Deeper than primes

[doronshadmi]

I notice how you did not include my subsequent statement about the potential for a ‘hole in your whole’, again making the blindness and ignorance wholly yours.

Since the whole (the non-local aspect of the universe) is not made of parts (the local aspects of the universe) it does not have holes, if some parts do not exist.

Well your misunderstanding in that is simply because you have misplaced your ‘whole’. The ‘whole’ is the ‘string’ with ‘beads’ which are both just ‘parts’ of that ‘whole’. Try using your brain and your eyes as parts of your ‘whole’ instead of just pulling things out of your ‘hole’

Well your misunderstanding in that is simply because you have misplaced your ‘whole’.

Whole is not the sum of the Parts of some universe. Whole is the property of the Whole\Parts universe, that gathers the Parts of this universe.

The universe called necklace has two aspects, the Whole aspect and the Part aspect.

The Whole is the non-local (string) aspect of the necklace that enables parts to be gathered, and the Parts (beads) are the gathered things.

The necklace is a Whole\Parts thing, where the Whole aspect of this thing is not any of the Parts aspect of that same thing.

You simply do not get the universe as a Whole\Parts thing.

Let us see the Whole\Parts universe of, for example, cardinal fore.

By the standard reasoning cardinal fore is 4=1+1+1+1 where 4 is focused on the Whole aspect (understood as the sum aspect of the cardinal) and 1+1+1+1 is focused on the Parts aspect (understood as some arithmetic aspect of the cardinal).

By the standard reasoning 4 or 1+1+1+1 are nothing but different representations of the same thing, called cardinal.

But this reasoning misses the fact that the magnitude of existence of the Whole > the magnitude of existence of the gathered Parts (the sum of the parts).

For example : number fore of the Whole\Parts universe is _._._._._ (where no infinitely many . (Parts) can be ______)

(actually the Man's reasoning uses ______ under the name +, so 1+1+1+1 = _._._._._ , but The Man's reasoning misses the understanding of + as a thing that its magnitude of existence > the magnitude of existence of the gathered 1 things)

By getting Cardinality as a Whole\Parts universe, Organic Numbers are available for research.

The Man's reasoning of the concept of Universe cannot get the Organic Numbers.

On the contrary, OM's reasoning clearly shows how the outcome of The Man's reasoning is nothing but a particular case of OM's reasoning.

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

By Organic Mathematics the magnitude of existence of the Whole > the sum (magnitude of existence) of the gathered Parts ("Strong emergence" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_emergence ).

By Conventional Mathematics the magnitude of existence of the Whole = the sum (magnitude of existence) of the gathered Parts ("Weak emergence" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_emergence ).

 

[The Man]

Since the whole (the non-local aspect of the universe) is not made of parts (the local aspects of the universe) it does not have holes, if some parts do not exist.

Well your ‘whole/parts’ notion of the universe certainly has holes since you are now claiming that ‘whole’ is not dependent on the inclusion or omissions of its ‘parts’

Well your misunderstanding in that is simply because you have misplaced your ‘whole’.

Whole is not the sum of the Parts of some universe. Whole is the property of the Whole\Parts universe, that gathers the Parts of this universe.

Again giving the trait of ‘gathering’ to you notion of the ‘whole’, that 'gathers' parts without requiring, well, parts, the holes seem to be the only parts you have gathered for your notions.

The universe called necklace has two aspects, the Whole aspect and the Part aspect.

The Whole is the non-local (string) aspect of the necklace that enables parts to be gathered, and the Parts (beads) are the gathered things.

The necklace is a Whole\Parts thing, where the Whole aspect of this thing is not any of the Parts aspect of that same thing.

You simply do not get the universe as a Whole\Parts thing

You simple do not understand the meaning of whole.

Let us see the Whole\Parts universe of, for example, cardinal fore.

By the standard reasoning cardinal fore is 4=1+1+1+1 where 4 is focused on the Whole aspect (understood as the sum of the cardinal) and 1+1+1+1 is focused on the Parts aspect (understood as some arithmetic of the cardinal).

A number does not have cardinality but a set does, the cardinality of a set containing the number 4 like {4} would have a cardinality of 1 while the set {1,2,3,4} would have a cardinality of 4 as would the set {number, is, not, cardinality}. Your understanding of cardinality (or 'cardinal' whatever that is) is clearly lacking.

By the standard reasoning 4 or 1+1+1+1 are nothing but different representations of the same thing, called cardinal.

No Doron just the same thing called the value of 4 (not cardinality or ‘cardinal’). By your reasoning since the speed of my car and the temperature outside had the same value this morning they must also both be additionally “different representations of the same thing, called cardinal”. It would seem in your universe everything is just a “different representations of the same thing, called cardinal”.

But this reasoning misses the fact that the magnitude of existence of the Whole > the magnitude of existence of the gathered Parts.

Well seeing as you have missed the ‘reasoning’ you claimed to be referring to before, the rest is just your misplaced ‘reasoning’.

For example : number fore of the Whole\Parts universe is _._._._._ (where no infinitely many . (Parts) can be ______)

(actually the Man's reasoning uses ______ under the name +, so 1+1+1+1 = _._._._._ , but The Man's reasoning misses the understanding of + as a thing that its magnitude of existence > the magnitude of existence of the gathered 1 things)

By getting Cardinality as a Whole\Parts universe, Organic Numbers are available for research.

The Man's reasoning of the concept of Universe cannot get the Organic Numbers.

On the contrary, OM's reasoning clearly shows how the outcome of The Man's reasoning is nothing but a particular case of OM's reasoning.

I am quite capable of clearly expressing and supporting my own reasoning. Given your demonstrative problems expressing your reasoning without contradicting yourself, perhaps you should spend more time working on your reasoning and less time pretending to understand the reasoning of others. Of course you could always just do some research and actually study the reasoning of others but that in your case is precluded by your innate tendency to supplant your reasoning onto others and into what you read.

 

[doronshadmi]

By Organic Mathematics the magnitude of existence of the Whole > the sum (magnitude of existence) of the gathered Parts ("Strong emergence" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_emergence ).

By Conventional Mathematics (The Man's reasoning) the magnitude of existence of the Whole = the sum (magnitude of existence) of the gathered Parts ("Weak emergence" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_emergence ).

Well your ‘whole/parts’ notion of the universe certainly has holes since you are now claiming that ‘whole’ is not dependent on the inclusion or omissions of its ‘parts’

An atom cannot have holes.

Again giving the trait of ‘gathering’ to you notion of the ‘whole’, that 'gathers' parts without requiring, well, parts, the holes seem to be the only parts you have gathered for your notions.

Nonesene.

The string (the whole aspect) of some necklace exists independently of the gathered beads.

A number does not have cardinality

It would seem in your universe everything is just a “different representations of the same thing, called cardinal”.

My example is about cardinal. That's all.

I am quite capable of clearly expressing and supporting my own reasoning.

This is the problem. You see only your reasoning. As a result you don't get OM's reasoning.

Furthermore, by forcing your reasoning on OM's reasoning you indeed get only contradiction.

But this is your problem, not mine.

 

[The Man]

By Organic Mathematics the magnitude of existence of the Whole > the sum (magnitude of existence) of the gathered Parts ("Strong emergence" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_emergence ).

By Conventional Mathematics (The Man's reasoning) the magnitude of existence of the Whole = the sum (magnitude of existence) of the gathered Parts ("Weak emergence" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_emergence ).

Conventional mathematics has no property, value, concept, relation or anything referred to as “magnitude of existence” that I know of, you seem to be confusing your fantasies with reality again.

Emergence both strong and weak is still dependent on all the ‘parts’ involved, some of which simply may not be readily apparent, particularly in the case of the perception of ‘strong emergence’, but wait you have claimed…

Since the whole (the non-local aspect of the universe) is not made of parts (the local aspects of the universe) it does not have holes, if some parts do not exist.

So since those ‘parts’ are apparently not part of your ‘whole’, then neither is any emergent property resulting from the combination of the ‘parts’, strong or weak.

An atom cannot have holes.

Which of your ‘atoms’ would that be again, your ‘atom’ you claimed was indivisible and non-composite or when you claimed the speed of light and Pi were ‘atoms’ which are both composed as divisions?

Nonesene.

Well then it certainly fits with your notions.

The string (the whole aspect) of some necklace exists independently of the gathered beads.

Again demonstrating that you simply do not understand the meaning of the word ‘whole’, the ‘necklace’ is the ‘whole’ of which both the ‘string’ and the ‘beads’ are just ‘parts’. What is this tendency you seem to have to simply pick two words like ‘whole and part’, ‘local and non-local’, ‘serial and parallel’ or ‘relation and element’, then make a bunch of claims that have absolutely no relation to the actual meaning of those words. It seems you just want a dichotomy and simply do not seem to care how you get it.

My example is about cardinal. That's all.

Your example is and your notions are nonsense, that is all.

This is the problem. You see only your reasoning. As a result you don't get OM's reasoning.

OM has no reasoning, Doron, that is why you always end up contradicting yourself, which is the only emergent property of your notions.

Furthermore, by forcing your reasoning on OM's reasoning you indeed get only contradiction.

Dorn you are the one claiming the involved parts of a domain as your definitions of ‘local’ and ‘non-local’ then claim not to be focusing on the ‘parts’, since your ‘whole’ does require those parts anyway because the actual ‘whole’ (your ‘necklace’) is not what you are referring to as the ‘whole’ which it turns out is just the ‘string’ and actually just another ‘part’ of that ‘whole’ ‘necklace’. Doron you couldn’t ‘force’ ‘reasoning’ onto this tripe with a bulldozer.

But this is your problem. not mine.

Your notions, Doron, thus your problems.

 

[doronshadmi]

The Man you simply forcing "Weak emergence" on "Strong emergence".

the actual ‘whole’ (your ‘necklace’) is not what you are referring to as the ‘whole’

Whole is Fullness.

Necklace is a collection.

The cardinal of a collection < cardinal of Fullness ( = ∞ ).


There is no use to talk with you anymore, because you have no ability to get a "Strong emergence" reasoning.

Doron you couldn’t ‘force’ ‘reasoning’ onto this tripe with a bulldozer.

This is exactly what you are doing by forcing "Weak emergence" on "Strong emergence".

Here is some analogy that shows why The Man does not understand the concept of Whole of Strong Emergence.

According to Strong Emergence the Whole is the total existence.

If we add parts to the total existence we actually define a thing that is less than total existence.

This addition of parts is equivalent to adding cold water to hot water, for example:

If the temperature of the water is 100 and we add water with temperature of 10, we do not get a water with temperature 110. Actually after the addition we get a temperature that is less than 100.

The same holds about Whole and Necklace.

The Whole is greater than the result of Whole+Parts (= the Necklace) exactly as the temperature of 100 is greater that the result of adding water with temperature of 10 to water with temperature of 100.

The Man simply can't get it because he uses a Weak Emergence, where the Whole is no more than the sum of the parts (by The Man, the Whole has a temperature of 110).

Bye.


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


By understanding REI one develops a mathematical theory of Strong Emergence, where
the Whole is not the sum of the Parts.

Some analogy: a necklace is a Whole\Parts universe, where the Whole aspect of this
universe is a string, and the Part aspect of this universe is a bead.

No amount of beads can be a string. Furthermore, the string exists independently of the
existence of the beads. In other words, the magnitude of existence of the Whole is greater
than the magnitude of existence of any sum of Parts.

By using a mathematical theory of Strong Emergence, any cardinal of some collection of
Parts is smaller than the cardinal of the Whole (by OM, Cardinal or Magnitude is the
measurement unit of the existence of a thing).

 

[doronshadmi]

An open letter

Dear X,

You write:

So far, I did not see any reason to believe that your way of looking at points (recursive distinguishability) leads to any new way of thinking.

You are right. If you are looking only on the point you miss the new way of thinking, which is not less than the interaction between a line as a non-local atom and a point as a local atom, as the mutually independent building-blocks of a one universe.

Organic Mathematics is a new way of Strong Emergence reasoning development.

Contrary to Weak Emergence reasoning, where the Whole is the sum of its Parts, by Standard Strong Emergence reasoning the Whole is greater than the sum of its Parts.

So, by standard Strong Emergence reasoning, the Whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Organic Mathematics takes a further step and develops a Strong Emergence reasoning where the Whole is greater than the sum of the (not 'its', but 'the') Parts.

The Whole is greater than the sum of the (not 'its', but 'the') Parts iff the Whole and the Parts are not derived from each other, and as much as I know, this is a new way of thinking.

I will be glade if you explicitly show me that I am wrong, by direct me to an existing theory that is actually based on the notion that the Whole is greater than the sum of the (not 'its', but 'the') Parts.

Here is a part of my paper with Moshe Klein:

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OMPT.pdf (page 17)

"By understanding REI (Relation Element Interaction) one develops a mathematical theory of Strong Emergence, where the Whole is not the sum of the Parts.

Some analogy: a necklace is a Whole\Parts universe, where the Whole aspect of this universe is a string, and the Part aspect of this universe is a bead.

No amount of beads can be a string. Furthermore, the string exists independently of the existence of the beads. In other words, the magnitude of existence of the Whole is greater than the magnitude of existence of any sum of Parts.

By using a mathematical theory of Strong Emergence, any cardinal of some collection of Parts is smaller than the cardinal of the Whole (by OM , Cardinal or Magnitude is the measurement unit of the existence of a thing).

According to Strong Emergence the Whole is the total existence. If we add parts to the total existence we actually define a thing that is less than total existence. This addition of Parts to the Whole is equivalent to adding cold water to hot water, for example:

If the temperature of the water is 100 and we add water with temperature of 10, we do not get a water with temperature 110. Actually after the addition we get a temperature that is less than 100.

The Whole is greater than the result of Whole+Parts exactly as the temperature of 100 is greater that the result of adding water with temperature of 10 to water with temperature of 100."

Dear X, in my opinion you can understand this quote iff you read very carefully http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OMPT.pdf from top to bottom, before you air your view about it.

I will appreciate very much you detailed reply about the content of OMPT.pdf

I am fully opened to your criticism.


Sincerely yours,

Doron Shadmi

 

[jsfisher]

Dear X,

You write:

So far, I did not see any reason to believe that your way of looking at points (recursive distinguishability) leads to any new way of thinking.

You are right....

So, you are so incapable of defending your notions with real people you have resorted to a dialog with yourself?

 

[doronshadmi]

So, you are so incapable of defending your notions with real people you have resorted to a dialog with yourself?

Real people, in this case, are at least "more,less than X" viewers.


Since you are "nothing more, nothing less than X" viewer, you can't get it.

 

[jsfisher]

Real people, in this case, are at least "more,less than X" viewers.


Since you are "nothing more, nothing less than X" viewer, you can't get it.

Your inability to define your terms, use those terms consistently, and present your notion without contradiction or as any sort of logical progression is your failing, and yours alone.

Don't blame others for your shortcomings.

 

[The Man]

The Man you simply forcing "Weak emergence" on "Strong emergence".

If you actually understood the meanings of those terms you might realize how absurd and contradictory that statement is. Instead you just need some unknown contributing factors for your notions, so you can continue to claim whatever you want without feeling compeled to actually support your claims, and think you can obtain that by just claiming “Strong emergence”

Whole is Fullness.

Dog is Rain.

Necklace is a collection.

Yes of parts, the parts in your necklace are the string and the beads.

The cardinal of a collection < cardinal of Fullness ( = ∞ ).

If ‘Fullness’ has a cardinality then it is also a collection meaning set since that is what cardinality applies to.

There is no use to talk with you anymore, because you have no ability to get a "Strong emergence" reasoning.

What, so your reasoning is based on your inability to understand or to know all the contributing factors or ‘reasons’ for the emergent property you are considering , which is referred to as ‘strong emergence’? So your ‘reasoning’ simply lacks, well, reasons.

This is exactly what you are doing by forcing "Weak emergence" on "Strong emergence".

Well now we have new Doronophrases of ‘Strong emergence reasoning’ and ‘Weak emergence reasoning’


Just who or where are you quoting this following BS from?

Here is some analogy that shows why The Man does not understand the concept of Whole of Strong Emergence.

According to Strong Emergence the Whole is the total existence.

If we add parts to the total existence we actually define a thing that is less than total existence.

Well then don’t add negative parts, I don’t expect you to understand that because it would require math in your 'mathematical theory'.

This addition of parts is equivalent to adding cold water to hot water, for example:



If the temperature of the water is 100 and we add water with temperature of 10, we do not get a water with temperature 110. Actually after the addition we get a temperature that is less than 100.

So what, if you add water that is hotter the temperature goes up. You have this bizarre tendency to think of simple and trivial relations as some analogy of your notions, but only if you can severely restrict the conditions and ignore the fundamentals of the example you give.

The same holds about Whole and Necklace.

Sure, pour hotter water on necklace in whole or in part and it gets hotter, pour cooler water on it and it gets cooler, simple and trivial.

The Whole is greater than the result of Whole+Parts (= the Necklace) exactly as the temperature of 100 is greater that the result of adding water with temperature of 10 to water with temperature of 100.

The Man simply can't get it because he uses a Weak Emergence, where the Whole is no more than the sum of the parts (by The Man, the Whole has a temperature of 110).

No Doron I am well versed in thermodynamics, which apparently you simply do not understand. You could try researching it, but I warn you it actually uses math instead of just including the word ‘math’ as you do in your claims.

Bye.

Don’t let the door hit you in your ‘strong emergence’ on your way out.

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

Back so soon, well that didn’t take long

By understanding REI one develops a mathematical theory of Strong Emergence, where
the Whole is not the sum of the Parts.

A ‘mathematical theory’ would actually require, well, math. Certainly you have no idea what ‘strong emergence’ or math infer if you are going to claim a ‘mathematical theory of Strong Emergence’.

Some analogy: a necklace is a Whole\Parts universe, where the Whole aspect of this
universe is a string, and the Part aspect of this universe is a bead.

The same bad analogy where what you call the ‘whole’ is not actually the ‘whole’, but just another ‘part’ so your ‘parts’ are not ‘part’ of your ‘whole’.

No amount of beads can be a string. Furthermore, the string exists independently of the
existence of the beads.

Simply trivial since they are both just different parts of that ‘whole’ ‘necklace’.

In other words, the magnitude of existence of the Whole is greater
than the magnitude of existence of any sum of Parts.

“Oh waiter, can I get some math with that ‘magnitude of existence’ and ‘any sum of Parts’”? Since after all this is a “mathematical theory of Strong Emergence”

By using a mathematical theory of Strong Emergence, any cardinal of some collection of
Parts is smaller than the cardinal of the Whole (by OM, Cardinal or Magnitude is the
measurement unit of the existence of a thing).

Well we are still waiting for you to actually use any “mathematical theory” and not simply refer to one or try to employ same bizarre interpretation you have of a theory that is not explicitly part of that theory or its required applications.

 

[Little 10 Toes]

According to Strong Emergence the Whole is the total existence. If we add parts to the total existence we actually define a thing that is less than total existence. This addition of Parts to the Whole is equivalent to adding cold water to hot water, for example:

If the temperature of the water is 100 and we add water with temperature of 10, we do not get a water with temperature 110. Actually after the addition we get a temperature that is less than 100.

The Whole is greater than the result of Whole+Parts exactly as the temperature of 100 is greater that the result of adding water with temperature of 10 to water with temperature of 100."

Nice how you look at the property of something, but not the something itself. If I have water at 40 degrees (you pick your scale) and add water at 45 degrees doesn't mean I have water at 95 degrees, it means that I have more water.

Get my thermodynamics out of your ...... well, whatever it is.

 

[doronshadmi]

Nice how you look at the property of something, but not the something itself. If I have water at 40 degrees (you pick your scale) and add water at 45 degrees doesn't mean I have water at 95 degrees, it means that I have more water.

Get my thermodynamics out of your ...... well, whatever it is.

So what, if you add water that is hotter the temperature goes up.

You can't.

Whole's "temperature" in the analogy is always > than the "temperature" of the sum of Parts.

In other words, you both have missed the analogy.

If ‘Fullness’ has a cardinality then it is also a collection

"Thank you" for ignoring again my non-standard interpretation of the concept of Cardinal.

By OM, Cardinal or Magnitude is the measurement unit of the existence of a thing.


The cardinal of Whole = Fullness > the cardinal of Collection.

The cardinal of Emptiness < the cardinal of Collection.


You simply can't get new ideas. I am doing my best in order to explain OM's non-standard interpretation of Cardinal, Fullness, Collection, Emptiness, Strong Emergence and more ...

You did nothing in order to get it.

You simply can't think out of your box.

If you actually understood the meanings of those terms ...

I understand the standard Strong Emergence reasoning, where the Whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

By understand it I use a non-standard Strong Emergence reasoning, where the Whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

You, The Man, can't get it because you can't think out of your box.

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

The Man is profound examples of a total lose case of a closed system that naturally die by Entropy.

After his last several posts, it is now clear that any reply to him is a waste of energy.

Edited to fix quote tags. You need to be more careful with these quote tags, doronshadmi. Otherwise you attribute words to someone who didn't say them.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky

 

[Skeptic]

According to Strong Emergence the Whole is the total existence.

You don't say.

Ah well. I guess we need to add basic set theory to the long list of things Doron doesn't understand about mathematics.

Sad, the way a man can waste his life.

 

[jsfisher]

You can't.

Whole's "temperature" in the analogy is always > than the "temperature" of the sum of Parts.

In other words, you both have missed the analogy.

That would be the failure of the analogy itself and the person that proffered it. Your analogy; your failure.

"Thank you" for ignoring again my non-standard interpretation of the concept of Cardinal.

Cardinal is not a concept nor is it subject to interpretation. The word you meant, by the way, was cardinality, but that word, too, is not in need of your special interpretation.

If your goal really were to communicate, your own private "non-standard interpretations" would never come up. You would be using standard terminology the way everyone else understands them, and you'd define any new terminology needed for something new.

You do neither. It has become apparent why that is, too. On the one hand, you don't understand basic mathematical concepts nor the terms that go along, so you can't use terminology properly. On the other, your thought processes are so muddled and your concepts so twisted, every attempt to lay out definitions immediately turns into a contradiction.

Prove me wrong: Tell us what you mean by "distinction is a first-order property".

 

[zooterkin]

Still eagerly awaiting your response to this:

Let us make sense of it like this:

I was with you up to here...

Each cardinal > 1 is defined by a recursion of two basic states of Distinction, which are:

1) Superposition of Ids (the id of a given element is not crisp).

Superposition of ids of a given element is notated as n , where n = 2 → ∞


2) Crisp id of the given element is notated as n where n=1

And what is your definition of 'crisp'? How do you distinguish between those two ids, both referred to as n? What do they mean, and what do you do with them?

Organic Number 4 is the result of universe ____\. , such that 4 = _____ and 1 = . , gathered by ______

And?

 

[doronshadmi]

You don't say.

Ah well. I guess we need to add basic set theory to the long list of things Doron doesn't understand about mathematics.

Sad, the way a man can waste his life.

Sad, the way a man can't get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4699682&postcount=2752 .

 

[doronshadmi]

Still eagerly awaiting your response to this:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4694499&postcount=2733

 

[doronshadmi]

Cardinal is not a concept nor is it subject to interpretation.

Says the insider.

You would be using standard terminology the way everyone else understands them, and you'd define any new terminology needed for something new.

No.

I think out of the box, and one of things of an outsider is to make a paradigm-shift of so called "well defined ...".

I do not wish to communicate with you as long as you are an insider.

 

[The Man]

You can't.

Whole's "temperature" in the analogy is always > than the "temperature" of the sum of Parts.

In other words, you both have missed the analogy.

No Doron your ‘analogy’ simply does not support or reflect what you are trying to claim. As usual you are simply making a bad analogy.

"Thank you" for ignoring again my non-standard interpretation of the concept of Cardinal.

Again Doron it is not incumbent on anyone to simply accept your interpretations. It is your responsibility to show your interpretation to be meaningful and have utility that perhaps other interpretations do not. So far you can not even show your interpretation to be consistent with, well, your interpretation. Making it both meaningless and without utility

By OM, Cardinal or Magnitude is the measurement unit of the existence of a thing.

None of which have you yet defined in any self consistent fashion. Simply claiming the already well established concept of cardinality as your “measurement unit of the existence of a thing” is not a definition or indication of any usefulness of your “measurement unit of the existence of a thing”, since the useful and meaningful aspects are part of that standard interpretation. You need to accurately and consistently define you own notions, Doron, not simply try to hijack other concepts and claim you are just applying a “non-standard interpretation”.

The cardinal of Whole = Fullness > the cardinal of Collection.

The cardinal of Emptiness < the cardinal of Collection.

Again cardinality is specifically about collections or sets, if you what to talk about something associated to whatever you might consider not to be a collection or set then you are not talking about cardinality. Again hijacking other concepts and claiming “non-standard interpretation” will not float your notions, but will just demonstrate your inability to either understand and apply those concepts or to simply express your own notions and thus just send you sinking right down to the depths of your own ignorance.

You simply can't get new ideas. I am doing my best in order to explain OM's non-standard interpretation of Cardinal, Fullness, Collection, Emptiness and more ...

Yet it still has not dawned on you that the problem is entirely with your notions and how you go about ‘explaining’ them. Nor does it seem apparent to you that really none of this is ‘new’ in any way for anyone (at least not for the posters I have read) but you. Vague and baseless assertions are certainly not new to most of the members on this forum and when we actually start pinning you down on some of the terminology and definitions you try squirming away by switching terminology and definitions, that too is not new for us.

You did nothing in order to get it.

Doron, you still haven’t provided anything to ‘get’. I’m sure in your mind this all seems so important and significant, so much so that you somehow attach the existence of our civilization to your notions. Yet you can not explain anything about your ‘new ideas’ consistently. What you do say that is consistent is simply trivial and not ‘new’ to anyone who has bothered to do some simple research. That these simply trivial and contradictory assertions of yours seem so significant to you just demonstrates that you are attaching far more meaning and significance to them then they merit themselves or that you could ever accurately express with them.

You simply can't think out of your box.

Get out of your ‘box’ Doron start doing some darn research, use established concepts and support your claims. A ‘non-standard interpretation’ only means that you have either not bothered to understand the standard interpretation or can not understand the standard interpretation and most likely that concept simply does not support your claims. Forcing you to hide your own concept behind something established and well defined by calling it a ‘non-standard interpretation’. Define your own concepts and use of terms, stick to those definition, concepts and keep it consistent. Should you find them lacking or contradictory, refine them or do away with them. Do not be afraid to engage in open discussion, listen to what people are telling you, let them know when or why you need to change terms, concepts or interpretation, be specific and support your claims. As noted before you have a very basic fundamental problem with the basis of your notions that you claim it is based on independent aspects that you say can not be researched independently. This is a fundamental flaw; until you can resolve that issue your notions will remain self-inconsistent. The rest is just you wasting your time, as for me, I’ve got time to waste.

 

[jsfisher]

I think out of the box, and one of things of an outsider is to make a paradigm-shift of so called "well defined ...".

Another wrong analogy. Your thinking is without coherence. There is no box.