Deeper than primes - Continuation

[doronshadmi]

The fact that they are two things.

This fact is impossible without the "trunk", which is not one of the -x x "branches".

You still do not under-stand my question in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8085769&postcount=614.

Please carefully look at http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8088106&postcount=620.

 

[doronshadmi]

That entirely depends on the context specific paradigm;

Again, you can't rid of the context-dependent-only paradigm.

 

[realpaladin]

The thing is beyond polychotomy.

Well, we could test the blood with a hot wire to see were it is...

Some analogy: The trunk enables the polychotomy of branches AND it is beyond branches.

Yes, just as a center enables polychotomy AND is beyond coordinates.

Some center point is an additional branch, under the polychotomy of branches.

Why would you say that?

 

[realpaladin]

Again, you can't rid of the context-dependent-only paradigm.

I love baking brownies.

 

[realpaladin]

This fact is impossible without the "trunk", which is not one of the -x x "branches".

No, the fact that a third 'branch' may be there that is not -x or x.

Relativity is well, relative. No need for an 'objective' reference point.

You still do not under-stand my question: What enables -x x to be comparable, and be gathered as Twothings?

A center. or rather, the fact that it is:
-1*x+1*x=0

Please carefully look at:
The thing is beyond polychotomy.

Some analogy: The trunk enables the polychotomy of branches AND it is beyond branches.

Some center point is an additional branch, under the polychotomy of branches.

You can not even explain as to why that should be. And it is handled above.

 

[doronshadmi]

No, the fact that a third 'branch' may be there that is not -x or x.

"Branches" are the polychotomous expression of the "trunk" (Unity).

 

[doronshadmi]

No need for an 'objective' reference point.

Unity is the source of objective\subjective polychotomous expression.

Why would you say that?

A center.

|{-x,+x,0}| = 3 "branches"

You can not even explain as to why that should be. And it is handled above.

You can't rid of context-dependent-only and polychotomy paradigm, so what you have said is restricted to these limitations.

 

[doronshadmi]

I have said that if there is NOthing between X and Y, where X or Y is SOMEthing, then X=Y (there is only SOMEthing).

In terms of polychotomy NOthing and YESthing are not the same because polychotomy is not the thing (Unity).

 

[realpaladin]

Btw. I was correct in that your sidekick Punshhh has mosied off.

Weeeeee're off to see the wizard....

 

[doronshadmi]

Btw. I was correct in that your sidekick Punshhh has mosied off.

Weeeeee're off to see the wizard....

You do not have to be in "bla bla ..." state in order be in agreement with someone.

 

[doronshadmi]

A point at a given (k=0 to ∞)+1 flat space can be in the same distance > 0 from a given (k=0 to ∞) curved space.

 

[keyfeatures]

A point at a given (k=0 to ∞)+1 flat space can be in the same distance > 0 from a given (k=0 to ∞) curved space.

Really interesting discussion. Thoroughly enjoying your links. Have been thinking along similar lines recently but didn't know about organic mathematics - nor am I a mathematician. But this one-many / non-locality relates to and bounds locality etc makes sense to me. That's all for now. You say it better.

 

[PiedPiper]

I have said that if there is NOthing between X and Y, where X or Y is SOMEthing, then X=Y...

If there's nothing between x and y then x=y. Is there some deeper meaning I'm supposed to be gleaning from this? It seems very obvious.

 

[doronshadmi]

If there's nothing between x and y then x=y. Is there some deeper meaning I'm supposed to be gleaning from this? It seems very obvious.

It is not obvious for traditional mathematicians, since they are claiming that an infinite collection of distinct points (0-dimensional spaces) actually completely cover a given line (1-dimensional space) such that there are no gaps (there is nothing) between them.

I disagree with the traditional mathematicians, and claim that there are always gaps between distinct points along a given line, no matter how many points are involved.

By this notion no collection of lower spaces or sub-spaces (where a sub-space is a mixture of some lower space and a given space > 0) has the power of the continuum of a given space > 0.

 

[doronshadmi]

Really interesting discussion. Thoroughly enjoying your links. Have been thinking along similar lines recently but didn't know about organic mathematics - nor am I a mathematician. But this one-many / non-locality relates to and bounds locality etc makes sense to me. That's all for now. You say it better.

First of all keyfeatures, welcome.

I am glade to know that.

Please feel free to share your ideas.

 

[zooterkin]

If there's nothing between x and y then x=y. Is there some deeper meaning I'm supposed to be gleaning from this? It seems very obvious.

Actually, Doron is equivocating. If we are dealing with integers, then there is nothing between 3 and 4. That does not mean that 3=4.

 

[keyfeatures]

Actually, Doron is equivocating. If we are dealing with integers, then there is nothing between 3 and 4. That does not mean that 3=4.

I'm risking punching way above my weight here - and excuse my lack of familiarity with mathematical expressions. But this is what has been puzzling me. If we consider the universe as an expressed whole, then how do we get sense by starting at zero and marching forth with infinite integers? Surely what we have is (partly perceived) internal division? Therefore (increasing) complexity? The set is 1. Conservation rules suggest the set to be finite. You can only know the value of the unit if you know the value of the rest of the excluded set. Fractions not integers? I'm trying to make sense of Russell to resolve this. Quite possibly my inability to so is due to personal limitations.

I don't wish to derail the thread, so if I'm talking nonsense please feel free to ignore me.

 

[realpaladin]

Actually, Doron is equivocating. If we are dealing with integers, then there is nothing between 3 and 4. That does not mean that 3=4.

And this is also the main source of his erroneous concoction of a theory:

He thinks that if we use integers as coordinates on a line, there is a 'gap' between them.
But there is not; since there are no coordinates left between 3 and 4 there can not be a gap (as there is nothing to be a gap *in*), and thus the line is completely filled.

Then he becomes all cross because he has a problem thinking about infinity in the context of integers.

But the whole thing is fractal; the closer you zoom into it, the 'finergrained' the coordinates become and they will *always* fill the line.

 

[realpaladin]

I'm risking punching way above my weight here - and excuse my lack of familiarity with mathematical expressions.

But this is what has been puzzling me. If we consider the universe as an expressed whole,

And that is already where Doron also makes his first mistake; mathematics does not deal with the universe.
The universe has constraints like Planck time and quanta etc. physics.

then how do we get sense by starting at zero and marching forth with infinite integers?

No idea what that question asks.

Surely what we have is (partly perceived) internal division?

No idea what that question asks.

Therefore (increasing) complexity?

Don't get all messed up by trying to understand math via physics... it is the other way around.

The set is 1. Conservation rules suggest the set to be finite.

Physics, not math.

You can only know the value of the unit if you know the value of the rest of the excluded set.

No, we know values of unit by inference. Like 0 < 1 < 2 < .. < n-1 < n < n+1

Mathematics has algorithms that can be proven in this manner. So the knowledge of the 'full answer' is not necessary.

Fractions not integers? I'm trying to make sense of Russell to resolve this. Quite possibly my inability to so is due to personal limitations.

Nah, we all try to make sense of Doron's ramblings for over 2 years now (or more...) and he tells us it is because of personal limitations on our side.

I don't wish to derail the thread, so if I'm talking nonsense please feel free to ignore me.

You will be ignored when appropriate.

 

[keyfeatures]

Don't get all messed up by trying to understand math via physics... it is the other way around.

Thanks for the reply.

But what is the point of maths that does not, or cannot, describe / relate to physical reality? To me, infinite integers are faith-think without evidence of infinite physical reality. If you use terms with no evidence they relate to something real you risk writing nonsense poems. Obviously at the level of counting etc. they have proved a useful communicative tool but in terms of a framework of reality I have my doubts. A man not distracted by sums stuck electricity and magnetism back together (not forgetting it was observer bias that separated them in the first place). My mind is far from being made up but this thread is providing valuable food for thought.

Anyway, I shall type less and read more.