Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
Last edited:
There is no such thing like "well-established ones already" and this is exactly my argument in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4816519&postcount=3719 .


Translation: Doron's words mean exactly what Doron wants them to mean and are subject to change, sometimes mid-sentence, without notice.

Doron, since this is perhaps the clearest declaration from you that your intention is specifically to not communicate, it is past time for you to keep your promise to just move on.
 
Translation: Doron's words mean exactly what Doron wants them to mean and are subject to change, sometimes mid-sentence, without notice.

Doron, since this is perhaps the clearest declaration from you that your intention is specifically to not communicate, it is past time for you to keep your promise to just move on.

I must admit, I have no communication with stuffed minds that will never get things like:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4610563&postcount=2467

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4726464&postcount=2899

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4736064&postcount=2973

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4736227&postcount=2981

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4784092&postcount=3381
 
Last edited:
Most of the people are using day by day both parallel and serial reasoning under a one framework.

Give examples please. But first please explain what "under a one framework" means since it does not parse into proper English.

Do you really believe that our reality can be reduced to "if A then B" relations?

Our reality is much more complex than "if A then B" relations, and only a tiny part of it obeys this mechanical relation.

The wet dream of a lot of scientists (of both abstract and non-abstract sciences) is to reduce any given reality to "if A then B" relations, but this wet dream is nothing but an illusion because reality is beyond any attempt to categorize it, exactly because Uncertainty and Redundancy are fundamentals that cannot be captured by any packaging method.

Instead of looking at Uncertainty and Redundancy as a back ground noise that has be eliminated in order to get the "if A then B" necessary truth, OM enables the researcher to air his view by not ignoring the non-trivial accusations that may exist between the researched, where the researcher's possible influences on the results are inseparable and significant factor of the research, whether it is abstract or not.

OM is not for lazy minds that reduces anything to "if A then B" .

Too bad you spent so much time and effort, but you didn't answer either question/request. We'll make this simple. You claim that, "Most of the people are using day by day both parallel and serial reasoning under a one [sic] framework." Please give examples.
 
Your last reply is another step of not getting OM.
Rutherford said "If you really understand something you should be able to explain it to your grandmother".
Feynman said "If you can't explain something to a first year student, then you haven't really understood it".
Einstein said "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough".

Seems to me they're telling you something...
 
Too bad you spent so much time and effort, but you didn't answer either question/request. We'll make this simple. You claim that, "Most of the people are using day by day both parallel and serial reasoning under a one [sic] framework." Please give examples.
When things are done not only by "if A then B" reasoning.

For example, please look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateral_thinking for more details.
 
Last edited:
Rutherford said "If you really understand something you should be able to explain it to your grandmother".
Feynman said "If you can't explain something to a first year student, then you haven't really understood it".
Einstein said "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough".

Seems to me they're telling you something...

Seems to me that they are all belong to the step-by-step school of thought.
 
Seems to me that they are all belong to the step-by-step school of thought.
The school of thought isn't relevant - they're just saying that if you can't explain your ideas so that a reasonably competent person can understand them, you don't really understand what you're talking about.
 
The school of thought isn't relevant - they're just saying that if you can't explain your ideas so that a reasonably competent person can understand them, you don't really understand what you're talking about.
If your thinking style is limited to X you will not get Y unless you make a paradigm-shift in your mind.

Y (OM in this case) cannot be undertood by X-only thinkers, unless they make a paradigm-shift in their own mind.

Can you do this paradigm-shift (please read also http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4816519&postcount=3719)?
 
Last edited:
So, when are you going to make the paradigm shift that will enable you to understand real maths?
No, when you get things beyond step-by-step reasoning you will find that fundamental mathematical concepts are changed by a paradigm-shift.
 
There is a beautiful phrase in English which is: "to air ones view"
"To air one's view".
which is the opposite of "to strangle ones view"

Firstly, that isn't a well known phrase in English; secondly, it's not really the opposite of the former saying. But don't let that bother you, as most corrections don't seem to.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom