• 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 - Continuation

Status
Not open for further replies.
Pythagorean theorem is named after Greek philosopher and mathematician Pythagoras, even though he wasn't the one who conceived the formula that computes the length of the hypothenuse of a right angled triangle - he just promoted it, coz his friend who actually made the discovery lacked the necessary credibility for that task. The history tells us that . . .
Pythagoras’ religious and scientific views were, in his opinion, inseparably interconnected. Religiously, Pythagoras was a believer of metempsychosis. He believed in transmigration, or the reincarnation of the soul again and again into the bodies of humans, animals, or vegetables until it became immortal. His ideas of reincarnation were influenced by ancient Greek religion. Heraclides Ponticus reports the story that Pythagoras claimed that he had lived four lives that he could remember in detail, and, according to Xenophanes, Pythagoras heard the cry of his dead friend in the bark of a dog.
Click to expand...
A detailed account of the highlighted further tells us . . .

Bark! Bark! Pyth! Bark!

:confused:

Bark! Hey, Pyth! Don't you recognize me?

Pitus Bullus! Is that you?

Of course it's me. I'm so glad that I've found you. I did some thinking, you know. Just check this out:
d2 = o2 + g2.
 
Last edited:
My view is close some how to Sam Harris' view about Ethics and Science (I disagree with Sam Harris about Free will if he gets it at the level of thoughts).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Harris_(author)

http://lifewithoutfaith.com/?p=3384

EDIT:

More about Free will

Actually as long as one's awareness is at the level of thoughts (and this is how Sam Harris gets awareness, for example: "This, he thinks, is intuitive; "trains of thought...convey the apparent reality of choices, freely made. But from a deeper perspective...thoughts simply arise (what else could they do?)" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moral_Landscape:_How_Science_Can_Determine_Human_Values )), he\she is not aware of their calm source, which is the simplest state of awareness. Without being aware of the simplest state of awareness, one has no actual Free will because any aware thought has a finer level of unaware thought, so actual awareness (and actual Free will) is achieved only from the finest level of awareness, which is naturally free of thoughts (the finest level of awareness is not itself a thought).

Thoughts are infinitely many possible expressions of Free will, which is actually achieved only if one's awareness transcendents the level of expressions and directly aware of the finest level of awareness, which is not itself a thought.
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
No it isn't, Sam Harris makes no self-contradictory "belongs to AND does not belong to" claims. Stop lying Doron and stop simply trying to conflate your self-contradictory nonsense with work done by others.
Click to expand...

e = m*c2
conflat+e = m*c2 = a2+b2
 
So in other words Doron, you *don't* have a simple, easy to understand example that a normal, well educated but ordinary individual (myself) would find truly amazing.

Thanks, that's all I needed to know...

P.S. You may want to tone down some of the opening paragraphs of your documents, because I was expecting something much more, and I'm sure others were as well.

Onwards!
 
PiedPiper said:
So in other words Doron, you *don't* have a simple, easy to understand example that a normal, well educated but ordinary individual (myself) would find truly amazing.

Thanks, that's all I needed to know...

P.S. You may want to tone down some of the opening paragraphs of your documents, because I was expecting something much more, and I'm sure others were as well.

Onwards!
Click to expand...
PiedPiper, you did not answer to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7689633&postcount=19 , which can lead you to get things that are truly amazing, exactly because they are so close to you until your awareness misses them.

For example, if one tries to get the following paragraphs only at the level of thoughts
doronshadmi said:
Without being aware of the simplest state of awareness, one has no actual Free will because any aware thought has a finer level of unaware thought, so actual awareness (and actual Free will) is achieved only from the finest level of awareness, which is naturally free of thoughts (the finest level of awareness is not itself a thought).
Click to expand...
doronshadmi said:
Thoughts are infinitely many possible expressions of Free will, which is actually achieved only if one's awareness transcendents the level of expressions and directly aware of the finest level of awareness, which is not itself a thought.
Click to expand...
he/she is not directly aware of the finest level of awareness, which is not itself a thought and it is the actual (and non-subjective) source of Free will.

The level of thoughts is like a map that guides you to some actual place, but you do not reach the actual place at the level of the map.

In order to reach the actual place you have to go beyond the level of the map.

The same case is about thoughts, they are like a map, but in order to reach their non-subjective source your awareness has to transcendent them in order to directly reach the simplest state of awareness, which is itself not a thought or collection of thoughts.
 
Last edited:
Ah, not aware of awareness, amazing, and “a finer level of unaware thought” “which is itself not a thought or collection of thoughts”, stupendous. As expected Doron the only thing that remains consistent about your transcendental musing is their self-inconsistency.
 
In addition to post http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7694417&postcount=26 , if one uses the following diagram

5721561558_c5b78c3152_b.jpg


one easily gets the difference between being finer (the level of curved lines) and being finest (the level of the straight line).
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
PiedPiper, you did not answer to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7689633&postcount=19 , which can lead you to get things that are truly amazing, exactly because they are so close to you until your awareness misses them.

For example, if one tries to get the following paragraphs only at the level of thoughts


he/she is not directly aware of the finest level of awareness, which is not itself a thought and it is the actual (and non-subjective) source of Free will.

The level of thoughts is like a map that guides you to some actual place, but you do not reach the actual place at the level of the map.

In order to reach the actual place you have to go beyond the level of the map.

The same case is about thoughts, they are like a map, but in order to reach their non-subjective source your awareness has to transcendent them in order to directly reach the simplest state of awareness, which is itself not a thought or collection of thoughts.
Click to expand...

Nicely put:)
 
doronshadmi said:
In addition to post http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7694417&postcount=26 , if one uses the following diagram

[qimg]http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3296/5721561558_c5b78c3152_b.jpg[/qimg]

one easily gets the difference between being finer (the level of curved lines) and being finest (the level of the straight line).
Click to expand...

So your "being finest" is not "being finer"? Your purported difference, attempting to exclude your "being finest" from your "being finer", is simply, explicitly and expectedly self-contradictory. Just to give to a hint "being finest" explicitly asserts that it is "being finer" than anything else. As such you explicitly ascribe your own "level of the straight line" to your own "level of curved lines".

jsfisher said:
I thought Doron was ignoring you, The Man.
Click to expand...

Evidently, as usual, he is mainly just ignoring himself and in that deliberate ignorance of himself takes himself as profound, "being finest" without "being finer".


Reminds me of "The Sphinx" from "Mystery Men".


 
The Man said:
So your "being finest" is not "being finer"? Your purported difference, attempting to exclude your "being finest" from your "being finer", is simply, explicitly and expectedly self-contradictory. Just to give to a hint "being finest" explicitly asserts that it is "being finer" than anything else. As such you explicitly ascribe your own "level of the straight line" to your own "level of curved lines".
Click to expand...
The study of turbo-superlatives is usually initiated after the number of traffic tickets satisfies the Mosquer-Altarnikoff inequality.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,899019,00.html
 
In addition to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7703657&postcount=28 it must be stressed that no finer curved lines can reach the finest state of straight line, no matter how many finer levels of curved lines are involved.

The transition between a collection of curved lines and a straight line is always resulted by a finite amount of such collection.

This finite amount is exactly the naturally open (and therefore non-entropic) space for ever finer levels of curved lines that can't be (can't reach the state of) a straight line.

Also the transition between curved or straight line and a point, is always resulted by a finite amount of points (there is no homeomorphism between 0-dimensional space and 1-dimensioanl space).

So the same principle holds by the inability of collection of points to fully cover a given line (straight or curved), exactly because such collection does not have the power of the continuum of a line, no matter how many point are involved.

Some example: An object is considered as a circle only if pi (circumference\diameter) is found, so by following this reasoning a point or a straight are not circles, so a point is smaller than any circle but it is not the smallest circle, and a straight line is bigger than any circle but it is not the biggest circle.

Exactly as no collection of smaller or bigger circles reach the state of a point or a straight line, so is the case between a collection of curved lines and a straight line, or a collection of points on straight or curved line.

These notions are known only by using verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
The transition between a collection of curved lines and a straight line is always resulted by a finite amount of such collection.
Click to expand...

In this single statement Doron again exposes his lack of understanding of mathematical concepts (limits in this case) and basic mathematical terms (curve). There is not end to his lack of understanding it would seem.

...
These notions are known only by using verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills.
Click to expand...

No, these notions are known only to those who use unfounded fabrication as a substitute for knowledge.
 
In addition to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7713240&postcount=35 it must be stressed that "traditional" mathematics (which is actually based on verbal_symbolic skills) can't comprehend the inaccessibility of, for example, any amount of circles to the state of a point (we get a non-finite collection of ever finer convergent circles) or the inaccessibility of any amount of circles to the state of a straight line (we get a non-finite collection of ever wider divergent circles).

Infinite interpolation or extrapolation can't be known by using only verbal_symbolic skills, and unfortunately this is exactly the (in)ability of "traditional" mathematics comprehend this profound subject.

Cantor's awareness, which is closed under the concept of Collection, simply missed the right notion of aleph-0 or omega, which actually transcendent the concept of Collection.

As a result the concept of Collection has no choice but to use the non-elegant garbage can of proper classes.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
In addition to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7703657&postcount=28 it must be stressed that no finer curved lines can reach the finest state of straight line, no matter how many finer levels of curved lines are involved.

The transition between a collection of curved lines and a straight line is always resulted by a finite amount of such collection.
Click to expand...


Wait, first it was “no finer curved lines can reach the finest state of straight line, no matter how many finer levels of curved lines are involved.”, then it is “The transition between a collection of curved lines and a straight line is always resulted by a finite amount of such collection.”? So which is it never “no matter how many finer levels of curved lines are involved.” or “always” “by a finite amount of such collection”?

Do you seriously propose resolving the self-contradiction of your “being finest” not “being finer” by simply claiming that your “no matter how many” “transition” “is always resulted by a finite amount of such collection”?

As always Doron how can anyone even possibly agree with you when you expressly and empathically just can’t agree with yourself? Simply Disagreeing with yourself again (about your “no matter how many” yet “always” “finite” “transition”) in no way makes your pervious disagreement with yourself (about your “finest” that’s expressly not “finer”) any less, well, disagreeable. The only thing more ridiculous than these self-contradictory assertions is your obvious expectation that the former self-contradictory assertion should somehow mitigate the latter.
 
In addition to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7714133&postcount=37, a reasoning that is based only on verbal_symbolic skills, can't comprehend the result of the transition of finer states to the finest state (which is resulted by a finite collection that no one of its objects is the finest state) and the inaccessibility of finitely or infinitely (which is any amount of) finer states to the finest state (where in the case of infinitely finer states, no transition to the finest state is involved).

Using only Verbal_symbolic_only skills has devastating results on the mathematical science in general, and on the mind of some Verbal_symbolic_only skill(er), in particular.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
In addition to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7714133&postcount=37, a reasoning that is based only on verbal_symbolic skills, can't comprehend the result of the transition of finer states to the finest state (which is resulted by a finite collection that no one of its objects is the finest state) and the inaccessibility of finitely or infinitely (which is any amount of) finer states to the finest state (where in the case of infinitely finer states, no transition to the finest state is involved).

Using only Verbal_symbolic_only skills has devastating results on the mathematical science.
Click to expand...


Translation: "Even though I make up stuff out of my own ignorance, and it is all horribly, horribly wrong, I can pretend it is correct by declaring it beyond the abilities of anyone who sees it for the junk it is."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom