Cont: Deeper than primes - Continuation 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thor 2 said:
Yes I might drizzle some vinaigrette on that.
Click to expand...
Translation: I get the comprehensive only in terms of the non-comprehensive.
Thor 2 said:
Do you have something comprehensive to submit addressing the OP?
Click to expand...
Since, by your own mind the comprehensive is taken only in terms of the non-comprehensive, no one but your own mind can do the needed change in order to straightforward get the comprehensive.

Can you do that?
 
doronshadmi said:
Careful empirical observation is done by first preparing the conditions in order to isolate the researched (laboratory optimal conditions) and if the empirical results can be replicated independently of specific observers (the results are independent of the wishful thinking of specific observers) we claim that we have found objective empirical results.

Empirical results must not be restricted to any specific region in order to be considered as valid.

The following diagram

[qimg]http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3929/15309487328_d8023ed9f0_c.jpg/[/qimg]

doing exactly this, it discovers that isolated researched regions are derived from a foundation that is not restricted by any specific region (whether these restrictions are done by careful prepared conditions (laboratory optimal conditions) or any subjective interpretation of the results).
Moreover, the single sting model enables to demonstrate how Rationalism (contradiction;tautology) and Empiricism (fermions and bosons) are actually derived from a common foundation (the single string).
Click to expand...

Your diagram doesn't "discover" anything- it's just a graphic, an illustration of your deepity, as your deepity is the illustration in words. There's nothing at all empirical in your circle of assertion- it doesn't even rise to the level of "there is no spoon" or "be the ball, Danny," since you can whack someone about the head to show them that there is indeed a spoon, and you can check Danny's score to see if being the ball helped his game.

Look, if you want to ommmmmmm your way to serene self-satisfaction, knock yourself out. But you can't hijack the word "empirical" into a context it so obviously doesn't fit without expecting to be called on it.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Careful empirical observation is done by first preparing the conditions in order to isolate the researched (laboratory optimal conditions) and if the empirical results can be replicated independently of specific observers (the results are independent of the wishful thinking of specific observers) we claim that we have found objective empirical results.

Empirical results must not be restricted to any specific region in order to be considered as valid.

The following diagram

[qimg]http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3929/15309487328_d8023ed9f0_c.jpg/[/qimg]

doing exactly this, it discovers that isolated researched regions are derived from a foundation that is not restricted by any specific region (whether these restrictions are done by careful prepared conditions (laboratory optimal conditions) or any subjective interpretation of the results).

Moreover, the single sting model enables to demonstrate how Rationalism (contradiction;tautology) and Empiricism (fermions and bosons) are actually derived from a common foundation (the single string).
Click to expand...

Holy cow. Sorry I asked. I was hoping for beef and got word salad. I do not wish to disparage, only comment that as you use the words, the language makes no sense to me.
 
turingtest said:
Your diagram doesn't "discover" anything- it's just a graphic, an illustration of your deepity, as your deepity is the illustration in words. There's nothing at all empirical in your circle of assertion- it doesn't even rise to the level of "there is no spoon" or "be the ball, Danny," since you can whack someone about the head to show them that there is indeed a spoon, and you can check Danny's score to see if being the ball helped his game.

Look, if you want to ommmmmmm your way to serene self-satisfaction, knock yourself out. But you can't hijack the word "empirical" into a context it so obviously doesn't fit without expecting to be called on it.
Click to expand...
Actual empirical result can't be achieved without directly know the foundation of the observed, the observer and the tool of observation.

Indeed a given diagram provides only knowledge about the issue at hand (like any analogy) so without actually directly know the foundation (illustrated in my diagram as the single string), the observed, the observer and the tool of observation are some case of multiplicity without actual empirical result (actual empirical result can't be achieved without directly know Unity as the foundation of multiplicity/diversity).

turingtest said:
Look, if you want to ommmmmmm your way to serene self-satisfaction, knock yourself out.
Click to expand...
Look, if you want to mmmmmmmmmultiple your way to serene self-satisfaction, first directly be aware of the foundation of multiplicity\diversity, which is exactly Unbounded Unity.

More generally, in order to really know Rationalism (contradiction;tautology) or Empiricism (fermions;bosons) one is directly aware of Unity as the foundation of the multiple\diverse (and by my analogy, one is aware of the single string without losing it during its multiple\diverse vibrations).
 
Last edited:
Hlafordlaes said:
Holy cow. Sorry I asked. I was hoping for beef and got word salad. I do not wish to disparage, only comment that as you use the words, the language makes no sense to me.
Click to expand...

About the last infinity pages of this thread have been various persons, myself included, trying to get doronshadmi to say something that even vaguely approaches coherence.

You are not alone.
 
ynot said:
Pretty pictures of mystic/spiritualistic/theistic projected “proof” merely prove how silly some people are.
Click to expand...
Pretty pictures are no more than analogies of the issue at hand.

By directly being aware of Unity (by not being restricted to any particular analogy, which is always an awareness about Unity) without losing it during its ever changed multiple\diverse development, one enables to know God's purpose(s).

Science actually searches for the simplicity (Unbounded Unity) that stands at the foundations of the ever changed multiple\diverse phenomena known as Universe.

It is not empirically found unless one's awareness is not directly aware of it, and by creatures like us direct awareness of Unbounded Unity is empirically found as awareness without thoughts (or by my analogy, one is aware of the string without vibrations).

By not losing the awareness without thoughts during thoughts, our thoughts are spontaneously in harmony with any ever changed multiple\diverse phenomenon, simply because multiplicity\diversity (including our thoughts) is constantly derived form and returns to Unbounded Unity (or by my analogy, the vibrations are constantly derived form and return to the single string, and God's purpose of harmonious Universe (at any possible scale of it) actually happens, which is exactly Really Working Science).
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Pretty pictures are no more than analogies of the issue at hand.

By directly being aware of Unity (by not being restricted to any particular analogy, which is always an awareness about Unity) without losing it during its ever changed multiple\diverse development, one enables to know God's purpose(s).

Science actually searches for the simplicity (Unbounded Unity) that stands at the foundations of the ever changed multiple\diverse phenomena known as Universe.

It is not empirically found unless one's awareness is not directly aware of it, and by creatures like us direct awareness of Unbounded Unity is empirically found as awareness without thoughts (or by my analogy, one is aware of the string without vibrations).

By not losing the awareness without thoughts during thoughts, our thoughts are spontaneously in harmony with any ever changed multiple\diverse phenomenon, simply because multiplicity\diversity (including our thoughts) is constantly derived form and returns to Unbounded Unity (or by my analogy, the vibrations are constantly derived form and return to the single string, and God's purpose of harmonious Universe (at any possible scale of it) actually happens, which is exactly Really Working Science).
Click to expand...

That's some nice word salad.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Please reply to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11388317&postcount=2004 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11388488&postcount=2007 (some correction of this post: instead of "It is not empirically found unless one's awareness is not directly aware of it." it has to be "It is not empirically found unless one's awareness directly aware of it.").

Thank you.
Click to expand...

In kind, you mean? I can't match your deepity, but how about this? I give you Life, the universe, and everything, in one easy-to-grasp diagram-
picture.php
 
turingtest said:
In kind, you mean? I can't match your deepity, but how about this? I give you Life, the universe, and everything, in one easy-to-grasp diagram-
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1257&pictureid=10847[/qimg]
Click to expand...
Deepity

Deepity is a term employed by Daniel Dennett in his 2009 speech to the American Atheists Institution conference, coined by the teenage daughter of one of his friends. The term refers to a statement that is apparently profound but actually asserts a triviality on one level and something meaningless on another. Generally, a deepity has (at least) two meanings: one that is true but trivial, and another that sounds profound, but is essentially false or meaningless and would be "earth-shattering" if true. To the extent that it's true, it doesn't matter. To the extent that it matters, it isn't true.

The example Dennett uses to illustrate a deepity is the phrase "love is just a word." On one level the statement is perfectly true (i.e., "love" is a word), but the deeper meaning of the phrase is false; love is many things — a feeling, an emotion, a condition — and not simply a word.
Click to expand...
( http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Deepity )


Once again, illustrating (diagrams), thinking, talking etc. about Unity is not directly being aware of Unity.

Without direct awareness of Unity one can't comprehend it as the foundation of multiplicity/diversity.

Please pay attention that Daniel Dennett uses the term level (which is one of many levels) in order to address deepity.

In other words, he uses multiplicity/diversity in order to address deepity, and this is the case also in "love is many things".

Moreover, deepity or any given diagram are no more than analogies about the issue at hand.

one that is true but trivial, and another that sounds profound, but is essentially false or meaningless and would be "earth-shattering" if true.
Click to expand...

Furthermore, Daniel Dennett does not "close the door" on the possibility that what "sounds profound" is also true (or, if you wish, empirically true).

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

So, please try again to reply to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11388756&postcount=2012 by overcome (by not being stuck in) deepity.
 
Last edited:
Nay_Sayer said:
Your spirograph project?

I suppose it matters little considering the void of evidence in the thread anyway.

So I'm going to counter you Doron.

[qimg]https://s32.postimg.org/d538shy11/chad_hagen_nonsense_info1.jpg[/qimg]

Checkmate.
Click to expand...
Indeed you win yourself by chad_hagen_nonsense_info1.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom