Deeper than primes

[doronshadmi]

No Doron, again, if you had even bothered to do any research you would know that ‘mutual independent’ means a total ‘independence’ (meaning they do not influence each other) that is totally ‘mutual’ between two or more aspects. It means exactly the opposite of what you want it to mean.

No The Man,

X is not influenced by Y only if it is totally isolated from Y.

Independence exists only at total isolation.

This is not the case if X or Y are ‘mutual independent’ of each other.

The rest of your replay is based on this misunderstanding.

Please look at http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4547081&postcount=2299 .

 

[The Man]

No The Man,

X is not influenced by Y only if it is totally isolated from Y.

Independence exists only at total isolation.

This is not the case if X or Y are ‘mutual independent’ of each other.

Again if you bothered researching the use and meaning of that phrase you would find otherwise.

The rest of your replay is based on this misunderstanding.

Misunderstanding? Doron I am not the one making assertions about things he claims he can not research.

Please look at http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4547081&postcount=2299 .

More baseless assertions Doron? Resulting from not an inability to do research but simply your lack of willingness to do research, but if you insist on remarks.

Definition is nothing but a description of the defined thing and not the thing itself.

Indeed but of what use is a “description of the defined thing” if that description is not or can not actually describe that “defined thing”. If you can not research that thing then your description remains without basis or merit.

Research dealing with the thing itself,

Well, definitions can also be researched, their linguistic basis and perhaps how they developed or have changed. Abstract concepts can likewise be researched the origin, development and more specifically the conceptual basis. If you are speaking of simply some physical aspect, if you can not research it then you can not confirm that such a physical aspect might even exist.

and in this case no things like Emptiness or Fullness are researchable.

A mere assertion of yours that you can not support since you claim it to be ‘not researchable’

No information can be found at Emptiness (too weak state) or Fullness (too strong state) levels, and if you wish to play twisted games at the level of definitions and argue that 'no-information', 'too weak' or 'too strong' are information,

Doran, “No information can be found” is information about what can not be found. Just as “too weak” or “too strong” is information about ‘strength’. How can one assert in any meaningful way what can be found, can not be found or the degree of ‘strength’ about anything they claim they can not research?

then you don't distinguish between the definition of X and X itself.

Quite the contrary Doron I distinguish your definition of ‘X’ as having absolutely nothing to do with ‘X’ when you claim you can not research ‘X’.

The researchable is stonger than the defineable card(Emptiness) and weaker than the defineable card(Fullness).

More baseless assertion about what you claim you can not research.

 

[doronshadmi]

If you can not research that thing then your description remains without basis or merit.

No The Man,

The definition of total states like Emptiness and Fullness is exactly their non-researchability, simply because if X is total it is not researchable by definition.

Only a non-total thing is researchable by definition AND by real interaction with it, that can change it.

Total state is not researchable because it is invariant under any interaction at its own total state.

This is exactly the essence of the atomic state that manifests itself as the interaction between two mutually independent types (that are not derived from each other), which are the non-local type and the local type.

Only the results of this interaction is researchable, where the atoms that stand at the basis of these results are not researchable exactly because they themselves are not changed under any interaction, and this invariant and non-researchable state is exactly the property of the building-blocks that stay invariant under any research and actually enables the changeable and researchable results that are based on them.

My word is both Total and non-researchable AND non-total and researchable.

In your world there are no totalities, and as a result you have no solid basis that is invariant under research.

In other words, your relative-only universe is indeed baseless and doomed to non-finite regression (nothing is invariant in your relative-only universe, therefore your universe is indeed baseless).

Your inability to understand what an atom is, is shown again.

 

[sympathic]

My word is both Total and non-researchable AND non-total and researchable.

X AND ^X = FALSE

Which seems to be the case for your ideas.

 

[doronshadmi]

X AND ^X = FALSE

Which seems to be the case for your ideas.

Wrong.

The total and the non-total are not at the same level.

The total is the invariant building-block (the atom or the basis) of the variant and non-total.

 

[The Man]

No The Man,

The definition of total states like Emptiness and Fullness is exactly their non-researchability, simply because if X is total it is not researchable by definition.

Only a non-total thing is researchable by definition AND by real interaction with it, that can change it.

Total state is not researchable because it is invariant under interaction at its own total state.

Well that is what you would call your “definition”, but since it is about what you claim you can not research it remains without meaning or validity even within your own notions and ‘definition’.

Well, here we go again, you are now claiming that the only definition you can have “of total states like Emptiness and Fullness is exactly their non-researchability” which of course would make them exactly the same by your only ‘definition’. Are you sure you do not want to define your ‘separate and independent’ ‘states’ as, well, ‘separate and independent’? It hardly matters though as long as you claim them to be ‘non-researchable’ ‘states’ you are asserting a lack of validity for any claim you make about those ‘states’.

This is exactly the essence of the atomic state that manifests itself as the interaction between two mutually independent types (that are not derived from each other), which are the non-local type and the local type.

Just which essence of what ‘atomic state’ would that be? Your previous one that was indivisible and non-composite or you latest claim of Pi and the speed of light being your ‘atomic states’ which are composite and specifically divisions.

Only the results of this interaction is researchable, where the atoms that stand at the basis of these results are not researchable exactly because they themselves are not changed under any interaction, and this invariant and non-researchable state is exactly the property of the building-blocks that stay invariant under any research and actually enables the changeable and researchable results that are based on them.

So you know these ‘states’ “themselves are not changed under any interaction” and are “the building-blocks that stay invariant under any research” because you can’t research them? You do understand that even constants are researchable, don’t you?

My word is both Total and non-researchable AND non-total and researchable.

Yes Doron we know your world is a contradiction; you seem to thrive upon it.

In your world there are no totalities, and as a result you have no solid basis that is invariant under research.

In other words, your relative-only universe is indeed baseless and doomed to non-finite regression (nothing is invariant in your relative-only universe, therefore your universe is baseless).

So I guess you are just forgetting about those constants, from what you claim to be a “relative-only universe”, that you tried to claim as your ‘atoms’, which of course are the exact opposite of what you were claiming your atoms to be. We explore our world, solar system, and universe, Doron, that is called research. Whenever you come up with something based on what you can claim as researchable, then you might actually have a chance of convincing someone that you are indeed exploring that concept.

Your inability to understand what an atom is, is shown again.

Which of your ‘atoms’ are you referring to this time, indivisible and non-composite or composed as a division?

 

[doronshadmi]

An analogy that The Man can't get:

There is Singularity.

Any definition of Singularity is not singular as Singularity itself.

The minimal state that enables Research is based on Singularity self-reference, where Singularity relates to itself.

The relator is defined as Relation and the related is defined as Element.

Relation or Element are definable but not researchable independently of each other.

In other words, they are researchable iff they are at least mutually independent of each other, which means that they are both mutual AND independent under the same universe.

The Man's abstract ability cannot get it, because he can't get Singularity and not its two complement opposites as Relation\Element that are definable but not researchable, unless they are interact with each other without derived from each other, as can be seen by the following diagram:

Singularity itself is not defined, unless it is at self-reference state.

The self-reference state is an expression of two building-blocks that are interact with each other without being transformed to each other under interaction (they save their identity under interaction because they are atoms).

The result of this interaction is researchable.

 

[jsfisher]

There is Singularity.

Any definition of Singularity is not singular as Singularity itself.

Oh, dear! Doron has added a new word to his vocabulary. Now, all the gibberish has to be recast misusing this newly acquired term.

 

[doronshadmi]

Oh, dear! Doron has added a new word to his vocabulary. Now, all the gibberish has to be recast misusing this newly acquired term.

Wrong.

Please look at http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/UR.pdf page 6.


From your last reply we can learn that you do not read my papers in order to get tham.

 

[Little 10 Toes]

An analogy that The Man can't get:

There is Singularity.

Any definition of Singularity is not singular as Singularity itself.

The minimal state that enables Research is based on Singularity self-reference, where Singularity relates to itself.

The relator is defined as Relation and the related is defined as Element.

Relation or Element are definable but not researchable independently of each other.

In other words, they are researchable iff they are at least mutually independent of each other, which means that they are both mutual AND independent under the same universe.

The Man's abstract ability cannot get it, because he can't get Singularity and not its two complement opposites as Relation\Element that are definable but not researchable, unless they are interact with each other without derived from each other, as can be seen by the following diagram:

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/REI.jpg

Singularity itself is not defined, unless it is at self-reference state.

The self-reference state is an expression of two building-blocks that are interact with each other without being transformed to each other under interaction (they save their identity under interaction because they are atoms).

The result of this interaction is researchable.

Please define the following doron-speak words:

1. Singularity (but not singularity)
2. Research (but not research)

 

[The Man]

An analogy that The Man can't get:

There is Singularity.

Any definition of Singularity is not singular as Singularity itself.

Well if your ‘definition’ of ‘Singularity’ does not define it singularly then you are not defining singularity.

The minimal state that enables Research is based on Singularity self-reference, where Singularity relates to itself.

The relator is defined as Relation and the related is defined as Element.

Relation or Element are definable but not researchable independently of each other.

Again asserting your ascription of ‘Relation’ and ‘Element’ as being ‘independent’ of each other is without basis or merit since you claim you can not research them “independently of each other”.

In other words, they are researchable iff they are at least mutually independent of each other, which means that they are both mutual AND independent under the same universe.

Still haven’t bothered to research the meaning of the phrase ‘mutually independent’ have you?

The Man's abstract ability cannot get it, because he can't get Singularity and not its two complement opposites as Relation\Element that are definable but not researchable, unless they are interact with each other without derived from each other, as can be seen by the following diagram:

Again asserting your ascription of ‘Relation’ and ‘Element’ as being not “derived from each other” is without basis or merit since you claim you can not research them “unless they are interact with each”.

[qimg]http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/REI.jpg [/qimg]

Singularity itself is not defined, unless it is at self-reference state.

The self-reference state is an expression of two building-blocks that are interact with each other without being transformed to each other under interaction (they save their identity under interaction because they are atoms).

The result of this interaction is researchable.

What ‘identities’ would those be, the ones you claim you can not ‘research’ as being ‘independent’? Again which of your ‘atoms’ are you referring to this time, indivisible and non-composite or composed as a division?

 

[doronshadmi]

Well if your ‘definition’ of ‘Singularity’ does not define it singularly then you are not defining singularity.

X is not its definition.

If X is defined it does not mean that it is also reseachable.

 

[The Man]

X is not its definition.

Abstract concepts like points and lines are quite specifically their definitions since they do not exist outside of those definitions. It is those definitions that in fact make those concepts researchable since without any definition there would be nothing of them to, well, research. Did you forget about your agreement of points and lines not being ‘found’ but being defined? Even some constants are specifically their definition, like Pi as the ratio of a circles circumference to its diameter just as the speed of light is specifically its definition of, in a given reference frame, the distance traveled by light in a given time over that time, which makes both of them researchable as those definitions.

If X is defined it does not mean that it is also reseachable.

Once again, if you claim you can not research ‘X’ then you are claiming any ‘definition’ you might ascribe to ‘X’ is without basis, merit or any meaning relating to ‘X’. You can come up with all the fantasy ‘definitions’ you want for ‘X’, Doron, and when you claim you can not research ‘X’ you are specifically identifying your ‘definitions’ as pure fantasy.


Doron, were you to claim aspects ‘X’ and ‘Y’ were mutually dependent and thus could not be researched separately that would be self-consistent.

Were you to claim that aspects ‘X’ and ‘Y’ did not depend upon each other and were thus researchable independently (the actual meaning of ‘mutually independent’) that would also be self-consistent.

You could even claim that just one aspect is dependent on the other (thus their independence would not be ‘mutual’) and you could research the non-dependent one independent of the other but not the dependent one. That too would be self-consistent.

No, Doron what you do is claim them as independent and assert that they are not researchable independently, thus asserting absolutely no basis or support for your claim that they are independent within your own notions and that simply is not self-consistent.

So, if it has not dawned on you yet checking for self-consistency is a way of researching the validity of a claim. Claims that are not self-consistent are not valid within their own… wait for it… self-reference.

 

[doronshadmi]

Were you to claim that aspects ‘X’ and ‘Y’ did not depend upon each other and were thus researchable independently (the actual meaning of ‘mutually independent’) that would also be self-consistent.

Wrong.

‘mutually independent’ is not mutual-only (totally-mutual) and not independent-only (totally-independent).


‘mutually independent’ is the intermediate state between these totalities.

Totalities are definable but not researchable.

Furthermore Singularity, which is the common state of these totalities is not its definition, exactly as Silence is not the same as the voice that is used in order to define it (no matter what meaning is manifested by this voice).

Singularity cannot be known directly.

Singularity can be known indirectly by self-reference, where reference is called Relation and self is called Element.

 

[The Man]

Wrong.

‘mutually independent’ is not mutual-only (totally-mutual) and not independent-only (totally-independent).


‘mutually independent’ is the intermediate state between these totalities.

Totalities are definable but not researchable.

Again try actually doing some research on the meaning and applications of the phrase ‘mutually independent’. Again ‘definitions’ about what you claim you can not research is just you claiming your ‘definition’ has no validity within your own notions.

Furthermore Singularity, which is the common state of these totalities is not its definition,

What, your definition of “Singularity” as “the common state of these totalities” is “not its definition” as “the common state of these totalities”? So now again you assert your ‘independent’ ‘total’ ‘states’ are not, well, ‘independent’ but share a ‘common state’ that you have just defined as ‘Singularity’.

exactly as Silence is not the same as the voice that is used in order to define it (no matter what meaning is manifested by this voice).

Silence is not the same as speaking, absolutely amazing, you figured that one out all by yourself did you? What in the world or your contradictory fantasies makes you believe that a definition must be spoken or ‘voiced’ in order to be meaningful?

Singularity cannot be known directly.

So now asserting that your claim of ‘Singularity’ as a ‘state’ is without meaning or merit within your own notions.

Singularity can be known indirectly by self-reference, where reference is called Relation and self is called Element.

So now asserting what your are calling ‘Singularity’ can not even be known by you as being ‘Singularity’ but just some aspect of your ‘Relations’ and ‘Elements’. Since you can not even “self-reference” a ‘relation’ as a ‘relation’ in your notions your claims simply remain meaningless drivel.

 

[doronshadmi]

Silence is not the same as speaking, absolutely amazing, you figured that one out all by yourself did you? What in the world or your contradictory fantasies makes you believe that a definition must be spoken or ‘voiced’ in order to be meaningful?

You did not get it.

What I said is that if definition is not simple as the defined thing, then the defined thing is not its definition. You can use an analogy that is based on any one of the five senses, it does not matter.

Singularity is so simple until it is defined only indirectly by at least two atomic states (Relation and Element) that are mutually independent with respect to each other.

Only the result of the interaction between Relation and Element is researchable:

Your abstract ability cannot deal with the notions written above.

 

[catbasket]

Looks like a bishop's hat to me.

 

[The Man]

You did not get it.

No Doron you do not ‘get it’ and you continually assert that you can not ‘get it’ because you assert your notions are based on what you claim you can not research.

What I said is that if definition is not simple as the defined thing, then the defined thing is not its definition. You can use an analogy that is based on any one of the five senses, it does not matter.

Perhaps that is what you wanted to say but that is certainly not what you said. Again for abstract concepts like points and lines those concepts are precisely their definitions as are defined constants like PI and the speed of light. As simple or complex as those definitions may be is in fact quite literally the simplicity or complexity of that concept or constant. You can call whatever trivial exclamation of sound not being silence, taste not being tasteless, seeing not being sightless, smells not being unscented or touch not being intactible “an analogy that is based on any one of the five senses” all you want, because I will agree with you that “it does not matter”. Since none of those supposed ‘analogies’ have any bearing on the simple fact that numerous ‘defined things’, specifically including points, lines and the two constants you claimed as your “atoms”, are quite simply their definitions, no more and no less then as defined.

Singularity is so simple until it is defined only indirectly by at least two atomic states (Relation and Element) that are mutually independent with respect to each other.

More baseless assertions about what you claim you can not research. Doron, if you claim you can not research ‘singularity’ “until it is defined only indirectly” then you are asserting no basis for your claim that “Singularity is so simple until it is defined only indirectly”. Again which of your “atomic states” are you referring to now, indivisible and non-composite or composed as a division?

Only the result of the interaction between Relation and Element is researchable:

Again since you can not ‘relate’ a “Relation” to itself as, well, a “Relation” in your ‘self reference’ dependent notions then your notions remain without ‘relations’ or an ‘interaction’ and just consists of assertions that you claim have no basis within your own notions.

[qimg]http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/research.jpg[/qimg]

Meaningless graphical representations do nothing to support your assertions that you continue to claim as baseless within your own notions. However the diagram does clearly and unequivocally demonstrate that you have absolutely knowledge or understanding of the meaning of the term ‘singularity’ or the concept that it represents (just some hints, it’s not a line or two aspects).

Your abstract ability cannot deal with the notions written above.

Again doron you seem to be operating under the delusion that simply invoking the term ‘abstract’ somehow permits assertions you continue to claim have no basis within your notions to be in any way meaningful. That it should imbue you with some ability to redefine terms at will which already have established definitions and meaning as part of a language all well understood long before you were even born or might provide some validity to graphical representations that demonstrate nothing but your lack of understanding of the very concepts you claim they represent. That Doron is simply being clueless not abstract, these failing are not the result of an inability to research as you continue to claim but simply your lack of willingness to actually do any research. Since it seems you cannot deal with your own ignorance, you leave no choice but for us to deal with it instead.

 

[The Man]

Looks like a bishop's hat to me.

Indeed, yet even a bishops Mitre is easily researchable and can actually convey meaning, unlike Dorons notions or anything he has drawn so far.

 

[doronshadmi]

The Man,

You are unable to get the notion of the simplicity (Singularity) that stands at the basis of the dichotomy of the totally weak and the totally strong, which are its manifested building-blocks (atoms) of the intermediate and researchable realm.

These totalities are not made of sub-things because Singularity is not an element and not a relation, and cannot be measured by any method, because any measurement is not simple as Singularity.

In order to get it you have to know yourself as the invariant source of your thoughts.

At this state yourself is its own element, and this state is the simplest basis of any research.

As long as you know yourself at the level of your thoughts about yourself, you don't get it.

Since your reasoning is based on thoughts about thoughts, you cannot get the invariant level of yourself as the first-order state of any reasoning, before it manifests itself by some particular thought.

As long as your research is not based on yourself (which is not a thought about yourself) as the invariant source of your thoughts, you have no chance to get OM.