Deeper than primes - Continuation

[realpaladin]

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.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, but be aware that it is nought more than that; your opinion.

There is no 'point of math' in itself. Just as a hammer has no point of being a hammer without a nail.

Math is but a tool and that tool has been refined very much.

As soon as you are using it for a job, say describing physical reality, then you need to work within the constraints of physical reality.
And in physical reality we have boundaries that make infinity not necessary.

If you use terms with no evidence they relate to something real you risk writing nonsense poems.

That, in itself, has been of value in both the world of art and even had practical use in the world of publishing for instance (Lorem Ipsem).

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.

You should have doubts about anyone who starts with a tool before he knows the job. Imagine a plumber coming into your house saying "I have got the socketwrench, where is the problem?" when all you want is a new cap on your drain.

This does not mean that the companies working on perfecting socketwrenches are doing nonsensical work. It simply means the people putting the tool before the job are doing nonsensical thinking.

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.

Well, there is even a precursor thread where all the math is explained, re-explained etc...

But to stress again, math in itself is a tool, and just as a hammer, there are uses and abuses. Doron is in the category of people that wants to drive in a screw with a hammer. And then blame the hammer for it being difficult.

 

[doronshadmi]

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.

Worng, there is a difference, called 1, between 3 and 4, which is defiantly not NOthing.

In other words, you do not understand NOthing.

 

[doronshadmi]

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

realpaladin, once again, you can't get notions beyond context-dependent (cross-contexts is beyond your mind).

 

[jsfisher]

Worng, there is a difference, called 1, between 3 and 4, which is defiantly not NOthing.

In other words, you do not understand NOthing.

Ah! Sweet equivocation. The secret pleasure of those who disregard definitions.

 

[doronshadmi]

mathematics does not deal with the universe.

It is the truth of your limited universe.

 

[doronshadmi]

Math is but a tool and that tool has been refined very much.

You still do not get the cross-contexts aspect of this tool.

 

[realpaladin]

You can't get the cross-contexts aspect of this tool.

Your opinions do not matter. Neither does what you subjectively think about anyone.

What matters is your logic and reasoning, and both do not stack up. And that is not an opinion, but a demonstrated fact.

 

[realpaladin]

Worng, there is a difference, called 1, between 3 and 4, which is defiantly not NOthing.

In other words, you do not understand NOthing.

He is from Barcelona...

 

[doronshadmi]

Ah! Sweet equivocation. The secret pleasure of those who disregard definitions.

Those who do not understand NOthing get this argument as equivocation.

Actually they can't get this argument because their definitions are based on verbal_symbolic-only skills.

 

[doronshadmi]

Your opinions do not matter. Neither does what you subjectively think about anyone.

What matters is your logic and reasoning, and both do not stack up. And that is not an opinion, but a demonstrated fact.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8088309&postcount=627 .

 

[jsfisher]

Those who do not understand NOthing get this argument as equivocation.

Actually they can't get this argument because their definitions are based on verbal_symbolic-only skills.

Let us know when recess is over.

 

[realpaladin]

But Doron, here is an opportunity.... claim the million dollars from the Million Dollar Challenge.

I checked and according to the rules you are eligeble; you claim to be able to do something that can not be explained by current science.

So, I dare you to claim that prize.

 

[doronshadmi]

I checked and according to the rules you are eligeble; you claim to be able to do something that can not be explained by current science.

So, I dare you to claim that prize.

Some examples:

The Unity among Ethics and Reasoning.

The existence of non-local numbers.

Definitions that are based on verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills.

The understanding that definitions are changeable, because they are defined only at the level of thoughts, which are naturally changeable.

The Unity beyond Polychotomy.

Direct awareness of the source of thoughts, which is not in itself a thought.

Cross-contexts AND Context-dependent framework.

The understanding of Entropy in terms of "host"\"hosted" (mathematical or physical) spaces, which are associated by Unity.

The right understanding of the power of the continuum, which is stronger than the power of any given collection (including the collection of all infinitely many mathematical or physical spaces).

The understanding of Non-locality\Locality framework.

The right understanding of the term "mathematical branches".

 

[doronshadmi]

The recess of Traditional Mathematics is not over as long as it is closed under fixed (verbal_symbolic\context-dependent)_only framework.

 

[realpaladin]

But Doron, here is an opportunity.... claim the million dollars from the Million Dollar Challenge.

I checked and according to the rules you are eligeble; you claim to be able to do something that can not be explained by current science.

So, I dare you to claim that prize.

Some examples:

The Unity among Ethics and Reasoning.

The existence of non-local numbers.

Definitions that are based on verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills.

The understanding that definitions are changeable, because they are defined only at the level of thoughts, which are naturally changeable.

The Unity beyond Polychotomy.

Direct awareness of the source of thoughts, which is not in itself a thought.

Cross-contexts AND Context-dependent framework.

The understanding of Entropy in terms of "host"\"hosted" (mathematical or physical) spaces, which are associated by Unity.

The right understanding of the power of the continuum, which is stronger than the power of any given collection (including the collection of all infinitely many mathematical or physical spaces).

The understanding of Non-locality\Locality framework.

How is *that* a reply??? Go grab some coffee first and then read.

 

[doronshadmi]

Go grab some coffee first and then read.

As long as your awareness is limited to the naturally changeable and subjective level of thoughts, you have no way to get the objective aspect of your awareness, which enables one's mind to be developed into Unity awareness, which is beyond subject\object Polychotomy.

 

[realpaladin]

As long as your awareness is limited to the naturally changeable and subjective level of thoughts, you have no way to get the objective aspect of your awareness, which enables one's mind to directly be aware of the Unity beyond subject\object Polychotomy.

Grab the million dollars! I will double it! I say you can not.

Because it is all empty rethoric.

 

[doronshadmi]

Grab the million dollars! I will double it! I say you can not.

Because it is all empty rethoric.

It is indeed empty rhetoric as long as your awareness is limited to the subjective level of thoughts, so?

 

[realpaladin]

It is indeed empty rhetoric as long as your awareness is limited to the subjective level of thoughts, so?

Avoiding the MDC? Why is that?

You do not have to deal with my limited awareness.
In fact, I will be completely out of the picture.

You can define what it is that you can do. You alone!

You can define the test, the JREF will only make sure you can not cheat. And because you do not need to cheat, it will be easy for you.

So... why the avoidance? Anything wrong?

 

[doronshadmi]

You do not have to deal with my limited awareness.

You are right, only you can develop it.

In fact, I will be completely out of the picture.

Wrong, your awareness is simply limited to the subjective level of thoughts.

You can define what it is that you can do. You alone!

I am doing it right now, but it does not help you, unless you actually develop your awareness beyond the subjective level of thoughts.

You can define the test, the JREF will only make sure you can not cheat.

JREF methods and results' analysis are also limited only to the subjective level of thoughts, so?

So... why the avoidance? Anything wrong?

You have to ask yourself why do you avoid any development beyond the subjective level of thoughts?