Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
doronshadmi said:
A point (which is an atom) does not contain anything exactly as {} does not contain anything.
Click to expand...

No, you confuse the existence of an object with it's capacity to contain other existences.

If you say, a point contains no 'other' point then you are correct. But it would be redundant to say.
 
doronshadmi said:
What do you mean by "... just have to deal with infinities?" ?
Click to expand...
That it is time to drop the BS of OM and get with reality as it really is. Not as you wish it to be.

A line is a mathematical construct, therefore it has properties that in reality can only be approached (i.e. quanta, atom diameters etc).

Everyone that works with physics and math knows this, and they know that therefore mathematical constructs can have properties that representation in reality does not have.

It holds no beef to say 'direct perception' of reality says something about mathematics, because the two are separate worlds.

You are using arguments that only hold true in one to defend positions in the other where they do not hold true.
 
realpaladin said:
No, you confuse the existence of an object with it's capacity to contain other existences.

If you say, a point contains no 'other' point then you are correct. But it would be redundant to say.
Click to expand...

Since an existing atom does not contain anything, it is not valued by its capacity to contain other existences.
 
Don't say that next to knowing nought on infinity you also do not know the difference between 'null' and 0
 
Wow, for someone who has a 'direct perception' you sure miss a lot of the finer points of existence.
 
MosheKlein said:
@ have no connection with OM

infact I discover that there is infinit number of operators @1, @2, @3, @4...
were :

@1 = + ( x+y)
@2= * (x*y)
@3 = @ ( x^.. let's wait to jsfisher answer)
Click to expand...


Are you serious? You are claiming the @-operator in:

MosheKlein said:
x@y=y@x
x@(y@z)=(x@y)@z
x@(y*z)=(x@y)*(x*z)
Click to expand...


...can be exponentiation? It doesn't satisfy even your first requirement, commutativity.
 
realpaladin said:
Both places your behinds got kicked with exactly the same arguments as here. With a little less verbal sneer perhaps...
Click to expand...
Less verbal sneer? I don't know - but I did like this:

Doron: So, please let us open a dialog, by reply something about my work.
Bookman: I'm afraid that's impossible. My area of study is mathematics, so I'm not really qualified to speak about your writings.
:D
 
realpaladin said:
Don't say that next to knowing nought on infinity you also do not know the difference between 'null' and 0
Click to expand...
'Null' is valued by 0, as the "content" of an existing thing like {}.

{} can be taken as general representaion of an atom.

. is a local atom.

__ is a non-local atom.

OM's universe is __\. linkage.

realpaladin said:
Wow, for someone who has a 'direct perception' you sure miss a lot of the finer points of existence.
Click to expand...
You give yourself a credit that you don't deserve.
 
Last edited:
realpaladin said:
No, the simplest representation is a negatory representation of a coördinate (point), i.e.

!x

Meaning, everywhere, but here.

Sorry to have missed that error. But here it is.
Click to expand...

So you don't wish to get what wavicle is, isn't it realpaladin?
 
dlorde said:
Less verbal sneer? I don't know - but I did like this:

Doron: So, please let us open a dialog, by reply something about my work.
Bookman: I'm afraid that's impossible. My area of study is mathematics, so I'm not really qualified to speak about your writings.
:D
Click to expand...


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4883977&postcount=4743

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4884105&postcount=4746

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4884082&postcount=4745
 
doronshadmi said:
'Null' is valued by 0, as the "content" of an existing thing like {}.
Click to expand...

No, null denotes the existence. 0 denotes a value.


doronshadmi said:
{} can be taken as general representaion of an atom.
Click to expand...

So, {} contains the existence of {}, i.e. it is not null, but contains 0 values of other points.

That means, a point contains itself (which is {}) an no other points.

doronshadmi said:
. is a local atom.

__ is a non-local atom.

OM's universe is __\. linkage.
Click to expand...

A point is a point and a line is linked to points by being defined by them. Sheesh.

doronshadmi said:
You give yourself a credit that you don't deserve.
Click to expand...

I will be the judge of that. After trying to teach you what reality is about, I deserve more than I get.
 
doronshadmi said:
So you don't wish to get what wavicle is, isn't it realpaladin?
Click to expand...

And here you nicely illustrate my point that you have absolutely no clue as to when you are talking about mathematics and when you are talking about physics.

So, since you keep talking about physical aspects of OM, I take it it has no beef with pure mathematics?

Why do you talk about a line then? A line is a pure mathematical concept, that is why it can contain a type 2 infinity number of points. And pure mathematics can deal with constructs like 'no dimension' and 'no mass'

A wavicle is a model for physics, it has to deal with units, mass and other concepts that put restraints on the mathematics that can be utilised.

If your OM is a physics model, fine, then let's go that route, if it is a mathematical concept, fine, let's go that route.

But you can not mix and match the two without any consequences!

EDIT: and before I forget... how is your answer EVER a rebuttal to my statement that the smallest representation of non-locality is 'everywhere but not here' or !x???
 
Last edited:
dlorde said:
Less verbal sneer? I don't know - but I did like this:

Doron: So, please let us open a dialog, by reply something about my work.
Bookman: I'm afraid that's impossible. My area of study is mathematics, so I'm not really qualified to speak about your writings.
:D
Click to expand...

Dlorde,

Having been burned a number of times in my attempts to express in my own words what Doron means by his Organic Mathematics,
I suspect no one but Doron is qualified to speak of Organic Mathematics.

Already we've learned that MosheKlein's paper on OM missed the mark and is no longer "relevant."
(See posts 4607 and 4692.)

OM is now "Direct Perception" and words are just "blau-blau."
(The OM that can be spoken isn't the OM.)
(The OM that can be demonstrated isn't The OM)

With the exception, of course, of Doron's presentations.

Mu!
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom