Consciousness.....a basic rule of physics

[John Freestone]

Interesting answers, Doron.

An anti-foundationalist does not use the term "all" during his research. Instead he uses the term "any", which does not force any conclusion on the entire system (as a foundationalist does).

Then the anti-foundationalist does not come to conclusions, presumably. Either than, or perhaps you will relativise this again and say that an a-fou might come to some conclusions, or does or might come to conclusions of a tentative nature, yes? How will you know when he has agreed with the foundationalist on the new logic that allows them to talk to each other?

Fou: Agreed?
A-fou: Maybe...
Fou: So is Shadmi's new math the language we can use to talk to each other?
A-fou: Oh, yes, probably.

The problem is that black\white reasoning is not the general case of any reasoning (as can be found by the majority of the current community of mathematicians around the globe) but it is nothing but some particular case of Universal Reasoning, which is not only a black\white reasoning.

That is an unreasonable view. B&W-reasoning is the only reasoning there is, AFAIK, and universal reasoning is something you'd like to have discovered, as far as I can tell. If I am wrong, then I am wrong. If I'm right, then I'm right. It cannot be partially-right that there is a universal reasoning of which b&w reasoning is a special case. This is exactly where you go wrong all the time. The problem with B&W reasoning is not that it is a special case, but that it is all we have got, and when you try to relativise true-false, you immediately fail to make sense. It doesn't make much sense in mathematics, where the strangest things seem possible, to have "MAYBE" as the bottom line. And yet you propose that your ideas will help to bridge the gap between mathematics and physics, solving Hilbert's sixth!

By using not only a black\white reasoning, we get a researchable framework, which is less trivial and more interesting than black\white reasoning.

No. By using BWR we get a 'researchable framework', without which all knowledge that can be written, spoken or otherwise transmitted between human beings (ignoring supernatural transmission, of course) melts away into your paradoxical postmodern pontification (PPP) of Organic Numbers. Am I half right?

"2" doesn't make any sense also if only object is considered, because we need a relation (notated as "__" between object , object (notate as "*"), where each * is totally isolated without __ (and in this case *__* (notated as "2") cannot be found).

So *__* cannot be but the result of Anti-Foundationalism(Relation)\Foundationalism(Element or Object) Interaction.

This seems backwards. From noticing objects and counting them, we abstract number theory as a set of ideas. The numbers aren't real. No-one has every held 2 in their hands, you know? But you go further, and abstract this nonsense of Relationship and Element, which you decide must be primary concepts in your formulation. You then mix up these with a-fou and fou, as if there were a natural, obvious isomorphism. I can see what you're getting at: here is one thing, there is another, then we can only have the idea that there are two of them by relating them. It doesn't mean you have discovered a new pair of complementary truths, Relationship and Element, that - I think you said - come before the axioms of the number theory, it seems to me. You derived these properties, these ideas; they are in fact just rather obvious observations from number theory. It would be as arbitrary if you had a thing about triads and described the whole of number theory in terms of three and relationships to threeness. Your little diagrams of how we can think of the number 4 - four units, 1+3, 2+2... - do you really think no-one has noticed this before?

There is no such a thing as authorities on fundamental new ideas (including me, in this case). There can be experts that are using and developing already agreed ideas as long as they are interesting and\or useful.

Yes, but apparently there aren't many mathematicians who find your ideas interesting or useful. I find you interesting, but for reasons that are not really mathematical.

In this diagram Tao = Singularity, whish is not researchable and can be "manifested" only by silence.

Ah yes, I see. That is an interesting distinction - Tao is much better mapped to the universal everythingness that lies at the bottom of reality, and reality is best described as those mountain thingies, where the peaks are Localities and the valleys are Non-Locality. You should study that one that's somebody's avatar here. It is a sketch of a person's head, with REALITY written on the outside and IMAGINATION on the inside. Maybe you'll discover a synthesis between them, a bit like Lisa Simpson's hairdo.

 

[doronshadmi]

How is it that the pair of cuts are "locals" but the sections of the orange they define are somehow a "continuum (Non-locality)"?

The sections of orange are inherently local while each of the cuts, having one face of the cut on one section of orange and the other face of the cut on the other section of orange, are inherently more non-local then the sections of orange.

ETA: I you are considering two sections produced by a single cut, then it is not a pair of cuts but just two sections and “faces” produced by a single cut. Each of those faces is local to one of the sections of orange and they can even define a local volume between the sections of orange that does not include the sections of orange

Let me help you.

Non-Locality and Locality go beyond (are generalization of) Nothing and Something.

L = Locality
NL= Non-Locality

In this case we get this:

L  NL  L       NL       L   NL   L         NL         L     NL     L 
|      |                |        |                    |            |
________                __________                    ______________    … etc.

which is the same as:

L  NL  L       NL       L   NL   L         NL         L     NL     L 
|      |                |        |                    |            |
____________________________________________________________________    … etc.

and the same as:

L  NL  L       NL       L   NL   L         NL         L     NL     L 
|      |                |        |                    |            |
                                                                        … etc.

And again, it is not limited to any particular brach of Mathematics.

 

[The Man]

Let me help you.

As you seem unable to help yourself, I find the prospect of your offer not very promising.

Non-Locality and Locality go beyond (are generalization of) Nothing and Something.

In this case we get this:

L = Locality
NL= Non-Locality

L  NL  L       NL       L   NL   L         NL         L     NL     L 
________                 ________                      ____________    … etc.

So your answer seems to be that since you can create some representation having “NL” in between two “L”s for your segments, it demonstrates that any segment is a “Continuum (Non-locality)”. Simply restating your assertion in a different and less supportive fashion does not help you. As you can see you have defined very local segments not only just between the “L”s but only between certain pairs of “L” so that your “NL”s within the segments are even more localized then your “NL”s in general, which of course also localizes your “NL”s without segments to that designation of between segments.

Well I will thank you because you did indeed help me by demonstrating the locality of the segments and non-segments, even if you did just stick an “NL” on them in a vain effort to help yourself.

 

[doronshadmi]

As you seem unable to help yourself, I find the prospect of your offer not very promising.




So your answer seems to be that since you can create some representation having “NL” in between two “L”s for your segments, it demonstrates that any segment is a “Continuum (Non-locality)”. Simply restating your assertion in a different and less supportive fashion does not help you. As you can see you have defined very local segments not only just between the “L”s but only between certain pairs of “L” so that your “NL”s within the segments are even more localized then your “NL”s in general, which of course also localizes your “NL”s without segments to that designation of between segments.

Well I will thank you because you did indeed help me by demonstrating the locality of the segments and non-segments, even if you did just stick an “NL” on them in a vain effort to help yourself.

Let me help you again.

No local can be simultaneously in two different states.

In that case if some segment is totally between x and not-x it is considered as local, otherwise it is non-local.

A point, does not have the property being in more than a one state (please look again at http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4186727&postcount=342 ).

It is clearly written in http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/NXOR-XOR.pdf (pages 7-8) .

 

[doronshadmi]

- do you really think no-one has noticed this before?

*_*, *_*_*, etc ... are not numbers but MAFs.

As for numbers, I did not see some mathematical system that uses them as a model of Interaction between Relation and Element, where the mathematician's cognition is a significant factor of this interaction.

Please read http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OM.pdf to learn more about this subject.

 

[The Man]

Let me help you again.

Well if it is anything like your help before, then I will thank you beforehand this time.

No local can be simultaneously in two different states.

In that case if some segment is totally between x and not-x it is considered as local, otherwise it is non-local.

What segment is not totally between some point (x) and some other point (not the first point x), that is the definition of a segment? Then by your own assertions all segments would be “local”.

So segments can be local or non-local even both at the same time but are only local by definition and your own assertions.

If you are asserting that some segment we might refer to as “local” while other segments would then be non-local, then you are just asserting the dependence of the ascriptions local and non-local on what one chooses to consider “local” at that time.

A point, does not have the property being in more than a one state (please look again at http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4186727&postcount=342 ). .

By your own assertions neither does a segment.

No local can be simultaneously in two different states.

In that case if some segment is totally between x and not-x it is considered as local…

It is clearly written in http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/NXOR-XOR.pdf (pages 7-8) .

Just because you write something does not make it true and most likely not “clearly written” either. You really have to start helping yourself.

 

[The Man]

*_*, *_*_*, etc ... are not numbers but MAFs.

As for numbers, I did not see some mathematical system that uses them as a model of Interaction between Relation and Element, where the mathematician's cognition is a significant factor of this interaction.

Please read http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OM.pdf to learn more about this subject.

That system you "did not see" is called mathematics, exemplified by your lack of cognition of mathematics being a significant factor in your inability to interact with its 'Relations' and 'Elements'.

 

[doronshadmi]

What segment is not totally between some point (x) and some other point (not the first point x), that is the definition of a segment? Then by your own assertions all segments would be “local”.

x = .
y = .

x is local w.r.t y if:

x < y (example: . . )

x = y (example: . )

x > y (example: . . )


x = .
y = __

x is local w.r.t y if:

x < y (example: . __ )

x = y (example: ( _. , _._ , ._ )

x > y (example: __ . )


x = __
y = .

x is local w.r.t y if:

x < y (example: __ . )

x > y (example: . __ )

x is non-local w.r.t y if:

x < = y (example: _. )

x < > y (example: _._ )

x = > y (example: ._ )


x = __
y = __

x is local w.r.t y if:

x < y (example: __ __ )

x = y (example: __ )

x > y (example: __ __ )

x is non-local w.r.t y if:

x < = y (example: ____ )

x = > y (example: ____ )


x = __
y = ____

x is non-local w.r.t y if:

x < = y (example: ______ )

x > < y (example: ____ )

x = > y (example: ______ )


x = ____
y = __

x is non-local w.r.t y if:

x < = y (example: ______ )

x < > y (example: ____ )

x = > y (example: ______ )

x,y relations are non-commutative.

As can be seen, only non-locality can be simultaneously in more than a one relation.

A line is local ( __ . , . __) or non-local ( _. , _._ , ._ ) w.r.t a point (or a line), where a point is local only w.r.t a point or a line.

 

[doronshadmi]

I have a miskate in the last one, it has to be:

x = > y (example: ______ )


Also:

__ /. = __

. / __ = .

__ / __ = __

. / . = .

_____ / __ = ___

__ / _____ = _

 

[doronshadmi]

As can be seen Organic Mathematics has both relative and objective accepts, where the mathematician's cognition is a significant factor of this framework.

 

[The Man]

<Preceding pointless self-serving and apparently contradictory graphics removed>

x,y relations are non-commutative.

As can be seen, only non-locality can be simultaneously in more than a one relation.

A line is local ( __ . , . __) or non-local ( _. , _._ , ._ ) w.r.t a point (or a line), where a point is local only w.r.t a point or a line.

As can be seen you simply create your own personal definition of local and non-local then draw graphics based on those self-serving and apparently contradictory definitions and claim “As can be seen”.

I have a miskate in the last one, it has to be:

<Subsequent pointless, self-serving and apparently contradictory graphics removed>

Your mistake is considering graphics designed to your self-serving and apparently contradictory definitions of local and non-local as anything other then indicative of your own self-serving and apparently contradictory definitions of local and non-local.

As can be seen Organic Mathematics has both relative and objective accepts, where the mathematician's cognition is a significant factor of this framework.

I see absolutely nothing “objective” in your graphics or the self serving and apparently contradictory definitions of local and non-local they would represent. The only “cognition” is yours, which is clearly not a mathematician’s or you could have produced mathematical examples of local and non-local.

Let me help you.

If we choose to consider (in relation to an x y origin) any point where x² + y² <= R² as our area of local interest, then non-local would be any point where x² + y² > R². The radius R then becomes our defining aspect of local and non-local in that consideration. This is just one relevant cognition a mathematician might profess when considering local and non-local.

As can be seen mathematics actually has both relative (where one choose to place the x y origin or consider as the local area) and objective (x² + y² = R² in this consideration) aspects that most people (let alone mathematicians) are cognitive of. Perhaps someday you will choose to be cognitive of them as well.

 

[John Freestone]

 

[doronshadmi]

As can be seen you simply create your own personal definition of local and non-local then draw graphics based on those self-serving and apparently contradictory definitions and claim “As can be seen”.




Your mistake is considering graphics designed to your self-serving and apparently contradictory definitions of local and non-local as anything other then indicative of your own self-serving and apparently contradictory definitions of local and non-local.



I see absolutely nothing “objective” in your graphics or the self serving and apparently contradictory definitions of local and non-local they would represent. The only “cognition” is yours, which is clearly not a mathematician’s or you could have produced mathematical examples of local and non-local.

Let me help you.

If we choose to consider (in relation to an x y origin) any point where x² + y² <= R² as our area of local interest, then non-local would be any point where x² + y² > R². The radius R then becomes our defining aspect of local and non-local in that consideration. This is just one relevant cognition a mathematician might profess when considering local and non-local.

As can be seen mathematics actually has both relative (where one choose to place the x y origin or consider as the local area) and objective (x² + y² = R² in this consideration) aspects that most people (let alone mathematicians) are cognitive of. Perhaps someday you will choose to be cognitive of them as well.

(x² + y² = R² ( R² is local)

(x² + y² < R² ( R² is local)

(x² + y² > R² ( R² is local)

(x² + y² < = R² ( R² is non-local)

(x² + y² > = R² ( R² is non-local)

(x² + y² > < R² ( R² is non-local)

(x² + y² < > R² ( R² is non-local)

Furthermore, if Relation\Element Interaction are considered as first-order properties, then + , < , = , > are non-local (Relation) and x², y², R² are locals (Element).

In that case any given result is not less than Relation\Element Interaction, where the mathematician is a significant factor of this Interaction.

The contradictory definitions are in the mind of a person that gets anything only by a local point of view (which is the state of mind of the current community of mathematicians).

Again: only non-locality can be simultaneously in more than a one relation (which is a contradiction from a local-only ponit of view).

 

[TMiguel]

R is supposed to be a generic constant.

Edited by Tricky: 

Insult removed.

Do not use personal insults.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky

Do not remove edits, additions or warnings made by a Mod.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

 

[doronshadmi]

A point cannot be but local w.r.t a line or a point.

A line can be local or non-local w.r.t a line or a point.

w.r.t is actually a relation, which is non-local by nature, otherwise no elements are comparable (including self comparison) and no elements are researchable.

Relations > or < are both small_AND_big (non-local) otherwise they cannot used in order to compare between different elements.

Relation = is used to compare between an element with itself.

 

[doronshadmi]

R is supposed to be a generic constant

Edited by Tricky: 

Insult removed.

Do not use personal insults.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky

R can be local or non-local constant w.r.t to some element (different or not).

In general, locality and non-locality are researchable only by Relation\Element Interaction, where the mathematician's cognition is a significant factor of this interaction.

Non-locality only is total connectivity and not researchable.

Locality only is total isolation and not researchable.

Another example:

By standard math y of the expression x <= y <= z cannot be but local (y=x xor y>x xor y<z xor y=z) ( example: . ] , [.] , [ . )

By the new approach y of the expression x <= y <= z can be also non-local (y=x and y>x and y<z and y=z) ( example: [ ] )

 

[TMiguel]

(x² + y² > < R² ( R² is non-local)

Although you have not objectively defined what “> <” means, by the post what you are trying to imply whit

x > < y (example: ____ )

(which is not only wrong but also a very bad representation) x is an interval and y is a disconnected group and x><y means that there is at least 1 “a” element of y for which y(a)<x(d) and 1 element “b” which y(b)>x(d) being x(d) any element of x.

Now sense R is a generic constant, go figure out what this means:

(x² + y² > < R² ( R² is non-local)

If that doesn’t sum it up, nothing else will.

Relations > or < are both small_AND_big (non-local) otherwise they cannot used in order to compare between different elements.

Relation = is used to compare between an element with itself.

You don’t know what is > or < either,
a<b means that (a-b)ЄR^-b>a means a<b.
Now why do you think there is any difference between “Ñ(a>b)” (by your definition local) and “(a<=b)” (by your definition non-local) when comparable order is applicable?

And what does that have anything to do whit:

In that case any given result is not less than Relation\Element Interaction, where the mathematician is a significant factor of this Interaction.

The contradictory definitions are in the mind of a person that gets anything only by a local point of view (which is the state of mind of the current community of mathematicians).

?

 

[TMiguel]

By standard math y of the expression x <= y <= z cannot be but local (y=x xor y>x xor y<z xor y=z) ( example: . ] , [.] , [ . )

Wrong!
Take for instance y=3,x=3,z=3 oh look it’s a even amount of true statements in (y=x xor y>x xor y<z xor y=z) so this is false.

By the new approach y of the expression x <= y <= z can be also non-local (y=x and y>x and y<z and y=z) ( example: [ ] )

Wrong!
y=x and y>x can not be simultaneously true by the definition of “>” and inverse element.
x-x=0, if y=x then y>x => x>x => x-xЄR^- and there fore x≠x. And by reduction to absurd, this statement is always false.

 

[The Man]

(x² + y² = R² ( R² is local)

(x² + y² < R² ( R² is local)

(x² + y² > R² ( R² is local)

(x² + y² < = R² ( R² is non-local)

(x² + y² > = R² ( R² is non-local)

(x² + y² > < R² ( R² is non-local)

(x² + y² < > R² ( R² is non-local)

Furthermore, if Relation\Element Interaction are considered as first-order properties, then + , < , = , > are non-local (Relation) and x², y², R² are locals (Element).

In that case any given result is not less than Relation\Element Interaction, where the mathematician is a significant factor of this Interaction.

The contradictory definitions are in the mind of a person that gets anything only by a local point of view (which is the state of mind of the current community of mathematicians).

Again: only non-locality can be simultaneously in more than a one relation (which is a contradiction from a local-only ponit of view).

A contradiction is a contradiction, the fact that you do not consider contradictions to be invalid is just an aspect of your particular Dialetheism. The fact is that "the state of mind of the current community of mathematicians" considers both local and non-local points of view, just not your particular Dialetheistic point of view of the definitions of local and non-local.

For example..

A point cannot be but local w.r.t a line or a point.

A line can be local or non-local w.r.t a line or a point.

A line being local with respect to a point yet that point not being local with respect to that line is a contradiction, the consideration in your mind that such a contraction does not render your definitions of local and not local as invalid (or at least inconsistent) does not make those assertion any less contradictory, it simply means that you just don’t care that they are contradictory.

 

[doronshadmi]

Wrong!

Not if y is researched w.r.t x<z. (x=y=z is not the case that I researched).

Wrong!
y=x and y>x can not be simultaneously true

Unless y is non-local.