrinkles on the face of his arguments. When I clicked yesterday on the main news, I saw president Obama in the middle of some speech of his. So I listen and then, to my mild surprise, he said, “Be still, and know that I am God. That statement got my full attention, coz the atheists maintain that there is no God. But such an assertion is false, coz the prez finished his speech without having disappeared. To put it simply, the claim that there is no God is simply a lie.

I know that you, as a realistic person, have hard time to believe that the president would publicly declare himself God, but I swear it's true. Unfortunately, my thread with the video has been relocated to a special place called "Abandon All Hope" and then, probably on the request of the White House, entirely deleted. But there is a chance that you may find the speech somewhere on the web. I wouldn't give you asymmetric info, would I?

 

[doronshadmi]

Happy Birthday The Man.

 

[The Man]

Thank you very much Doron.

 

[The Man]

Lying (or giving someone "asymmetric information") doesn't seem to be just Doron's way of smoothing out the wrinkles on the face of his arguments. When I clicked yesterday on the main news, I saw president Obama in the middle of some speech of his. So I listen and then, to my mild surprise, he said, “Be still, and know that I am God. That statement got my full attention, coz the atheists maintain that there is no God. But such an assertion is false, coz the prez finished his speech without having disappeared. To put it simply, the claim that there is no God is simply a lie.

I know that you, as a realistic person, have hard time to believe that the president would publicly declare himself God, but I swear it's true. Unfortunately, my thread with the video has been relocated to a special place called "Abandon All Hope" and then, probably on the request of the White House, entirely deleted. But there is a chance that you may find the speech somewhere on the web. I wouldn't give you asymmetric info, would I?

While I may have some specific distain for some particular instance of lying I generally don’t have any particular distain for lying in and of itself. As knowingly making a false statement with the intent of deception, a lie, by that definition, confirms the liar has at least some accurate knowledge. They merely and deliberately choose not to express that accurate knowledge correctly. On the other hand an honest person who is simply wrong believes themselves to be correct even though the statement they make is in fact false. So while the liar has some true and perhaps useful knowledge the honestly wrong just doesn’t have a clue, even to their cluelessness. Doron has combined the two (liar and simply wrong) into his own symmetrical superposition of their identities without symmetry, superposition or identity.

 

[doronshadmi]

Lying (or giving someone "asymmetric information") doesn't seem to be just Doron's way of smoothing out the wrinkles on the face of his arguments. When I clicked yesterday on the main news, I saw president Obama in the middle of some speech of his. So I listen and then, to my mild surprise, he said, “Be still, and know that I am God. That statement got my full attention, coz the atheists maintain that there is no God. But such an assertion is false, coz the prez finished his speech without having disappeared. To put it simply, the claim that there is no God is simply a lie.

I know that you, as a realistic person, have hard time to believe that the president would publicly declare himself God, but I swear it's true. Unfortunately, my thread with the video has been relocated to a special place called "Abandon All Hope" and then, probably on the request of the White House, entirely deleted. But there is a chance that you may find the speech somewhere on the web. I wouldn't give you asymmetric info, would I?

President Obama used a statement taken from Psalms (46:11), which says:

"הרפו ודעו, כי אנכי אלהים" which means "Let be, and know than I am God".

"הרפו" means "Release", "Relax", "Let be", "Be still", "Be calm" etc.

In other words, one can't know God as long as his\her mind is not aware of the calm and non-subjective state, which is the natural source of any possible expression, whether it is mental or physical.

epix, your

Lying (or giving someone "asymmetric information")

statement is an actual example of the lack of "הרפו" of your awareness.

(Your noisy mind can't get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7255966&postcount=15594 as can be seen by you reply in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7256470&postcount=15597, which actually can't comprehend http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7258971&postcount=15606).

The Man and jsfisher are also actual examples of the lack of "הרפו" of their awareness.

 

[epix]

President Obama used a statement taken from Psalms (46:11), which says:

"הרפו ודעו, כי אנכי אלהים" which means "Let be, and know than I am God".

So the prez couldn't even come up with his own way to publicly declare himself God and had to resort to plagiarism.


Hey, Doron, do you remember if you were born in the USA? Can you look it up in your birth certificate? Well, the presidential election is coming up the next year...

No one who hopes in you will ever be put to shame, but shame will come on those who are treacherous without cause.
Psalm 25:3

 

[doronshadmi]

So the prez couldn't even come up with his own way to publicly declare himself God and had to resort to plagiarism.


Hey, Doron, do you remember if you were born in the USA? Can you look it up in your birth certificate? Well, the presidential election is coming up the next year...

No one who hopes in you will ever be put to shame, but shame will come on those who are treacherous without cause.
Psalm 25:3

Gently? That diagram of yours is a mutilated version of Cantor set

epix, where is the straight (calm) line of this diagram?

Can your noisy mind actually gets http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7255966&postcount=15594 ?

Can you actually be at "הרפו" state of mind?

 

[doronshadmi]

 

[epix]

[qimg]http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6064/6151591210_274af075db.jpg[/qimg]

My reply to your next-to-last post disappeared. I'm very closely watched now, as my experiment with the plasma vortex brings the scientific evidence of the existence of God uncomfortably close.

Which one is your birth certificate that I've asked for?

 

[doronshadmi]

No. Write a short explanation, no more than 100 words, no pictures.

Translation: Use only your verbal_symbolic skills.

Answer those questions to my satisfaction and I'll work to understand what you're up to. Otherwise, this is all an utter waste of time.

Translation: Satisfaction is achieved only by using verbal_symbolic skills.

If you do attempt to answer those questions, please do so using fairly conventional English without any grandiose claims, without links, and without fog of any kind.

Clarity, brevity, and responsiveness will get your reply read.

Translation: "AB" has to be defined in terms of "A,B" or "A" or "B", otherwise you will not get your reply read.

 

[doronshadmi]

Here is a part taken from H. M. Hubey book “The diagonal infinity: problems of multiple scales” (http://books.google.com/books?id=wD...m=6&sqi=2&ved=0CD0Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q&f=false ) page 297:


“A large part of the human brain is devoted to spatial computation, which in the language of serial logic becomes mere intuition. But the only way in which we can actually comprehend the most primitive concepts of all sciences, including mathematics of course, is in terms of these basic intuitions. If so, then what purpose does it serve to split the formation into syntax and semantics? What is obviously true by what some call intuition is the working of the parallel-visual-spatial system of the brain. Rigor seems to consist of turning these truths into words. Either this is done so that we can then learn from this to solve those problems that cannot be visualized or it’s done to satisfy those that cannot visualize. In no case is it necessary to stamp and certify only serial symbols as constituting rigor. If anything it is our very capability of spatial and parallel processing that even allowed us to entertain the possibility of a language for expressing truths. If anything language is a tool that allows us to partially reconstruct what we can see or seen to those that haven’t. If it were not so, only animals capable of speech (i.e. humans) would be capable of intelligence, and clearly it is not so.”

I would add that verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills complement each other into a valuable framework.

 

[doronshadmi]

The axiom of an infinite collection:

C is an infinite collection if for all x in C, x is arbitrarily the first object of C no more than once.

Example:

Given collection Z of points, any arbitrary chosen point is the first object of collection Z no more than once.


All the collections that do not satisfy the given axiom, are not infinite collections.

Example:

Given collection Z of points, any arbitrary chosen point is the first object of collection Z more than once.

Here is an example of finite Z:

If Z is infinite, then the diagram above does not hold.

 

[jsfisher]

The axiom of an infinite collection:

C is an infinite collection if for all x in C, x is arbitrarily the first object of C no more than once.

Oh, let's see how this works.

The set, {A, B, D, E}, as a collection. The set is unordered, so for all members of our set, none are "the first object."

We have satisfied the conditional. Therefore, according to Doronetics' Axiom of an Infinite Collection, the set, {A, B, D, E}, is an infinite collection.

How useful.

 

[doronshadmi]

Oh, let's see how this works.

The set, {A, B, D, E}, as a collection. The set is unordered, so for all members of our set, none are "the first object."

We have satisfied the conditional. Therefore, according to Doronetics' Axiom of an Infinite Collection, the set, {A, B, D, E}, is an infinite collection.

How useful.

Wrong, all members of {A, B, D, E} are arbitrarily first objects of {A, B, D, E} exactly because order has no significance (the serial symbolic order has no significance).

Furthermore, since {A, B, D, E} is a finite collection, the first arbitrarily picked member can be picked again as the first member, since all the rest members are arbitrarily picked (which is not the case if the collection has infinitely many members).

 

[jsfisher]

Wrong, all members of {A, B, D, E} are arbitrarily first objects of {A, B, D, E} exactly because order has no significance (the serial symbolic order has no significance).

Umm, no. Unordered means there isn't an ordering. There is no first, no last, not second, none of that. Now, if you want to impose an ordering (arbitrary or otherwise) on the set, you may, but then you will have one and only one first object, and it will be first exactly once. {A, B, D, E} would still be an infinite collection according to Doronetics' latest axiom of nonsense.

Furthermore, since {A, B, D, E} is a finite collection, the first arbitrarily picked member can be picked again as the first member (which is not the case if the collection has infinitely many members).

The words you used do not mean what you think they mean.

Be that as it may, if I can pick member D twice to be the first object (contradicting the whole notion of first, but whatever) from the set {A, B, D, E}, then I can also pick the member 17 twice to be the first object from the set of integers.

So, the set of integers must not be infinite.

 

[jsfisher]

And lest we forget, what Doron proffers as an axiom is nothing of the kind. It is an attempt at a definition. As a definition, it fails on its own merits, but it is an attempt nonetheless.

 

[doronshadmi]

Umm, no. Unordered means there isn't an ordering. There is no first, no last, not second, none of that.

You are right if "Order has no significance" is the same as "Order does not exist".

In that case there is a non-empty collection (of distinct members, in this case) but non of its members can be picked and used, because any attempt to pick something from this collection must be the first pick.

Furthermore, how can one define a collection of distinct members by not being able to get them both particularly (locally) and globally (non-locally)?

In other words, if order does not exist among sets, then their members are not distinct.

Since this is not the case, then "Order has no significance among sets" is the right one.

 

[doronshadmi]

Since members from a given set are used, they are picked, and being picked has first, second, etc ... picks that are done right from the first picked member.

There is another error that has to be fixed in my Axiom, which is: "no member is picked twice unless the rest of the members are picked".

It means that the "picking" follows the property of Distinction, which is essential to sets.

It is obvious that given an infinite set, "being picked twice" is not satisfied, by following Distinction (one can't return to the first pick).

 

[doronshadmi]

The axiom of an infinite collection:

For all x in C, if all x in C are picked AND no x can be picked twice, then C is infinite.