Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
realpaladin said:
The TM University of the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi used exactly the same words 'direct perception' and 'Organic Mathematics' in the '90's, and the Transcendental Meditation 'movement' is classified as a cult. So, yes.

It fell down on exactly the same two glaring mistakes Doron makes.
Click to expand...

If you go back 30 or 40 pages, Doron actually brings up TM. Asserting that the basis of his particular OM was his perception (or thoughts) during some TM, which of course I replied that doesn't that mean you were doing it wrong since TM is suppose to free you from specifically your own perceptions (or thoughts), at least during that mediation.
 
Oh, geez. I missed the significance of the whole TM connection. It explains so much.

Doron, WAKE UP. You are having a dream...a bad one at that.
 
realpaladin said:
The TM University of the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi used exactly the same words 'direct perception' and 'Organic Mathematics' in the '90's, and the Transcendental Meditation 'movement' is classified as a cult. So, yes.

It fell down on exactly the same two glaring mistakes Doron makes.
Click to expand...
Direct perception has nothing to do with its verbal description called "direct perception", exactly as silence itself is not the word "silence".

All you have found is verbal descriptions, used by this or that organization, so what?

Again you show us that you can't get things beyond their bla bla bla … level.
 
jsfisher said:
Oh, geez. I missed the significance of the whole TM connection. It explains so much.

Doron, WAKE UP. You are having a dream...a bad one at that.
Click to expand...

What a relief jsfisher, at last you caught me.

OOppsss… you did not, because you are a verbal-only thinker.
 
The Man said:
If you go back 30 or 40 pages, Doron actually brings up TM. Asserting that the basis of his particular OM was his perception (or thoughts) during some TM, which of course I replied that doesn't that mean you were doing it wrong since TM is suppose to free you from specifically your own perceptions (or thoughts), at least during that mediation.
Click to expand...
Direct perception is not a thought.

Thoughts are organized by direct perception.


EDIT:


It goes like this:

There is a direct perception.

Thoughts are organized by it.

Some example of organized thoughts:

"No amount of 0-dim elements can fully cover a 1-dim element"

Jsfisher, can't get direct perception and can't get this example of organized thoughts, so let us help him like that:

_____ represents a non-finite 1-dim element.

• represents a single 0-dim element.

There are infinitely many • on _____

By using organized thoughts that are based on direct perception, it is shown that
for any arbitrary • on _____ there is • < • < • , where < is possible for any amount of • on _____ exactly because no collection of • elements can fully cover _____
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Jsfisher, can't get direct perception and can't get this example of organized thoughts
Click to expand...


That belief may provide you some comfort, but I still have the advantage. My stuff works; yours, not so much. It keeps giving you wrong answers. Good luck with it though. Maybe someday you'll actually find a use for it.
 
doronshadmi said:
Direct perception is not a thought.

Thoughts are organized by direct perception.


EDIT:


It goes like this:

There is a direct perception.

Thoughts are organized by it.

Some example of organized thoughts:

"No amount of 0-dim elements can fully cover a 1-dim element"

Jsfisher, can't get direct perception and can't get this example of organized thoughts, so let us help him like that:

_____ represents a non-finite 1-dim element.

• represents a single 0-dim element.

There are infinitely many • on _____

By using organized thoughts that are based on direct perception, it is shown that
for any arbitrary • on _____ there is • < • < • , where < is possible for any amount of • on _____ exactly because no collection of • elements can fully cover _____
Click to expand...

What? So you don't think you are perceiving anything in your "direct perception"? Fine as we have always said OM is about nothing. Since thought is a ‘direct perception’, at least for the thinker.

I do complement you on your properly noted edit though.
 
jsfisher said:
That belief may provide you some comfort, but I still have the advantage. My stuff works; yours, not so much. It keeps giving you wrong answers. Good luck with it though. Maybe someday you'll actually find a use for it.
Click to expand...
Good luck to you too.

Someday you will get direct perception and how your thoughts are organized by it.

At the moment that it will happen, you will find that it is at least n-Uncertainty x n-Redundancy tree, where your worked stuff is some particular case of it.
 
jsfisher said:
As usual, you assume your posts have a clarity and correctness they have never exhibited.
Click to expand...

I do not expect from a person that can't use direct perception, to get my posts.

I do expect from a person not to twist my work for his propaganda, as you did in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4872949&postcount=4391 when you wrongly (by purpose) connected between direct perception and Ford circles (here are my replies to you because of your twisted-by-purpose use:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4873043&postcount=4401

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4873728&postcount=4408 )
 
Mosheklein,

You have been rather quiet lately. Are you still trying to come up with an example to show that organic mathematics has utility with a real-life practical application? I understand completely about the game and protecting its commercial viability, but surely there must be another example you can describe to us.

Frankly, I am astonished Doronshadmi is coming up blank on this. He's spent, what?, twenty some years considering this ideas and telling people how it completely revolutionizes Mathematics, and yet he can't provide a single practical use. I am concerned, too, that Doronshadmi may be having doubts. He truly does not have a single example of what organic mathematics can do in any practical sense. That must be shaking his foundation at least a little.

At any rate, Mosheklein, if you have even one minor practical use for organic mathematics, that would go a long way to show us all (including Doronshadmi at this point) that there is more to this than just transcendental medication mysticism.

Or is that all there is to it?
 
doronshadmi said:
Direct perception has nothing to do with its verbal description called "direct perception", exactly as silence itself is not the word "silence".

All you have found is verbal descriptions, used by this or that organization, so what?

Again you show us that you can't get things beyond their bla bla bla … level.
Click to expand...

New terms again doronshadmi? Please describe "direct perception" without using words since words are used in verbal descriptions.

Please provide us a use of OM in a real world example.
 
jsfisher said:
Mosheklein,

You have been rather quiet lately. Are you still trying to come up with an example to show that organic mathematics has utility with a real-life practical application? I understand completely about the game and protecting its commercial viability, but surely there must be another example you can describe to us.

Frankly, I am astonished Doronshadmi is coming up blank on this. He's spent, what?, twenty some years considering this ideas and telling people how it completely revolutionizes Mathematics, and yet he can't provide a single practical use. I am concerned, too, that Doronshadmi may be having doubts. He truly does not have a single example of what organic mathematics can do in any practical sense. That must be shaking his foundation at least a little.

At any rate, Mosheklein, if you have even one minor practical use for organic mathematics, that would go a long way to show us all (including Doronshadmi at this point) that there is more to this than just transcendental medication mysticism.

Or is that all there is to it?
Click to expand...

jsfisher,

I have enter to this forum since you claim that there are 10 mistaks in my algorithm of On. Since then ddt compute the first 100 On(n) numbers
Doron said that there is completely new way to look on distinction
as you begin to understand.

As you know Quantum mechanics was developed to provide a better explanation of the atom, especially the spectra of light emitted by different atomic species. The quantum theory of the atom was developed as an explanation for the electron's staying in its orbital, which could not be explained by Newton's laws of motion and by Maxwell's laws of classical electromagnetism.

In the conference in Sweden there was a lecture saying that we are waiting today to a new Newton who will invent/discover new mathematics.

I know that OM is this New Mathematics !

Moshe
 
MosheKlein said:
In the conference in Sweden there was a lecture saying that we are waiting today to a new Newton who will invent/discover new mathematics.

I know that OM is this New Mathematics !
Click to expand...

I have succesfully shown that Ayurvedic Mathematics are not Ayurvedic Mathematics, nor are they a new way of looking at things.

They are simply Mathematics. Period.

It turned out simply to be a stack of handy algorithms (whom I *do* use to teach kids advanced math, so it *is* quite valuable).

Do not make a claim that you can not prove yet. You can not prove it yet. You are in the 'convince' phase of a possible discovery.

Moshe, do not let Doron do a 'Fleishman' on you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom