• 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.
Unity reasoning penetrates polychotomous reasoning as follows:

NOthing is contradiction, total isolation and completely subjective.

SOMEthing is potentially isolated and subjective.

EVERYthing is potentially connected and subjective.

YESthing is tautology, total connectivity and completely objective.

thing is Unity reasoning that penetrates polychotomous NO,SOME,EVERY,YES reasoning.
 
Good, but when can you show us ANYthing that can be done with your style of philosophical reasoning that can not be done otherwise?
 
Last edited:
I came to this thread a long, long time ago and saw that Doron was claiming that his set of thinking / philosophy / whatever you want to call it, was one way for humankind to avert disaster.

That got my attention. I hate disasters. So I asked for him to demonstrate to me how (as a complete layman to mathematics / set theory + logic), I could implement his system and avert disasters.

Simple language, Doron. No set this, set that, thing this, thing that. If mankind is going to use your system to avert disaster(s), it has to be accessible to someone like me - college (Ph.D., even) educated, reasonably smart, with an open mind.

Tell me, step by step, how I use your system to avert disaster(s).

Either that, or please stop clogging up the feed with this. You've had 10,000+ posts to get warmed up. Come on, man. There are other topics I might be interested in that lie buried in sub-forums.
 
Last edited:
Instead of telling you what is my suggested way to reduce the chance of self destruction, I will start our dialog by asking you what is your point of view of mankind's current and near future needed actions in order to increase its chances to survive further Nature's forces manipulations?
 
doronshadmi said:
Instead of telling you what is my suggested way to reduce the chance of self destruction, I will start our dialog by asking you what is your point of view of mankind's current and near future needed actions in order to increase its chances to survive further Nature's forces manipulations?
Click to expand...


Please define, "Nature's forces manipulations".
 
Little 10 Toes said:
Please define, "Nature's forces manipulations".
Click to expand...
Take, for example, the energy that is released through chain reaction or hydrogen fusion (and in the near future, the energy that is released through matter\anti-matter reaction, where 100% of the involved matter\anti-matter is turned into energy).

What (according your view) we have to do in order to avoid self-made destruction by these available (or nearly available) Nature's forces?
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Take, for example, the energy that is released through chain reaction or hydrogen fusion (and in the near future, the energy that is released through matter\anti-matter reaction, where 100% of the involved matter\anti-matter is turned into energy).

What (according your view) we have to do in order to avoid self-made destruction by these available (or nearly available) Nature's forces?
Click to expand...


Thank you for the example. You have not defined "Nature's forces manipulations".

If I had asked for a definition of a car, you would have answered, "Volkswagen".

Please define "Nature's forces manipulations".
 
Little 10 Toes said:
Thank you for the example. You have not defined "Nature's forces manipulations".

If I had asked for a definition of a car, you would have answered, "Volkswagen".

Please define "Nature's forces manipulations".
Click to expand...
The examples in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10092175&postcount=4108 have to be taken without loss of generality, and in this case the danger is clear and immediate, whether you linguistically define it, or not.

So once again, what (according your view) do we have TO DO in order to avoid self-made destruction by these available (or nearly available) Nature's forces?
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Instead of telling you what is my suggested way to reduce the chance of self destruction, I will start our dialog by asking you what is your point of view of mankind's current and near future needed actions in order to increase its chances to survive further Nature's forces manipulations?
Click to expand...

Oh Doron, Doron, Doron...it's *your* time to answer.

1. You started the thread, and made a statement
2. That statement peaked my interest, and I questioned you about it
3. You didn't give me a straight-forward answer
4. Time passed...
5. I came back to see if you were ready to give me a straight-forward answer
6. You reply with "instead of telling you *my* suggestions, I will *start* our dialog with..."

The dialog is ongoing, my man! I've been waiting patiently for your reply to my original question, and now you want me to answer a question?

I hate to say it, but this isn't very good debating style. It's classic misdirection. I ask you a question, and you ignore that question, and follow up with a question of your own.

I'm 99% I'm being punked at this point, but in the 1% chance that I'm not, I'll answer your question. You mentioned nuclear fission and fusion as good examples of what we need to try to avoid. I don't see what your "theory" has to do with nuclear fission or fusion, but whatever. I'm not a math guy. (I do know the basics of fission / fusion processes, etc). So I'll bite.

We need to turn to our scientists, dramatically increasing funding in nuclear energy as well as interest in nuclear safeguards. We need to turn to breeder reactor technology more frequently and we need to move aggressively on a permanent storage solution for nuclear waste (none of this "not in my backyard" politicking).

We need to give our military what it needs to ensure that adequate safeguards are in place to control the possible release of nuclear weapons on US soil. We need to work aggressively through the State department using any means at our disposal - up to, but not including, military warfare - to control the spread of nuclear technology to countries that do not yet possess it.

We need to make sure that we have solid policies in place for when accidental release of nuclear material does happen, unlike the shameful incident recently in Japan where our Navy was likely exposed to harmful radiation while trying to assist the situation.

We need, eventually, to move completely off of nuclear power. Germany is doing it, at least, they're on a very promising track. Yes, it may mean a change to our way of life. But it needs to be done.

There, I'm done for now, Doron. *Now* would you like to explain how your theory can be explained and put into use by a layman to avoid natural disasters, as you promised way back when?

I await your response.
 
doronshadmi said:
Have you heard of WWII?
Click to expand...

I think that's rather the whole point, Doron. The ability to release fission energy in a controlled fashion was developed as a result of the war (fusion a few years later). Since the two WWII bombs, how many nuclear attacks have resulted, where one party has attacked another party using fission or fusion? This, despite various hated enemies both possessing nuclear weapons?

The answer is: zero.

Can we do better, and protect ourselves further by following some of the suggestions I posted above? I believe so. But I've got a little bit of a surprise for you:

The notion that fission energy was possible, at least in theory, was known before the war. It's not like the war started and then all of a sudden, we stumbled across this magical new way of blowing things up. There had been a number of publications discussing the nature of nuclear energy. It's just that the way of realizing this theoretical weapon was only put into action due to the war, due in part to the huge amount of resources it required which would never have been authorized in peacetime. In fact, it was the Top Secret clamp put down over nuclear fission research that alerted many of the Axis powers that the research was being done - a lot of "top names" in the area mysteriously stopped publishing any of their work.

Even without the war, the idea that fission energy was possible would have been further refined and developed. It may not have been realized until much later, due to the prohibitive cost, but new technology would eventually reduce the cost of (for example) uranium enrichment and it might have come 3-4 decades later, but nuclear power was on the way.

Science marches forward. Gunpowder. Biological weapons. Chemical weapons. Nuclear power. We've found ways to survive all of these, all without the help of Doronetics.

So once again I ask, what about your theory can I (as a layman, unskilled in math or set theory) put into practice that will further enable me to avoid "disasters" or "forces of Nature?"
 
PiedPiper said:
1. You started the thread, and made a statement
2. That statement peaked my interest, and I questioned you about it
3. You didn't give me a straight-forward answer
4. Time passed...
5. I came back to see if you were ready to give me a straight-forward answer
6. You reply with "instead of telling you *my* suggestions, I will *start* our dialog with..."
Click to expand...

Yes, the song "There's a hole in my bucket, dear Lisa, dear Lisa" seems to share a tenet with Doron's MO in replying...
 
doronshadmi said:
So once again, what (according your view) do we have TO DO in order to avoid self-made destruction by these available (or nearly available) Nature's forces?
Click to expand...

You asked the question, so don't cry over the answer:

What we have to do is remove people with confused theories like Doron Shadmi's from public discussions.

That, according to my view, is what we have to do.

Because then the people with scientific insight can focus on their job and will make less mistakes.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
...and in the near future, the energy that is released through matter\anti-matter reaction, where 100% of the involved matter\anti-matter is turned into energy.
Click to expand...

Did I miss a press release? A disastrous reaction of matter / anti-matter is "in the near future"?

What time scale are you using, precisely? Are you aware of the difficulties in producing large amounts of antimatter?

Anyways, the same safeguards would apply as to nuclear material, just in a more stringent fashion. Given that 1 kg of antimatter would roughly equal the Tsar Bomba, we'd obviously have to keep very tight controls on such things. We haven't had an accidental Tsar Bomba go off or be used in warfare, and in any case, do you have any conceivable idea of how difficult it would be to accumulate 1 kg of antimatter in a government lab here on Earth?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom