Deeper than primes - Continuation

Status
Not open for further replies.
You are right, only you can develop it.
Great. It's on the bucket-list.

In fact, I will be completely out of the picture.
Wrong, your awareness is simply limited to the subjective level of thoughts.
Huh? That only means: 'You will not have to deal with me. Others are there.

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

JREF methods and results' analysis are also limited only to the subjective level of thoughts, so?
So, let me get this straight...

*ONLY* people that have this advanced awareness can benefit from this advanced awareness, but they can not *DO* anything that people without this advanced awareness can see, measure or identify?

Correct?

You have to ask yourself why do you avoid any development beyond the subjective level of thoughts?
Because I am not up to it. Ignorance is bliss. And all that...
 
*ONLY* people that have this advanced awareness can benefit from this advanced awareness, but they can not *DO* anything that people without this advanced awareness can see, measure or identify?
People that are not limited only to the subjective level of thoughts can easily get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8091103&postcount=653 .

Like the ghosts, orbs, bigfoot etc???
Like understanding http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8091103&postcount=653 .

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8091103&postcount=653 is understood as woo from the subjective level of thoughts.
 
Last edited:
People that are not limited only to the subjective level of thoughts can easily get
---
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".
--
Yes, but all others can not. Is that correct?

Like understanding
---
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".
---

So, *only* people that are not limited and who 'get it' (easily or otherwise) can do the quoted things. Yes?
 
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.

Is maths a tool? Tools are designed for a specific purpose. Other purposes may be found. Maths is a language. Languages contain observer biases. Like all languages maths must therefore evolve from observer biases and contain observer biases. For example, zero had to be observed and conceptualised before the symbolic language of zero could be assigned to it mathematically. Zero was not contained inherently within the language of maths, it had to be 'discovered'.

Perhaps what Doron is trying to describe is a concept that is not easily described by current mathematical language? It is quite possible that someone could grasp a concept beyond current language limits. And communicating this is inevitably going to be tricky. Sort of like trying to describe a colour no one else has seen yet...
 
Is maths a tool? Tools are designed for a specific purpose. Other purposes may be found. Maths is a language. Languages contain observer biases. Like all languages maths must therefore evolve from observer biases and contain observer biases. For example, zero had to be observed and conceptualised before the symbolic language of zero could be assigned to it mathematically. Zero was not contained inherently within the language of maths, it had to be 'discovered'.

Perhaps what Doron is trying to describe is a concept that is not easily described by current mathematical language? It is quite possible that someone could grasp a concept beyond current language limits. And communicating this is inevitably going to be tricky. Sort of like trying to describe a colour no one else has seen yet...
Traditional Mathematics does its best in order to exclude the mathematician's awareness as a significant factor of this science.

Yet, the notions of this science are currently limited to the level of thoughts, which is naturally subjective.

Organic Mathematics is first of all a systematic way to develop the consistent communication among the researched, the researcher and the research methods, by develop the mathematician's awareness beyond the subjective level of thoughts.

By following this way, the Mathematical Science is developed beyond the Ethics\Reasoning current Polychotomy.
 
Last edited:
Is maths a tool?

Yes, it is a tool. It has been so from it's inception.

Tools are designed for a specific purpose.
No, they *may* be designed for a specific purpose.

But take, for example, the humble stick. A tool even used by animals, but nonetheless a tool.

Or the ubiqutous rock. Otters, bears, humans, monkeys, dinosaurs, cows... all use the tool 'rock'. And all have different purposes for it.

Other purposes may be found. Maths is a language. Languages contain observer biases.
How come you say Math is a language? Citations?

Like all languages maths must therefore evolve from observer biases and contain observer biases.
We leave this until you can show that Maths *is* a language.

For example, zero had to be observed and conceptualised before the symbolic language of zero could be assigned to it mathematically. Zero was not contained inherently within the language of maths, it had to be 'discovered'.
That is a common misconception. The language of zero has nothing to do with the concept of zero.

The concept of zero was employed *in maths* a long time before the language of zero came about.

The often made mistake here is that people think that zero needed to be discovered. But in fact in only was that 0 needed to get a place in the digits.
The usage of the value 0 is as old as maths itself.

Perhaps what Doron is trying to describe is a concept that is not easily described by current mathematical language?
Well, duh... we have been trying to tell him that his understanding of maths is below par and that he should not try to use a hammer to drive in his screw.

It is quite possible that someone could grasp a concept beyond current language limits.
And thereby be able to claim the million dollars. Which he even refuses to try.


And communicating this is inevitably going to be tricky. Sort of like trying to describe a colour no one else has seen yet...

But the rules of the MDC state that he can even decide on what constitutes a succesfull test. Nobody else is going to tell him what to do and what not.

But he *hides* behind copy/paste, abuse, ramblings on how the hammer is not a good tool for his screw...(i.e. math is *wrong*).

But... why don't *you* ask him? Maths is not anything Doron is good at, but you seem of the idea that communicating may be the key.

Please, show me.
 
They are able to understand them, and may develop things that are based on this understanding.

You, currently, can't get, for example, http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8059485&postcount=481 .

I do not *want* to get that. I could not even care less to get it.

What I want to get, little Doron, is what the properties of your 'whateveryoucallit' are that people who do *not* get it can see, experience, smell, measure...

If the answer is *nothing* because they 'don't get it', then fine.

If it is anything else, please tell us.
 
Yes, it is a tool. It has been so from it's inception.


No, they *may* be designed for a specific purpose.

But take, for example, the humble stick. A tool even used by animals, but nonetheless a tool.

Or the ubiqutous rock. Otters, bears, humans, monkeys, dinosaurs, cows... all use the tool 'rock'. And all have different purposes for it.


How come you say Math is a language? Citations?


We leave this until you can show that Maths *is* a language.


That is a common misconception. The language of zero has nothing to do with the concept of zero.

The concept of zero was employed *in maths* a long time before the language of zero came about.

The often made mistake here is that people think that zero needed to be discovered. But in fact in only was that 0 needed to get a place in the digits.
The usage of the value 0 is as old as maths itself.


Well, duh... we have been trying to tell him that his understanding of maths is below par and that he should not try to use a hammer to drive in his screw.


And thereby be able to claim the million dollars. Which he even refuses to try.




But the rules of the MDC state that he can even decide on what constitutes a succesfull test. Nobody else is going to tell him what to do and what not.

But he *hides* behind copy/paste, abuse, ramblings on how the hammer is not a good tool for his screw...(i.e. math is *wrong*).

But... why don't *you* ask him? Maths is not anything Doron is good at, but you seem of the idea that communicating may be the key.

Please, show me.

realpaladin can't understand http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8091197&postcount=660 and the results of his misunderstanding.
 
I do not *want* to get that. I could not even care less to get it.
Fair enough, but then do not expect to understand any of its premises, conclusions, results, usefulness etc.

What I want to get, little Doron, is what the properties of your 'whateveryoucallit' are that people who do *not* get it can see, experience, smell, measure...
It depends on actual awareness' development, which you avoid, so at least, little realpaladin, find the answer by yourself, it has to be obvious according to your actual attitude of the considered subject.
 
Last edited:
It depends on actual awareness' development, which you avoid, so at least, realpaladin, find the answer by yourself, it has to be obvious according to your actual view of the considered subject.

So, to reiterate:

There is NOTHING to see OR notice if your awareness' developmental level is not at the required level.

So for all intents and purposes it resembles an LSD trip; if you are not high on acid, you do not see *it*/If you don't 'get it' you 'don't get it'.

Excellent work Doron!
 
So, to reiterate:

There is NOTHING to see OR notice if your awareness' developmental level is not at the required level.

So for all intents and purposes it resembles an LSD trip; if you are not high on acid, you do not see *it*/If you don't 'get it' you 'don't get it'.

Excellent work Doron!

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8091103&postcount=653 is neutrally developed by the natural mind's abilities ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8059327&postcount=477 ) without any need of indirect things like drugs etc.
 
Last edited:

It does not matter anymore.

No link, no wall of text, no quoting, absolutely nothing that you say or do will matter anymore in this thread.

All you have to show for is something that only people that 'get it' do 'get'.

So why would anyone who does not 'get it' give a hootenanny?

Right, they don't.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom