Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
Typicallucas said:
Is there a reason why this is in "Religion and Philosophy" question mark.
Click to expand...

It was booted from the Science and Mathematics forum for lack of, well, science or mathematics.

At the time of the eviction, it seemed DoronShadmi was heading in a philosophic direction, but that turned into a failure. Doron still often pretends to talk all mathematical, but when called on his nonsense he'll either ignore any criticism with his patented "you don't understand" schtick (his current favorite) or hide behind this forum's title and claim his work is all "pre-axiomatic" which, I guess, means it doesn't need to make any sense.

I suppose a very valid question would be what, if any, forum here would be proper for Doron's dissertation on Doronetics. Religion and Philosophy is actually not a bad choice. Doron is mostly bankrupt on the philosophy front, but his beliefs and evangelistic techniques are dead-on for religion.

One could make a case for each of Humor, Abandon All Hope, and Million Dollar Challenge, too, albeit flippant.
 
jsfisher said:
... So far, including yourself, of course, I believe the total count has reached exactly one. You must be very proud. At least you can say you haven't lost any followers, yet.
Click to expand...
That reminds me - didn't Doron originally have a co-author? Or am I mis-remembering?

I had a quick re-read of page one in case there was any mention of a co-author and found this little gem which made me smile. Post 20, in reply to nathan -
doronshadmi said:
You simply cannot get things beyond the Set case, where anything is already clearly identified.
Click to expand...
(boldification mine)
 
The Man said:
Thus, at least it seems that in his mind, making his responses to my post not actually responses to my post since he does not refer to me directly.
Click to expand...
Here the insider shows his hypocrisy.

He has no problem to understand the difference between direct or indirect approach, as long as it is related to him.

But when an indirect approach is used to research totalities, he suddenly "can't get it".

For example:
http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OMPT.pdf (page 29)
Emptiness is too weak for direct research, where Fullness is too strong for direct research. The intermediate result between Emptiness and Fullness is used to research them indirectly (to find their signature), as follows:

[ ] is a domain that exists at the intermediate level, where [ ] is used to distinguish between in_the_domain, out_the_domain binary states.

empty in [ ] NOR empty out [ ] is a non-local signature of Emptiness w.r.t the domain.

full in [_]_ AND full out [_]_ is a non-local signature of Fullness w.r.t the domain.

empty in [ ]_ XOR full out [ ]_ is a local signature of Emptiness w.r.t the domain.

full in [_] XOR empty out [_] is a local signature of Fullness w.r.t the domain.
Click to expand...

Insiders do not wish to learn new things about what they call "well defined" agreed definitions, terms, concepts, etc …

All they wish is to force anyone to be like them, because they can't survive beyond the production line ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4702029&postcount=2768 ) of their community.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Here the insider shows his hypocrisy.

He has no problem to understand the difference between direct or indirect approach, as long as it is related to him.

But when an indirect approach is used to research totalities, he suddenly "can't get it".

For example:
http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OMPT.pdf (page 29)


Insiders do not wish to learn new things about what they call "well defined" agreed definitions, terms, concepts, etc …

All they wish is to force anyone to be like them, because they can't survive beyond the production line ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4702029&postcount=2768 ) of their community.
Click to expand...

We do want to learn new things, it's just you can't explain them. You will use terms without any introduction of what they mean ("crisp"), misuse words with established definitions ("cardinality"), not use words correctly ("cardinal"), not give definitions ("magnitude of existance" and "distinction is a first order property"), and introduce new terms on a whim.
 
Little 10 Toes said:
We do want to learn new things, it's just you can't explain them. You will use terms without any introduction of what they mean ("crisp"), misuse words with established definitions ("cardinality"), not use words correctly ("cardinal"), not give definitions ("magnitude of existance" and "distinction is a first order property"), and introduce new terms on a whim.
Click to expand...

Let me ask you a question (it is an analogy, so please be careful):

The dimension of . (= its magnitude of existence) is exactly 0.

The dimension of _____ (= its magnitude of existence) is exactly 1.

Can a sum of non-finite . be _____ ?
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Here the insider shows his hypocrisy.

He has no problem to understand the difference between direct or indirect approach, as long as it is related to him.

But when an indirect approach is used to research totalities, he suddenly "can't get it".

For example:
http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OMPT.pdf (page 29)


Insiders do not wish to learn new things about what they call "well defined" agreed definitions, terms, concepts, etc …

All they wish is to force anyone to be like them, because they can't survive beyond the production line ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4702029&postcount=2768 ) of their community.
Click to expand...

Here Doron again shows his self-deception by continuing to reply to my posts while he convinces himself that an ‘indirect’ reference makes it not a reply to my post. Doron claims he has something ‘new’ about "well defined" agreed definitions, terms, concepts, etc …” , but can not demonstrate that he even understands those ‘"well defined" agreed definitions, terms, concepts, etc …”. Again showing his self-deception by thinking that him simply making baseless claims about “"well defined" agreed definitions, terms, concepts, etc …”, that he clearly can not demonstrate an understanding of, is something ‘new’ His only whish is that people simply accept his claims because his claims can not survive under direct scrutiny.
 
The Man said:
Here Doron again shows his self-deception by continuing to reply to my posts while he convinces himself that an ‘indirect’ reference makes it not a reply to my post. Doron claims he has something ‘new’ about "well defined" agreed definitions, terms, concepts, etc …” , but can not demonstrate that he even understands those ‘"well defined" agreed definitions, terms, concepts, etc …”. Again showing his self-deception by thinking that him simply making baseless claims about “"well defined" agreed definitions, terms, concepts, etc …”, that he clearly can not demonstrate an understanding of, is something ‘new’ His only whish is that people simply accept his claims because his claims can not survive under direct scrutiny.
Click to expand...
Oopss, I made a mistake.

An insider can't be aware of its hypocrisy.

I gave him too much credit.
 
doronshadmi said:
Let me ask you a question (it is an analogy, so please be careful):

The dimension of . (= its magnitude of existence) is exactly 0.

The dimension of _____ (= its magnitude of existence) is exactly 1.

Can a sum of non-finite . be _____ ?
Click to expand...

So now dimension is your ‘magnitude of existence? Did your cardinal fly away?


Again if you actually understood the "well defined" agreed definitions, terms, concepts, etc …” you would know that points define a line and the dimension of a line is the result of the ‘dragging’ and not the sum of the dimensionless point. Of course that point has already been expressed to you.
 
catbasket said:
That reminds me - didn't Doron originally have a co-author? Or am I mis-remembering?

I had a quick re-read of page one in case there was any mention of a co-author and found this little gem which made me smile. Post 20, in reply to nathan -

(boldification mine)
Click to expand...

Well catbasket that is just Doron's 'indirect' approach to ‘research‘. “where anything is already clearly identified” would severely hamper Doron’s notion of ‘research’ as he could not simply make whatever baseless claim he feels like today.
 
The Man said:
So now dimension is your ‘magnitude of existence? Did your cardinal fly away?


Again if you actually understood the "well defined" agreed definitions, terms, concepts, etc …” you would know that points define a line and the dimension of a line is the result of the ‘dragging’ and not the sum of the dimensionless point. Of course that point has already been expressed to you.
Click to expand...

Now the insider wishes to tell us that a line is the result of 'dragging' a point (he does not write dragging, but 'dragging' in order to show us that he can't express exactly his notion).

But think, how can a point be dragged (or 'dragged') if there is no line (a path) to be dragged (or 'dragged') along?

Or shell we claim that a line is actually a stretched point? (in this case we actually claim that 0=1, which is a contradiction).

"the result of the ‘dragging’" is indeed a baseless reasoning that must be rejected.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Now the insider wish to tell us that a line is the result of 'dragging' a point.

But think, how can a point be dragged if there is no line (a path) to be dragged along?

Or shell we claim that a line is actually a stretched point? (in this case we actually claim that 0=1, which is a contradiction).
Click to expand...

What do you mean ‘now’ again if you bothered to do any research you would find that higher dimensional elements can be considered the result of the ‘dragging’ of lower dimensional elements, as has already be brought up on this thread. That a point has no dimensions or that a line only has one dimension does not infer that higher dimensions or higher dimensional elements do not or can not conceptually exist.
 
The Man said:
What do you mean ‘now’ again if you bothered to do any research you would find that higher dimensional elements can be considered the result of the ‘dragging’ of lower dimensional elements, as has already be brought up on this thread. That a point has no dimensions or that a line only has one dimension does not infer that higher dimensions or higher dimensional elements do not or can not conceptually exist.
Click to expand...

Here the insider totally ignores http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4709081&postcount=2811 .
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
Doron I quoted and responded to your post in it's entirety, that you choose not to understand the ‘"well defined" agreed definitions, terms, concepts, etc …” you claim to be supplanting and continue to surreptitiously edit your posts is simply your problem.
Click to expand...

If the insiders were bother to do any research, there is some chance that they will find that the claim that "higher dimensional elements can be considered the result of the ‘dragging’ of lower dimensional elements" is an utter nonsense or a contradiction.

Again,

"the result of the ‘dragging’" is indeed a baseless reasoning that must be rejected (please see http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4709081&postcount=2811 ).

The Man said:
That a point has no dimensions or that a line only has one dimension does not infer that higher dimensions or higher dimensional elements do not or can not conceptually exist.
Click to expand...
Here the insider actually supports OM's reasoning, which claims that a point and a line are mutually independent (they are not derived from each other).
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
If the insiders were bother to do any research, there is some chance that they will find that the claim that "higher dimensional elements can be considered the result of the ‘dragging’ of lower dimensional elements" is an utter nonsense or a contradiction.
Click to expand...

Well utter nonsense and contradiction would seem to be your particular area of expertise, but then that is only in writing it while not actually recognizing it.


doronshadmi said:
Again,

"the result of the ‘dragging’" is indeed a baseless reasoning that must be rejected (please see http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4709081&postcount=2811 ).
Click to expand...

You can reject whatever you want and that seems to be your forte as well, just rejecting everything that does not conform to your indefinite and contradictory interpretations.

doronshadmi said:
Here the insider actually supports OM's reasoning, which claims that a point and a line are mutually independent (they are not derived from each other).
Click to expand...

Did you miss the part before about points defining a line, they are most certainly not mutually independent, but then you do have problems just understanding what mutual independence means.
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
Well utter nonsense and contradiction would seem to be your particular area of expertise, but then that is only in writing it while not actually recognizing it.




You can reject whatever you want and that seems to be your forte as well, just rejecting everything that does not conform to your indefinite and contradictory interpretations.



Did you miss the part before about points defining a line, they are most certainly not mutually independent, but then you do have problems just understanding what mutual independence means.
Click to expand...
Here the insider can't see even the edge of its own tail.

It is now clearer why there is no use to waste energy with insideres.

We are close olso the indirect reply.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom