Deeper than primes - Continuation

[keyfeatures]

No, you are aware about this as long as you get it only at the naturally subjective and changeable level of thoughts.

Some analogy: Talking about silence is not silence in itself.

Maybe http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7763358&postcount=172 can help you.

EDIT:

As long as your arguments are done only at the level of thoughts, they are only aware about the argued (they are not actually aware of the argued).

I'd suggest there is little difference in being aware about / aware of. However, there is a difference in terms of being the thing. E.g. "I am aware of silence" vs. "I am silence" or "I am aware of unity" vs. "I am unity". My suggestion is you can't change the reality of space-time. I might be aware of an objective state but I can be an objective state. Being the daughter of a magician, I've learned to know the difference between illusion and magic.

 

[doronshadmi]

Awareness of something does not mean existing in that state.

You are wrong, the right one is this: Awareness about something does not mean existing in that state.

Aware of ≠ Aware about and currently you are at the stat of being aware about.

 

[keyfeatures]

I agree in essence with your position here, but I cannot agree to the specific language you are using. It seems inappropriate to commandeer scientific terminology to express thoughts of a purely philosophical nature. You will come unstuck if you follow this approach in the science, maths, technology section.

Also I respect what physicists at the forefront of these ideas are doing, but it is clearly so hypothetical, that it is rendered essentially meaningless when taken out of the specific context in which it is proposed.

Thankyou, be prepaired for some quite strong challenges to your ideas here and when they are made it is better to keep your head down rather than try to talk your way out of it.

Just like electricity and magnetism, don't forget who separated science from philosophy in the first place. And who might stick them back together again.

 

[doronshadmi]

I'd suggest there is little difference in being aware about / aware of.

Being aware of X is actually being X.

Being aware about X is not actually being X.

However, there is a difference in terms of being the thing. E.g. "I am aware of silence" vs. "I am silence"

This is the best you can get by only being aware about X.

 

[keyfeatures]

Being aware of X is actually being X.

Being aware about X is not actually being X.


This is what you get by being aware about X.

I'm aware of Napoleon Bonaparte.

If you wish to be a success in the world, promise everything, deliver nothing.

 

[doronshadmi]

I'm aware of Napoleon Bonaparte

No, you are aware about Napoleon Bonaparte.

Furthermore, no already expressed (abstract or physical) phenomena is aware of already expressed phenomena at the level of already expressed phenomena.

It can be done only by actually being at Unity awareness, which enables any subjective aspect of being to be also aware of the objective aspect of being, which is naturally non-personal.

 

[punshhh]

Just like electricity and magnetism, don't forget who separated science from philosophy in the first place. And who might stick them back together again.

Yes and their long lost sibling, theology.

 

[punshhh]

I'm aware of Napoleon Bonaparte.

If you wish to be a success in the world, promise everything, deliver nothing.

You might end up confined to an island.

 

[keyfeatures]

No, you are aware about Napoleon Bonaparte.

Furthermore, no already expressed (abstract or physical) phenomena is aware of already expressed phenomena at the level of already expressed phenomena.

It can be done only by actually being at Unity awareness, which enables any subjective aspect of being to be also aware of the objective aspect of being, which is naturally non-personal.

So if I can be aware of the Unity (through TM), can I also be aware of Napolean Bonaparte would you say? In other words, if I can be the Unity, can I also be Napolean Bonaparte? Can a person be another person? If so, what happens to the original person? If I become the Unity, what happens to the original Unity? And, furthermore, what happens to me?

 

[keyfeatures]

You might end up confined to an island.

No man is an island. And no island is either.

 

[keyfeatures]

Yes and their long lost sibling, theology.

Not quite. Theology adds (invention) rather than divides (separation).

 

[doronshadmi]

So if I can be aware of the Unity (through TM), can I also be aware of Napolean Bonaparte would you say? In other words, if I can be the Unity, can I also be Napolean Bonaparte? Can a person be another person? If so, what happens to the original person? If I become the Unity, what happens to the original Unity? And, furthermore, what happens to me?

Napolean Bonaparte and you, are essentially Unity, which is the source of originality and polychotomy.

The reasoning of your questions is done at the level of polychtomy, which is not the opposite of Unity, but it is its some limited expression.

Some analogy: no collection of lower (abstract or physical) spaces have the power of the continuum of a given (abstract or physical) space > 0.

Unity can be everything (where everything is restricted to collections), everything can't be Unity ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8082203&postcount=604 ).

Unity (the thing) can be NOthing AND YESthing.

NOthing AND YESthing can't be Unity (the thing).

 

[realpaladin]

 

[keyfeatures]

post #832

So being a YESthing, I can't be unity? (not sure I want to be a YESthing...)

ETA; Oh sorry, I see you said that a YESthing polychotomy is still Unity at the top of the post. But not at the bottom of the post. Perhaps I misunderstand. There appears to be a contradiction here. Perhaps one must just embrace contradiction. Paraconsistent logical pathways...

 

[realpaladin]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21578-poll-consensus-on-milliondollar-logic-problem.html

Or rather to 'P ≠ NP' or 'P = NP'... there's a million bucks in there if you can prove it either way.

 

[doronshadmi]

post #832

So being a YESthing, I can't be unity? (not sure I want to be a YESthing...)

ETA; Oh sorry, I see you said that a YESthing polychotomy is still Unity at the top of the post. But not at the bottom of the post. Perhaps I misunderstand. There appears to be a contradiction here. Perhaps one must just embrace contradiction. Paraconsistent logical pathways...

Unity (the thing) can be NOthing AND YESthing AND SOMEthing AND EVERYthing ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8082203&postcount=604 ).

NOthing AND YESthing AND SOMEthing AND EVERYthing can't be Unity (the thing).

So there is no contradiction.

Contradiction is possible only among (abstract or physical) expressions at the level of polyhotomy, which is, again, not the opposite of Unity.

 

[doronshadmi]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21578-poll-consensus-on-milliondollar-logic-problem.html

Or rather to 'P ≠ NP' or 'P = NP'... there's a million bucks in there if you can prove it either way.

Again, it is restricted to the level of polychotomy.

 

[keyfeatures]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21578-poll-consensus-on-milliondollar-logic-problem.html

Or rather to 'P ≠ NP' or 'P = NP'... there's a million bucks in there if you can prove it either way.

Yes, I saw that. Intuitively I'd go for P ≠ NP. But I expect for the million quid dollars, they want to see workings out. Workings out that may be NP but not P.

However, this is not paraconsistent logic.

 

[doronshadmi]

So being a YESthing , I can't be unity?

No because YESthing (that has no successor) is defined at the level of polychotomy as the opposite of NOthing (that has no predecessor), or the objective calm aspect of awareness w.r.t the subjective aspect of collection of thoughts' activity.

Since you are currently closed under physical models, maybe http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7796635&postcount=219 can contribute something to you.

 

[doronshadmi]

Unity is not a collection of polychotomous expressions and not the opposite of Polychotomy because of a very simple reason, which is:

It is not the sum of polychotomous expressions, where this fact enables their non-entropic realm.

The current mathematical paradigm is entropic-only exactly because polychotomous expressions are summable, or in other words, Unity is not known.

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

It has to be stressed that there is no room for infinitely many polychotomous expressions (collections) in the first place, if they are summable, where summable means that there is an accurate cardinality of a given infinite collection.