Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
bradm said:
Is Organic Mathematics meaningful research in an exact science? If so, what kinds of interactions were there between you (the researcher) and OM (the researched)? More importantly, what were your (the researcher's) possible influences on the results, influences that were systematically learned, instead of totally ignored?

Aloha,
Brad
Click to expand...

Shalom Brad,

Please read http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OMPT.pdf .
 
bradm said:
Is Organic Mathematics meaningful research in an exact science? If so, what kinds of interactions were there between you (the researcher) and OM (the researched)? More importantly, what were your (the researcher's) possible influences on the results, influences that were systematically learned, instead of totally ignored?

Aloha,
Brad
Click to expand...

Welcome to the forum Bard and I'm glad to see you jumping right in. I think your last question is the most relevant in that ignorance seems to be Doron's primary approach to research, particular his own. If you look through the thread you will see Doron’s consistent references to what he calls 'parallel thinking' as the foundation of his notions. Yet time and time again Doron specifically requires what he calls ‘step by step’ processes for people to 'get' his notions. This ‘step by step’ aspect is what Doron finds the limiting problem of current knowledge that his ‘parallel thinking’ is intended to overcome. Again Doron’s contradictory tendencies are demonstrated by his previous post, in that the professed 'influences' must be 'systematically learned'. As such Doron's notions generally fail when just applied to themselves. In this case being a process of 'parallel thinking' that is the foundation of his notions which itself requires at its base the 'step by step' approach of 'systematic learning'
 
The Man said:
Welcome to the forum Bard and I'm glad to see you jumping right in. I think your last question is the most relevant in that ignorance seems to be Doron's primary approach to research, particular his own. If you look through the thread you will see Doron’s consistent references to what he calls 'parallel thinking' as the foundation of his notions. Yet time and time again Doron specifically requires what he calls ‘step by step’ processes for people to 'get' his notions. This ‘step by step’ aspect is what Doron finds the limiting problem of current knowledge that his ‘parallel thinking’ is intended to overcome. Again Doron’s contradictory tendencies are demonstrated by his previous post, in that the professed 'influences' must be 'systematically learned'. As such Doron's notions generally fail when just applied to themselves. In this case being a process of 'parallel thinking' that is the foundation of his notions which itself requires at its base the 'step by step' approach of 'systematic learning'
Click to expand...

As can be seen The Man simply can't avoid the translation of any word in terms of serial thinking.

In this case he thinks that the words "systematic learning" and "step by step learning" are the same thing.

Well, they are not if a research is not limited only to a "step by step" thinking.

Also "parallel thinking" has no process, "parallel thinking" is an "at once" learning style.

The Man still does not get after more than 3500 posts that OM is both parallel and serial thinking under a one comprehensive framework, and his inability to get it is probebly not going to be changed if he failed to do so until now.

Anyone that gets a line in terms of dragging point, is a closed case and The Man is a profound example of :boxedin:.

But sometimes miracles happen, let us try to see what The Man has to say about http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4805347&postcount=3645 .
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
In simple terms, any meaningful research (abstract or not) in exact sciences is the result of the interaction between the researcher and the researched, where the researcher's possible influences on the results are systematically learned, instead of totally ignored.
Click to expand...

So basically you're referring to the observer effect of QM? Did you really have to spend almost 100 pages to establish something that's already a given? :confused:
 
AkuManiMani said:
So basically you're referring to the observer effect of QM? Did you really have to spend almost 100 pages to establish something that's already a given? :confused:
Click to expand...

QM is nothing but a particular example in Physics, OM is more comprehensive abouit this subject, as can be seen in http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OMPT.pdf .


Please look also at http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4816519&postcount=3719 .

More philosophical view can be seen in http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OMI2.pdf .
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
QM is nothing but a particular example in Physics, OM is more comprehensive abouit this subject, as can be seen in http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OMPT.pdf .


Please look also at http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4816519&postcount=3719 .

More philosophical view can be seen in http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OMI2.pdf .
Click to expand...

Have you considered uploading your papers onto sites like Scribd instead of some backwater geocities page? Just sayin'... :o

ETA: BTW, perhaps you should consider presenting your argument in informal layman's terms before you start bombarding your readers with highly formalized language and terminologies. You could have the most profound theory in the world but if you obscure it in too much arcane jargon its as good as dead :covereyes
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Can't deal with http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4805347&postcount=3645 , isn't it jsfisher.

Maybe "up to" zooterkin can help you.
Click to expand...


You continue to dodge any obligation to define your terms. Curious that. Instead, you drag out the same sorry post you clearly admitted was pointless and demand a response. Ok, here it is: You began with a blatant misstatement about the number line. You demonstrated no understanding of the significance of Ford's circles. And you took the normal hierarchy of numbers and got it exactly backwards.

Your turn. What do you mean by distinction (including how is it calculated), and in what way is it a first order property?
 
bradm said:
Is Organic Mathematics meaningful research in an exact science? If so, what kinds of interactions were there between you (the researcher) and OM (the researched)? More importantly, what were your (the researcher's) possible influences on the results, influences that were systematically learned, instead of totally ignored?

Aloha,
Brad
Click to expand...


Bradm,
You only get one first post, and you wasted it on this thread. I'm floored.

By the way, welcome to the forums. :)
 
AkuManiMani said:
Have you considered uploading your papers onto sites like Scribd instead of some backwater geocities page? Just sayin'... :o

ETA: BTW, perhaps you should consider presenting your argument in informal layman's terms before you start bombarding your readers with highly formalized language and terminologies. You could have the most profound theory in the world but if you obscure it in too much arcane jargon its as good as dead :covereyes
Click to expand...

What is not understood in? :
It is reasonable that the designer has to be aware of himself as an inseparable factor of the impact of his designs. For the past 3000 years the western school of thought teaching the designer to ignore himself as a significant factor of his designs, in order get the requested objective results.

In our opinion this ignorance increasing the probability of the designer's self destruction. We think that it is about time to realize that parameter L of Drake equation [1] is first of all related to our own civilization, but as long as most engineers and scientists do not really aware of the responsibility of their own actions during real-time developments, the probability of the designer's self destruction increasing.

Is it possible to develop a comprehensive scientific framework that enables to rigorously define the bridge between Ethics and Formal Logic?

In our opinion, any intelligent civilization must not escape from this question, and has to do its best in order to define the common base ground for both Ethics and Formal Logic. These efforts are naturally focused on the most affective framework that was developed for the past 3000 years, known as Mathematical Science. By using this powerful language, one may extend it into a comprehensive framework that enables to rigorously define the bridge between Ethics and Formal Logic.

It is clearly not an easy task, but we believe that we have to do our best in order to develop such a framework, which will be used as a reliable mirror for any scientist during his real-time developments, whether they are abstract or not.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation
Click to expand...
 
doronshadmi said:
What is not understood in? :
Click to expand...

Leaving aside the fact that what they are trying to say is not clear, not a single sentence in that is grammatically correct English.

ETA: I retract. The last sentence ("It is clearly not...") is grammatically fine, I just have no clue what it means.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
What is not understood in? :
Click to expand...

Because you have to spell out why it is that the observing subject ignoring their inherent link to the observed object leads to self-destruction.

You have to explain how this connects to the complementary relation between ethics based rationality [subject oriented] and logic based rationality [object oriented]. You have to be able to translate whatever insights you believe you have into layman's terms; be able to break it down in such a way that a child could grasp it.

In your mind, your statements and arguments are crystal clear, but for those who do not have your background what you're saying is intellectual gibberish. You might as well be trying to communicate in machine code. I'll try to give some examples you may be familiar with.

Richard Feynman was able to communicate his models and concepts in a very straightforward, down to earth way. As a result, his intellectual contributions have had broad impact even among many in the lay public. By comparison, David Bohm had a hard time communicating his ideas to his own colleges -- people who actually worked in the same fields as him. His arguments were so laced w/ arcana that relatively few people understood his meaning, and even fewer accepted his ideas. The tragic part is that much of what he had to offer was quite insightful but, because he obscured it so much in dense jargon, his ideas failed to get the broader reception they probably deserved.

See what I'm sayin'?
 
Last edited:
AkuManiMani said:
Because you have to spell out why it is that the observing subject ignoring their inherent link to the observed object leads to self-destruction.

You have to explain how this connects to the complementary relation between ethics based rationality [subject oriented] and logic based rationality [object oriented]. You have to be able to translate whatever insights you believe you have into layman's terms; be able to break it down in such a way that a child could grasp it.

In your mind, your statements and arguments are crystal clear, but for those who do not have your background what you're saying is intellectual gibberish. You might as well be trying to communicate in machine code. I'll try to give some examples you may be familiar with.

Richard Feynman was able to communicate his models and concepts in a very straightforward, down to earth way. As a result, his intellectual contributions have had broad impact even among many in the lay public. By comparison, David Bohm had a hard time communicating his ideas to his own colleges -- people who actually worked in the same fields as him. His arguments were so laced w/ arcana that relatively few people understood his meaning, and even fewer accepted his ideas. The tragic part is that much of what he had to offer was quite insightful but, because he obscured it so much in dense jargon, his ideas failed to get the broader reception they probably deserved.

See what I'm sayin'?
Click to expand...


Please try http://www.scribd.com/doc/16547236/EEM .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom