Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
doronshadmi said:
Any researchable thing, abstract or not, is the result of the interaction between the totally weak and the totally strong. This result is researchable exactly because it is not total (it is the intermediate existence between the totally weak and the totally strong).

The non-total nature of the intermediate existence, enables research (abstract or not).
Click to expand...

With your ‘totalities’ being something you claim you can not research as, well, total you remain with no basis to even claim there are any implications of such ‘states’ let alone any ‘interactions’.


doronshadmi said:
Totalities are not researchable by definition, whether they are abstract or not, and this is a simple notion that you can't get, but this is your personal problem, not mine.
Click to expand...

Oh I get it, what you do not get is that such a definition makes your totalities useless in supporting your subsequent claims that you insist are based on them.

doronshadmi said:
Also Singularity or Atom (or any other name, it does not matter) is simpler than any definition of it. Therefore it is not its definition.
Click to expand...

Again you simply claim that your definition of your ‘singularity’ is meaningless since you assert that it can never effectivly represent your ‘singularity’.


doronshadmi said:
You can't get also this notion and again, this is your personal problem, not mine.

In other words, all you are doing here is forcing your limitations on my notions.
Click to expand...

Your notions, your assertions and your claims, Doron, thus your problems and limitations (personal or otherwise).

doronshadmi said:
Indeed the interaction between the defined extreme totalities (you can call them also axioms if you wish, it does not matter) provides an intermediate and researchable existence.
Click to expand...

The basis of which you conveniently claim you can not research, how utterly transparent (apparently to everyone but you).

doronshadmi said:
In other words, you don't get OM and continue to run after your own limited tail.
Click to expand...

You’re the only one here I see scrambling about chasing your phantom non-contradictory ‘axioms’. Care to start listing them now?


doronshadmi said:
The contradiction is only in your mind because you force 3 different levels into a one level.

The 3 levels are:

Level 1: Simpler than its definition.
Click to expand...

Well then make simpler definitions.

doronshadmi said:
Level 2: The totally weak and the totally strong.
Click to expand...

‘States’ you claim are independent of each other while claiming you can not research them independently of each other.

doronshadmi said:
Level 3: The intermediate state between the totalities, which is researchable.

Level 3 is based on level 2, and level 2 is based on level 1.
Click to expand...

As this is the only level you claim you can research it renders your other levels superfluous, extraneous and without any value or meaning.

doronshadmi said:
Since we have a hierarchy here, we have no contradiction.
Click to expand...

A hierarchy of crap, Doron, just gives you a bigger pile of crap.
 
doronshadmi said:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4551496&postcount=2307

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4558628&postcount=2316

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4564123&postcount=2323
Click to expand...

Whereas you think your diagrams are terribly revealing and insightful, the rest of us don't agree. Still, at there best, all they can do is illustrate something you are trying to explain.

Now, please try to explain what you mean by "interact".
 
doronshadmi said:
No, you admit that you can't get it.
Click to expand...

That declaration would make more sense if you actually had presented some explanation of your terms. Cryptic diagrams and hand-waving do not cut it.

Doron, you should admit the truth: The whole reason you cannot explain it to anyone (and I do mean anyone) is you don't actually understand it yourself. And the reason you don't understand it is because it is so riddled with gaps and contradictions there is no meaning to be had.

Prove me wrong: Define your terms: researchable, interact, totally weak, and totally strong. Use words with meaning, not diagrams without.
 
This is probably my last post in this thread and I wish to show for the last time the 3 levels of Organic Mathematics.



Level 1: Simpler than any definition of it.

Please take the Simplest as the white background itself, where anything drown or written on it is not simple as the background itself.

Please ignore this particular example that is based the sense of sight and try to get the general and abstract notion that does not depend on any particular representation of Level1.



Level 2: The totally weak, the totally strong.

At level 2 we define the minimal states that are not simple as level1:

The totally weak names are: Local, Element, Point, Emptiness, etc.

The totally strong names are: Non-locality, Relation, Line, Fullness, etc.

Let the totally weak be represented as Element A.

Let the totally strong be represented as Relation =.

Any total is definable but not researchable.



Level 3: Self-reference of Element A to itself by Relation = , represented as:
AAA.jpg


This is the minimal researchable state, which is the intermediate state between the totally weak and the totally strong states that are definable but not researchable. The minimal reseachable state is expanded to REI between different Elements.



In general, any research happens on the non-total results of level 3 that exist between the definitions of level 2, where the universal measurement unit is the distinction between superposition of identities and clear identities of the researched Elements.

The current paradigm of modern science is limited only to level 3, and Organic Mathematics expends it to levels 2 and 1.
 
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
That declaration would make more sense if you actually had presented some explanation of your terms. Cryptic diagrams and hand-waving do not cut it.

Doron, you should admit the truth: The whole reason you cannot explain it to anyone (and I do mean anyone) is you don't actually understand it yourself. And the reason you don't understand it is because it is so riddled with gaps and contradictions there is no meaning to be had.

Prove me wrong: Define your terms: researchable, interact, totally weak, and totally strong. Use words with meaning, not diagrams without.
Click to expand...

This is another example of your inability to get OM.

Words and diagrams where given in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4568298&postcount=2341 that clearly explain OM, but you don't get it because your abstarct ability is closed under level 3 ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4569938&postcount=2351 ).
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
The Man, by this reply it is clear now how you are unable to get the notion of "simpler than any definition of it".

I am not going to waste my time with you anymore.
Click to expand...

Like we haven’t heard that one before and like most of your claims you never seem able to comply with them.


By all means, please, explain “"simpler than any definition of it", which of course would be a definition of that which you would then have to explain as being even simpler still. Doron this is just one of your usual tactics of trying to create some vague, meaningless and contradictory reference so you do not feel the need to do any research in your ‘researchable framework’. Bottom line is all you are saying is that you do not want to actually define your notions (which we are all already aware of) so you attempt to obfuscate by claiming no definition can exactly describe your notion of ‘singularity’. That Doron simply makes your notion of ‘singularity’ effectively useless for you since you claim you have no accurate way to descried or define your ‘singularity’.
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
Like we haven’t heard that one before and like most of your claims you never seem able to comply with them.


By all means, please, explain “"simpler than any definition of it", which of course would be a definition of that which you would then have to explain as being even simpler still. Doron this is just one of your usual tactics of trying to create some vague, meaningless and contradictory reference so you do not feel the need to do any research in your ‘researchable framework’. Bottom line is all you are saying is that you do not want to actually define your notions (which we are all already aware of) so you attempt to obfuscate by claiming no definition can exactly describe your notion of ‘singularity’. That Doron simply makes your notion of ‘singularity’ effectively useless for you since you claim you have no accurate way to descried or define your ‘singularity’.
Click to expand...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4569938&postcount=2351
 
doronshadmi said:
This is probably my last post in this thread and I wish to show for the last time the 3 levels of Organic Mathematics.
Click to expand...

Congrats. We've seen you misrepresent and butcher almost every branch of mathematics in the threads you created. Probability theory was not amongst those - yet. You've accomplished that one too now. Your task is done. :D
 
doronshadmi said:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4569938&postcount=2351
Click to expand...


doronshadmi said:
Level 1: Simpler than any definition of it.

Please take the Simplest as the white background itself, where anything drown or written on it is not simple as the background itself.

Please ignore this particular example that is based the sense of sight and try to get the general and abstract notion that does not depend on any particular representation of Level1.
Click to expand...

What, you mean you actually consider that load of tripe a serious attempt at explanation. Remember Doron it is “Simpler than any definition of it” not ‘simpler then something added to it’. If you wanted that to even look like an attempt at an explanation of your ‘background’ being “simpler than any definition of it” you should have at least attempted to describe, well, the background. Instead you make it about adding something to your ‘background’ then proclaim that one should “ignore this particular example”. It would have been better if you had chosen to ignore it. What makes you think you need to “draw” or add something to that ‘background’ in order to define or describe it? One could simply start by describing part of that background and the simplest way would be to describe or define a circular area within that background (which does not require one to ‘draw’ anything). One could even consider two concentric circular areas within that background with one of a larger diameter then the other. Both those circular areas can be described or defined by the same equation even though one circular area is completely within the other. The only thing left is to define the background entirely and not just some part of it. If the background in its entirety were to be circular like the areas just considered it could be described by the same equation and thus its description would be no simpler and no more complex then that description. If the background is not circular then the description of the largest circular area that could be completely contained in that background would be insufficient, some areas would remain outside that circle. More specifically the description of the background, if not circular, would need to be more complex then the description of the largest circular area it could completely contain. So it is quite easy to come up with a description of your background that is simpler (if the background is not circular) or completely representative of that background (if the background is circular) by simply describing or defining a circular area. It does not matter what the actual shape (if any) of the background is, its description can never be simpler then the largest circular area it can completely contain. So once again if something is simpler then your description or definition of it, make a simpler definition.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
The current paradigm of modern science is limited only to level 3, and Organic Mathematics expends it to levels 2 and 1.
Click to expand...

Why stop there? Why not 5, 100, 56894 or an infinite number of your “non-researchable” levels? Again layering on useless crap, Dorn, just gives you, well, a big pile of useless crap.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom