Consciousness.....a basic rule of physics

[doronshadmi]

...yet that point not being local ...

EDIT:

A point can be only local, please read my posts (all of it http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4192782&postcount=355 ) before you reply.

again:

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.

Only non-locality can be simultaneously in more than a one relation (Relartion is non-local w.r.t Relation\Element Interaction. Element is local w.r.t Relation\Element Interaction).



In http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4188055&postcount=348 x,y relations are non-commutative.

 

[John Freestone]

Some questions I've been meaning to ask you, Doron:

How old are you?

What exactly are your mathematical qualifications?

Do you study anything currently at school, university, etc.?

Can you name any mathematicians who have endorsed, or even just said they understood, your mathematical scheme? (Careful, someone may actually check!).

What became of this new approach for the definition of a number, which has one link from it (entitled Discussion Formum) that goes nowhere?

Why, in the Physics Forum, did you suggest that Hurkyl

Please read carefully the overview of my new theory of numbers:

[same page ref as above]

I wil be glade to get your remarks and insights.

?

Why 'carefully'? How difficult do you imagine it is to read what is there, which, removing headings, pictures, greetings and overtures, says:

In any agreement we must be aware of the fact that no model of x is x itself.
This awareness to the difference between x-model and x-itself is the first condition for any stable agreement, because it gives it the ability to be changed.

?

Is that website valid?

Do you think the above 'new definition' is meaningful?

Ta muchly
John

 

[doronshadmi]

Some questions I've been meaning to ask you, Doron:

How old are you?

What exactly are your mathematical qualifications?

Do you study anything currently at school, university, etc.?

Can you name any mathematicians who have endorsed, or even just said they understood, your mathematical scheme? (Careful, someone may actually check!).

What became of this new approach for the definition of a number, which has one link from it (entitled Discussion Formum) that goes nowhere?

Why, in the Physics Forum, did you suggest that Hurkyl ?

Why 'carefully'? How difficult do you imagine it is to read what is there, which, removing headings, pictures, greetings and overtures, says:

?

Is that website valid?

Do you think the above 'new definition' is meaningful?

Ta muchly
John

Dear John,

Let us not hijack this thread by personal conversation.

There is a private message for this.

As long as mathematician's are unaware of themselves as a significant factor of their results (and I am not talking about the "totally relative" or "totally absulote" naïve approach, but about the non-trivial interaction between the rational and the objective, where Consciousness is a significant factor) they cannot understand Organic Mathematics and how it can be developed to a tool for Consciousness' development.

 

[John Freestone]

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.

Thanks for that link, The Man. We're thinking along similar lines, clearly.

There's this bundling of relational operators into "Relation" (and apparently the eqation of this with Non-locality), and the identification of the other parts, constants and variables and what-not, as "Elements" (cf. Locals). This seems somewhat arbitrary, since I could identify any element in an equation as the result of another equation, which itself contains operators and elements. Thus it seems that there is a self-referential definition going on, as though Einstein had suggested E=mc²+E. Obviously that's physics, not math, but I can't see how it could be acceptable in math either. It just leads to absurdity, I suppose, like (P and ~P).

I can see that perhaps to Doron this seems a power of his system - if 3 is 'researchable' and it is also a result of 2+1, then it is researchable, because it is a combination of elements and relationship. It's just that I'm not sure if a definition is powerful if I can't find anything that isn't in that set. The power of a definition would seem to be that it discriminates, places set boundaries somewhere. Ah, no, I'm wrong, aren't I? Whatever further equation I find for a number, it involves some operator or other, and that is still unlike a number. Hence relationship seems to keep re-entering any result, which at first I may consider an element, but perhaps elements aren't any part of relations. However, now a new paradoxical problem opens up, which is that Doron's 'Relation' and 'Element' are not distinct species of thing or process. One is intrinsic to the other: relationship is intrinsic to element. The exception, in natural numbers, would be if there were a number that could not be expressed in any equation, thus avoiding introducing relational operators. Since I don't know of any, that seems the weakness - or at least one weakness. The 'researchable realm' of natural numbers ends up just being the natural numbers, and Doron has spent a lot of time in complicated descriptions of nothing at all.

Another idea is this intended integration into mathematics of the mathematician's "cognition". The earlier Relationship\Element (is there a significance of the backslash?) weakness suggests to me someone idly inventing mathematical schemes to approximate the metaphysical hopes in his head - like starting with Mind\Matter. The introduction of the mathematician's mind, in the absense of a clear rationale (apparently) for the R\E maths adds to that impression. Since there has not yet been any clear definition of Element or Relation (or did I miss those)...nor any definition of what the mathematician's "cognition" is supposed to mean, or how it is part of the maths, I feel as though I'm just being set up to suppose that there is something deeeeeeeeeply significant here.

This with the background of explanatory links to Father - I mean, Doctor - Peat, with his courses at the Pari Centre (2009 courses "Synchronicity: The Bridge Between Matter and Mind", "Art, Science and the Sacred" and "New Science/ New Paradigms") complete the picture that this is meant to be sacred math. That'll be why we're told:

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).

Roughly translated, this seems to be saying that Doron is cleverer than any critic of his maths, being able to transcend the local POV in which the 'current community' is stuck. It seems to be saying either that in order to get to this erudite spritual maths of relation and element, one needs to be comfortable with 'contrary definitions' (i.e. Doronic Math entails contradicion somehow in it), or that a revelation is possible for one of the lowly mathematicians in which they achieve a new perspective, wherein the contradiction is seen as illusory. (Maybe diagrams of optical illusions will follow, like the old hag-young woman!)

Dear John,

Let us not hijack this thread by personal conversation.

So, er, is consciousness a basic rule of physics?

There is a private message for this.

Ok. I'll ask you privately.

 

[doronshadmi]

I could identify any element in an equation as the result of another equation

Any equation (if it is researchable) is not less than Relation\Element Interaction, and there is no interaction without the mathematician's cognition.

(P and ~P).

P is an element.

and or ~ are relarions.

P and ~P is Relation\Eelement Interaction.

relationship is intrinsic to element

If it is researchable. Again, I am talking about NOT LESS than Relation\Eelement Interaction.

and Doron has spent a lot of time in complicated descriptions of nothing at all.

And I spent my time to show that the standard natural number is the particular case of asymmetry of Relation\Element Interaction.

the 'current community' is stuck.

As long as Non-locality and Distinction are not first-order proprties.

 

[TMiguel]

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


Unless y is non-local.

This means “unless it is something different then what you have stated, a therefore your point on this is still wrong anyways”.
You don’t really care about this do you? You just wing it whit the first non-sense that comes to your mind, just to waste our time.

 

[The Man]

EDIT:

A point can be only local, please read my posts (all of it http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4192782&postcount=355 ) before you reply.

again:

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.

Only non-locality can be simultaneously in more than a one relation (Relartion is non-local w.r.t Relation\Element Interaction. Element is local w.r.t Relation\Element Interaction).



In http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4188055&postcount=348 x,y relations are non-commutative.

Oops that was my fault; I must have missed the “but”. However, that does not make those assertions any less contradictory (or just inconsistent) since they assert that some line can be non-local with respect to some given point yet that same point is only local with respect to that same line. As “with respect to” is just the relation between the point and the line then that relation is either local for both, non-local for both or both for both, if you want to assert that the line can be local, non-local or both with respect to some given point then that same point must also be local, non-local or both (whichever you choose to assert for the line) with respect to that same line, otherwise you are just inconsistent and self contradictory.

Also

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

That would make a point being non-local with respect to a line or a point a contradiction but as you assert “only by a local point of view”. Thus (by your assertions) in a non-local point of view a point can be non-local with respect to a line or a point. Stop limiting your point of view to only your own local perspective before you assert others as having only a limited or local point of view.

 

[Dancing David]

This means “unless it is something different then what you have stated, a therefore your point on this is still wrong anyways”.
You don’t really care about this do you? You just wing it whit the first non-sense that comes to your mind, just to waste our time.

This is what most of these strange psuedotroll gambits resolve to. I say psuedotroll because DS knows what they think they are trying to say.

 

[doronshadmi]

The Man, TMiguel,


Your local point of view on everything simply prevents any chance to get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4188055&postcount=348 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4188308&postcount=349 .

I am not going to waste my time with you anymore.

 

[jsfisher]

Some questions I've been meaning to ask you, Doron:
...
What exactly are your mathematical qualifications?

He has collaborated with a kindergarten teacher, Moshe Klein.

...
Can you name any mathematicians who have endorsed, or even just said they understood, your mathematical scheme? (Careful, someone may actually check!).

We encounter a problem here. Two problems, actually. First, mathematicians older than 5 years is too regimented in their thinking to fathom doron's local\non-local complementation. Doron himself has confirmed this many times. So there's that problem.

Second, all the major mathematicians are just plain wrong about some of the very basics. Cantor, for example, completely blew that whole diagonal proof thing. Don't even get me started on Euclid.

 

[The Man]

The Man, TMiguel,


Your local point of view on everything simply prevents any chance to get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4188055&postcount=348 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4188308&postcount=349 .

I am not going to waste my time with you anymore.

Some of us have heard that from you before, but then, as always, you proceeded to contradict yourself. If you are not willing to waste your time addressing your assertions on this thread perhaps you might be interested in actually addressing the OP of this thread, is consciousness a basic rule of physics. Oh wait, that would again result in you wasting your time supporting your own (or perhaps someone else’s) assertions on that question to others on this thread and if you are not willing to waste your time supporting your assertions to those that do not agree with you, well then, at least I thank you for that.

 

[doronshadmi]

Some of us have heard that from you before, but then, as always, you proceeded to contradict yourself. If you are not willing to waste your time addressing your assertions on this thread perhaps you might be interested in actually addressing the OP of this thread, is consciousness a basic rule of physics. Oh wait, that would again result in you wasting your time supporting your own (or perhaps someone else’s) assertions on that question to others on this thread and if you are not willing to waste your time supporting your assertions to those that do not agree with you, well then, at least I thank you for that.

Dear The Man,

In order to disagree with my ideas, you first have to show that you understand them (which is something that you did not show yet).

The reason that you don't understand them is very simple, you ignore Non-locality and Distinction as first-order properties of the mathematical science and stick only to the asymmetric result of Relation\Element Interaction as if it’s the only possible form.

From this particular point of view you are secured from any ability to get more general notions of the foundations of the mathematical science.

There is no researchable framework (Mathematics or not) unless there is REI (Relation\Element Interaction) and the researcher (mathematician or not) is a significant factor of the interaction.

If you disagree with me, you have to show some researchable framework that is not REI and nothing is used as a researcher that is a significant factor of the interaction between Relation and Element.

I am still waiting to your counter example (be careful, any mechanical device is nothing but some agent of the researcher).

 

[doronshadmi]

Dear John,

It is good that you are suspicious, because any new ideas cannot be accepted unless they survive the criticism that is based on the old once. In other words, I am an Evolutionist and Mutation (changing fundamental well agreed aspects, whether they are physical systems or established ideas) is one of its fundamental terms.

Actually what I suggest is very simple.

I claim that also Standard Mathematics is based on Relation\Element Interaction and this interaction cannot be avoided, otherwise we have no researchable framework.

Also I claim that the researcher is a significant factor of any research (where any research is at least REI).

I have learned the fundamental notions that stand at the basis of the mathematical science by myself (which in this case it can be a privilege) and if you also lucky you may have the chance to see well established things form a new point of view.

By using Distinction as a first-order property of the mathematical science, I realized that most (if not all) fundamental mathematical notions (that are used as the basis of axioms) are based on the particular case of clear distinction, as the first-order property of the entire mathematical science.

One of the new notions (if Distinction is used as a first-order property) is Non-locality.

If non-locality is accepted, then some of the agreed fundamental notions of the mathematical community are changed by a paradigm-shift, which is devastating to anyone that accepts the agreed terms, because now there is another point of view of the same things, which fundamentally changes his understanding of the very notions of mathematical science.

It is natural and good response that people that share the agreed notions will do their best in order to avoid any change of these agreed fundamental notions, and as an Evolutionist I am aware of the fact that serious and real criticism is an essential term for any real development (I do not believe in beliefs that do not survive criticism).

For me Mathematics is an open system that can be really developed only if it is opened to criticism, like any system that obeys Evolutionist realm.

The hard deductive method of the mathematical science is an anti-evolutionist approach because it works only within itself, which is a local-only viewpoint of this science for the past 2500 years.

As a result, each deductive system is a context-dependent one and it is based on the particular (and separated) meanings (manifested by axioms) given by particular mathematicians (that during the years become the paradigms of the rest of the community of mathematicians).

Notions that are used as crossed reference between different deductive systems, are not well established yet, and for a good reason, they are still based on Locality (known also as Deduction-only) as the only viewpoint of the foundations of the mathematical science.

For example, Galois groups still understand Symmetry by using a step-by-step (serial) transformation, (the researched system returns to its original state by step-by-step (serial) transformation).

By using Non-locality one can get Symmetry also by parallel viewpoint of the examined system, and in this case there is no step-by-step (serial) transformation, but the system understood simultaneously.

This simultaneity cannot be understood and be developed unless Distinction and Non-locality become first-order properties of the mathematical science that helps to find the "trunk" for different "branches" (different deductive context-dependent axiomatic systems)(and it cannot be done unless the mathematician's interaction and influence are totally ignored (where this ignorance easily leads to hidden assumptions in the foundations of this science)).

 

[Darat]

doronshadmi - you have completely derailed this thread with your usual obsession, do it again and you will face further action which may include suspension or even banning. Thread closed.

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