A hidden assumption

[doronshadmi]

You are making up notations and generalization. That's the problem. If you want to communicate with someone, you have to use words with a mutually agreed definition.

That is the whole point of my work. I am changing the meaning of some mutually agreed definitions by a paradigm-shift. This is a mutation of the old one by a new one. By the standard paradigm, each mathematical universe is a different game. By Hilbert's organic paradigm the mathematical science is a one organism where each organ is based on whole\parts relation and not on separated contexts.

The beautiful thing is that Hilbert himself is one of the main scholars how established the "game" of context dependent formalism:

"Formalism holds that mathematical statements may be thought of as statements about the consequences of certain string manipulation rules. For example, in the "game" of Euclidean geometry (which is seen as consisting of some strings called "axioms", and some "rules of inference" to generate new strings from given ones),..."
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mathematics )

Hilbert changed is mind (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3580353&postcount=300 ) after he realized what will happen to the mathematical science if it will be based on formalism (context dependent separate "games") and if the main establisher of formalism changed his mind about his own method, I think that we have to listen to him.

It is convenient to ignore the non-convenient isn't it PixyMisa?

That's backwards. A member is defined in terms of a collection. Without the context of the collection, a member is just any old object.

There is no forwards backwards here but a simultaneous collection\member relation that no one of them exists separately of the other as a researchable thing.

Again you understand parallel existence in terms of reductionism step-by-step thinking, which avoids any understanding of simultaneous whole\parts relations (the organic paradigm).

That's how sets are defined.

Yes I know, sets are defined because they are defined. Nice circular statement.

The concept is not the thing. You continually fail to grasp this.

You cannot know that unless {concept of thing, the thing itself} is the result of (simultaneous) whole\parts relations.

In other words PixyMisa you do not aware of the Researchable\Non-researchable complementation.

An axiom doesn't need to be self-evident

Anything that is deduced from another thing, cannot be considered as an axiom.


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


Let me put it this way:

There is a new game in the nationhood that its name is Evolution.

You maybe do not know but one of the main players of this game is called mutation.

An influence mutation is a fundamental change of currently existing thing, which may lead it to distinction or to development.

The context dependent paradigm is a convenient way to avoid the game of Evolution.

Any school of thought that avoids Evolution is nothing but another kind of religion, where religion is a game that avoids mutations (new points of view of already agreed terms).

I choose Evolution as the principle of the mathematical science.

It means that also my theory can be changed by a paradigm shift, because Evolution is the very nature of open systems, and in my opinion, Mathematics is an open system that can be changed by paradigm-shifts.

You may say that my premise of the mathematical science is also my conclusion.

I agree with you, but it is not circular because mutation is a built-in property of it which keeps it as an open method and an open method is not circular, by definition.

On the contrary, any method that avoids mutations as its built-in principle is closed and circular, by definition.

The essential is Evolution.

 

[jsfisher]

That is the whole point of my work. I am changing the meaning of some mutually agreed definitions by a paradigm-shift.

There are just a few problems with this. The most significant problem is that you are not telling people what new meanings you are giving these old, established terms. You ignore all requests for definitions; instead, you accuse others of not understanding while, in fact, you have provided insufficient context or explanation for people to unravel your gibberish.

Another problem is that since your terminology means something entirely different, you are talking about something else, not Mathematics.

If you want to establish a new and different axiomatic framework for fundamental Mathematics, go right ahead. If you can provide an alternate to traditional set theory (which is about as fundamental as you can get in Mathematics without resorting to meta-logic and meta-set theory), that would be swell.

However, to do that, you need to lay out your axioms as a first step. Only then can people comment on the utility of your new framework, or whether Cantor may hold in it.

 

[PixyMisa]

That is the whole point of my work. I am changing the meaning of some mutually agreed definitions by a paradigm-shift. This is a mutation of the old one by a new one. By the standard paradigm, each mathematical universe is a different game. By Hilbert's organic paradigm the mathematical science is a one organism where each organ is based on whole\parts relation and not on separated contexts.

If you wish to change the definition of a term, you must supply the new definition. Otherwise your posts will be meaningless - as indeed they are.

It is convenient to ignore the non-convenient isn't it PixyMisa?

What are you talking about. I'm not ignoring anything. I'm pointing out that your posts are largely meaningless, and where they do have meaning, they are largely wrong.

There is no forwards backwards here but a simultaneous collection\member relation that no one of them exists separately of the other as a researchable thing.

Wrong.

Again you understand parallel existence in terms of reductionism step-by-step thinking, which avoids any understanding of simultaneous whole\parts relations (the organic paradigm).

And meaningless.

Yes I know, sets are defined because they are defined. Nice circular statement.

You asked what enables me to know the definition of a set. The answer is, the definition. It's not that the answer is circular, it's that the question is foolish.

You cannot know that unless {concept of thing, the thing itself} is the result of (simultaneous) whole\parts relations.

Is this a contest as to how many meaningless terms can you pack into one sentence?

In other words PixyMisa you do not aware of the Researchable\Non-researchable complementation.

And the reason I'm not aware of it is that you have failed to provide any coherent definition of it.

Anything that is deduced from another thing, cannot be considered as an axiom.

Which is completely irrelevant. Again, an axiom does not need to be self-evident.

Let me put it this way:

There is a new game in the nationhood that its name is Evolution.

You maybe do not know but one of the main players of this game is called mutation.

An influence mutation is a fundamental change of currently existing thing, which may lead it to distinction or to development.

The context dependent paradigm is a convenient way to avoid the game of Evolution.

Any school of thought that avoids Evolution is nothing but another kind of religion, where religion is a game that avoids mutations (new points of view of already agreed terms).

I choose Evolution as the principle of the mathematical science.

It means that also my theory can be changed by a paradigm shift, because Evolution is the very nature of open systems, and in my opinion, Mathematics is an open system that can be changed by paradigm-shifts.

You may say that my premise of the mathematical science is also my conclusion.

I agree with you, but it is not circular because mutation is a built-in property of it which keeps it as an open method and an open method is not circular, by definition.

On the contrary, any method that avoids mutations as its built-in principle is closed and circular, by definition.

The essential is Evolution.

And again, this is complete and utter nonsense. You can create a new field of mathematics, but what's already there is not subject to change. It doesn't matter whether you call it a "religion" and claim that your methods are "science"; traditional mathematics is right and you are wrong.

 

[doronshadmi]

Another problem is that since your terminology means something entirely different, you are talking about something else, not Mathematics.

Dear jsfisher,

This is exactly the problem. You think that Mathematics cannot be changed by a paradigm-shift.

Since I am an evolutionist and you are a dogmatist, you cannot get the notion of mutations of agreed terms (what is called well-defined terms by the community of mathematicians).

You think that Mathematics is some objective realm out there which is independent of the mathematicians, and a good mathematician is no more than a skillful objective reporter that has to develop the technique (the machinery) of his premise \ conclusion methods.

This is not how things (abstract or not) done because we are an inspirable organs of a one organic realm which is the result of researchable \ non-researchable complementation.

Mathematics will not be developed beyond the context dependent anti-evolutionist paradigm, if it avoids the question which is: What is researchable, what is not researchable and how they complement each other as a one organic realm?

And again, this is complete and utter nonsense. You can create a new field of mathematics, but what's already there is not subject to change. It doesn't matter whether you call it a "religion" and claim that your methods are "science"; traditional mathematics is right and you are wrong.

What ever you say Mr. Fundametamathematicalist.

Be aware of the fact that nothing is out of Evolution as long as it is reseachable.

 

[PixyMisa]

Since I am an evolutionist and you are a dogmatist, you cannot get the notion of mutations of agreed terms (what is called well-defined terms by the community of mathematicians).

How can well-defined terms mutate?

You think that Mathematics is some objective realm out there which is independent of the mathematicians, and a good mathematician is no more than a skillful objective reporter that has to develop the technique (the machinery) of his premise \ conclusion methods.

Yes.

This is not how things (abstract or not) done because we are an inspirable organs of a one organic realm which is the result of researchable \ non-researchable complementation.

Yeah, you keep saying that. Not only have you been unable to produce any evidence to back up your claim, you haven't even been able to explain what your claim means.

Mathematics will not be developed beyond the context dependent anti-evolutionist paradigm, if it avoids the question which is: What is researchable, what is not researchable and how they complement each other as a one organic realm?

To which I reply: What is "researchable"? What is "not researchable"? What is "complement"? What is "organic"?

What ever you say Mr. Fundametamathematicalist.

It is what it is. Take a class in propositional logic sometime. Or arithmetic...

Be aware of the fact that nothing is out of Evolution as long as it is reseachable.

Meaningless.

 

[doronshadmi]

The mathematical science will be developed into the science of the technology of the consciousness, which is based on a direct experience of the non-researchable (the atomic state of the organic realm) as the fundamental point of view of the researchable (the field of phenomena (abstract or not)).

This non-researchable \ researchable complementation will not be based on spoken definitions or axiomatic statements, but on a direct experience of this complementation.

In other words, you are looking for stability in the wrong place because no spoken definitions or axiomatic statements are the thing that is described by them.

To which I reply: What is "researchable"?

Anything that is based on thoughts and their relations.

What is "not researchable"?

The atomic state, experienced as memory without thoughts or a thought without memory (no connection between thoughts). Without it no thought can related to any other thought because it is the basis of each thought and the basis to the relations between them.

What is "complement"?

The atomic state interact with itself as both memory without thoughts and a thought without memory.

What is "Organic"?

The result of whole(memory without thoughts) \ part(a thought without memory) relations, which is simultaneously one_and_many_things realm.

All this stuff is understood only by direct experience, so you are the only person that can help you to get that.

 

[PixyMisa]

The mathematical science will be developed into the science of the technology of the consciousness, which is based on a direct experience of the non-researchable (the atomic state of the organic realm) as the fundamental point of view of the researchable (the field of phenomena (abstract or not)).

This non-researchable \ researchable complementation will not be based on spoken definitions or axiomatic statements, but on a direct experience of this complementation.

In other words, you are looking for stability in the wrong place because no spoken definitions or axiomatic statements are the thing that is described by them.

Ah. So you were never talking about mathematics in the first place. You were talking about mysticism. Religion and Philosophy is that way --->

 

[jsfisher]

This is exactly the problem. You think that Mathematics cannot be changed by a paradigm-shift.

Got a good paradigm shift? Knock yourself out and run with it. Start by defining some terms and laying out some axioms.

Since I am an evolutionist and you are a dogmatist, you cannot get the notion of mutations of agreed terms (what is called well-defined terms by the community of mathematicians).

You think that Mathematics is some objective realm out there which is independent of the mathematicians, and a good mathematician is no more than a skillful objective reporter that has to develop the technique (the machinery) of his premise \ conclusion methods.

You really should stop trying to guess what others think or believe. You aren't very good at it, it is doesn't really matter to this discussion anyway.

Be that as it may, you "objective reporter" analogy is way off base from what a theoretical mathematician is or needs to be.

This is not how things (abstract or not) done because we are an inspirable organs of a one organic realm which is the result of researchable \ non-researchable complementation.

Meaningless gibberish.

Mathematics will not be developed beyond the context dependent anti-evolutionist paradigm, if it avoids the question which is: What is researchable, what is not researchable and how they complement each other as a one organic realm?

Meaningless gibberish.

 

[doronshadmi]

Ah. So you were never talking about mathematics in the first place. You were talking about mysticism. Religion and Philosophy is that way --->

On the contrary.

You are the one who think that the technology of the consciousness is about mysticism, Religion and Philosophy.

Religion or mysticism belongs to people who think that they have found some way to evoid evolution.

You are one of those people. You simply unaware of it and think that what is called Logic is something beyond evolution.

So let me tell you Mr. PixyMisa, you are the one who thinks that Mathematics has the properties of dogmatic belief.

You can call it Logic You can call it arithmetic or you can call it the laws of God, but in all of those cases, you think that you deal with things beyond Evolution.

Your realm is a closed system and closed systems are eliminated by entropy.

Look again at your own words:

You can create a new field of mathematics, but what's already there is not subject to change. It doesn't matter whether you call it a "religion" and claim that your methods are "science"; traditional mathematics is right and you are wrong.

You are trying to avoid one of the main principles of evolution, which is mutation.

In your dogmatic realm there is nothing new and everything already exists. All we have to do is to find the best ways to mechanically define them.

So do not talk with me about religion or mysticism. The one how needs this talk is you <--

This is even worse because your dogmatic interpretation of the mathematical science is taught by many people around the globe as the heart of the modern science, and it is taught not just as a dogma, but as a particuler case of a dogma, which is the reductionist step-by-step thinking.

 

[jsfisher]

This is even worse because your dogmatic interpretation of the mathematical science is taught by many people around the globe as the heart of the modern science, and it is taught not just as a dogma, but as a particuler case of a dogma, which is the reductionist step-by-step thinking.

Ok, so you consider your paradigm shift of Mathematics to be a science. Do tell us about how the Scientific Method applies to this, especially in terms of what falsifiable predictions you have.

 

[PixyMisa]

On the contrary.

You are the one who think that the technology of the consciousness is about mysticism, Religion and Philosophy.

Nope.

Religion or mysticism belongs to people who think that they have found some way to evoid evolution.

Not necessarily.

You are one of those people.

Nope.

You simply unaware of it

Nope.

and think that what is called Logic is something beyond evolution.

Well, of course it is.

So let me tell you Mr. PixyMisa, you are the one who thinks that Mathematics has the properties of dogmatic belief.

Nope.

You can call it Logic You can call it arithmetic or you can call it the laws of God, but in all of those cases, you think that you deal with things beyond Evolution.

Logic and arithemetic are not affected in any way by evolution. If you think otherwise, you have to explain how evolution can act on immaterial invariant principles.

Your realm is a closed system and closed systems are eliminated by entropy.

Nope. And nope.

You are trying to avoid one of the main principles of evolution, which is mutation.

Mutation is not a "principle" of evolution. Mutation is an actual physical process.

In your dogmatic realm there is nothing new and everything already exists.

Nope.

All we have to do is to find the best ways to mechanically define them.

This applies, in a sense, to mathematics. Which is not everything.

So do not talk with me about religion or mysticism.

Then I cannot talk to you at all, because you refuse to speak about logic, mathematics, or science.

This is even worse because your dogmatic interpretation of the mathematical science is taught by many people around the globe as the heart of the modern science, and it is taught not just as a dogma, but as a particuler case of a dogma, which is the reductionist step-by-step thinking.

Did you have a point you wished to make?

 

[doronshadmi]

Ok, so you consider your paradigm shift of Mathematics to be a science. Do tell us about how the Scientific Method applies to this, especially in terms of what falsifiable predictions you have.

By using the organic approach the falsifiability of the current dichotomy between what is called Logic and what is called morality will be exposed, and both of them will be taught as a one comprehensive method of the technology of the consciousness, which is based also on direct experience and not only on statements.

In general, the dichtomy between what is called abstarct and what is called non-abstact will no longer exist.

Logic and arithemetic are not affected in any way by evolution. If you think otherwise, you have to explain how evolution can act on immaterial invariant principles.

Evolution is not limited to what is called the material realm.

 

[PixyMisa]

By using the organic approach the falsifiability of the current dichotomy between what is called Logic and what is called morality will be exposed, and both of them will be taught as a one comprehensive method of the technology of the consciousness, which is based also on direct experience and not only on statements.

That's mysticism.

In general, the dichtomy between what is called abstarct and what is called non-abstact will no longer exist.

Mysticism.

Evolution is not limited to what is called the material realm.

You can keep claiming this, but since the statement is clearly absurd, you won't get very far without backing it up with evidence and reasoning.

And since - so far - you have provided no evidence, reasoning, or even definitions, I think it's safe to say that this is just more mysticism.

 

[doronshadmi]

That's mysticism.

That's mysticism only to a person that thinks that the technology of the consciousness is based on indirect things like statements.

You can keep claiming this, but since the statement is clearly absurd

Really?

Both Logic and Morality are unified as the memory without thoughts of your consciousness.

Without this unification, you are unable to get Logic and Morality and examine tham in the same realm.

And since - so far - you have provided no evidence

How can I provide an evidence of your consciousness if are not aware of it and get it only at the level of your diferent thoughts, without being aware of its unified state?

What I say can be understood only by direct expirience, which is the most concrete thing, and it is the opposite of mambo jambo mysticism.

Please see http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/LPD.pdf

This is absurd as long as you are not aware of your own consciousness and get only its different asspects, known as definitions, axioms, logical connectives or any other thing which is based only on the multitude.

 

[jsfisher]

CFM. Content-free mysticism.

 

[doronshadmi]

CFM. Content-free mysticism.

You cannot say that without using your consciousness.

When consciousness is aware of itself, ideas can be changed by paradigm-shift.

 

[PixyMisa]

That's mysticism only to a person that thinks that the technology of the consciousness is based on indirect things like statements.

Since I don't believe that and do consider your claims to be mysticism, this is clearly false.

Really?

Really.

Both Logic and Morality are unified as the memory without thoughts of your consciousness.

Meaningless.

Without this unification, you are unable to get Logic and Morality and examine tham in the same realm.

Hence, also meaningless.

How can I provide an evidence of your consciousness if are not aware of it and get it only at the level of your diferent thoughts, without being aware of its unified state?

Meaningless.

What I say can be understood only by direct expirience, which is the most concrete thing, and it is the opposite of mambo jambo mysticism.

No. If you say it can be understood only by direct experience, that is mysticism by definition.

Please see http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/LPD.pdf

Why?

This is absurd as long as you are not aware of your own consciousness and get only its different asspects, known as definitions, axioms, logical connectives or any other thing which is based only on the multitude.

I am, by definition, aware of my own consciousness, so you fail again.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

doronshadmi,

I was about to engage your first post, but have noticed that your discourse is now beyond math concepts. This is good because I believe what you are trying to say (english is not your first language, right?) is different to the path you are choosing to "prove it".

Now, I have seen that you use some words in a different way (in relation to other members of JREF), now, it is advisable for you to explain some terms in order to understand what you are trying to say.

Can you start with your conclusion? then maybe you can say what changes in the world view of, say, materialists, are needed to see the world as you see it.

 

[PixyMisa]

Now, I have seen that you use some words in a different way (in relation to other members of JREF), now, it is advisable for you to explain some terms in order to understand what you are trying to say.

Sadly, he seems to have some difficulty with the whole "explain" concept.

 

[Jeff Corey]

That's mysticism only to a person that thinks that the technology of the consciousness is based on indirect things like statements.



Really?

Both Logic and Morality are unified as the memory without thoughts of your consciousness.

Without this unification, you are unable to get Logic and Morality and examine tham in the same realm.

How can I provide an evidence of your consciousness if are not aware of it and get it only at the level of your diferent thoughts, without being aware of its unified state?

What I say can be understood only by direct expirience, which is the most concrete thing, and it is the opposite of mambo jambo mysticism.

Please see http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/LPD.pdf

This is absurd as long as you are not aware of your own consciousness and get only its different asspects, known as definitions, axioms, logical connectives or any other thing which is based only on the multitude.

Never mind. Never matter.