Deeper than primes

[Little 10 Toes]

Second time asking: Is there a vaild reason why you are avoiding my posts?

If a line is made up of points,

A line is not made up of points, exactly as a plane is not made up of lines , etc... ad infinitum.

Since this is the case, our system is the result of the linkage between Locality and Non-locality.

Third time's the charm?

Why can't you answer my whole post here? It is because I'm right?

Oh, by the way. You're message has been reported.

Edit: Screw it, you've already admited it. Reporting cancelled.

 

[The Man]

Any collection (of abstract things or not) is based on finitely or infinitely many things, where each one of them is local, such that each local thing can be common XOR non-common with respect to any other thing.

Things can have aspects in common as well as having other aspects not in common. A collection specifically groups things by some common aspect or aspects and as they are not all the same thing then they must also have at least some asspect not in common. Again simply trivial.

On the contrary the source of thoughts, which is not a thought, can be common AND non-common with respects to any given thought, which is a property that no thought has with respect to any other thought (a thought can be common XOR non-common with respect to any other thought).

This simple and straightforward notion is clearly demonstrated by http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5130111&postcount=5994 which can’t be grasped by your limited local-only reasoning.

Simply your usual self contradictory, undefined and naïve thinking, nothing prevents a thought from contradicting itself, as you clearly demonstrate. Again even thoughts can have certain aspects in common as well as other aspects not in common. Simply being classified as a thought gives them at least that common aspect and as they are not the same thought, dictates at least some aspect not in common.

If X is not made of Y then X existence is independent of Y. It does not mean that these independent existences can’t be used as building-blocks of some complex that has the combined properties of both biding-blocks such that the unique property of each building-block is not totally eliminated by the other buiding-block.

If X is defined by Y then X is not independent of Y, again simply trivial.

For example: 0.999... < 1 exactly because its non-local property is not totally eliminated by its local property, as clearly shown in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5018555&postcount=5840.

0.9999...= 1 exactly because 3 * 1/3 = 1, your inability to understand simple concepts is all that is “clearly shown” by almost all of your posts.

Since it is found by measuring the “energy flow”, then that system is not totally closed.

Well, we can now add ‘closed systems’ to the ever growing list of concepts you simply do not comprehend.

 

[doronshadmi]

The empty set has no members, why do you have such a problem understanding that?

The axiom of the empty set ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_empty_set ):

There is a set such that no set is a member of it.

One of the sets that is not a member of the empty set, is the empty set.

If the axiom of the empty set is a definition of creation (as you claim) then we have a circular reasoning because the empty set uses its own creation as a part of the definition that creates it.

In order to avoid this circular reasoning where X is used to create X, we say that the definition does not create X but it simply uses it as one of the already existing sets that are not the members of X (where X is the empty set, in this case).

The Man, this abstraction is beyond your abilities.

“{{}}” is a power set of the empty set not the empty set itself, the contradiction remains simply yours.

You do not understand my argument.

Definition is not just a process of “description” a specific thought is ’created’ by becoming defined. Your “Direct perception” is just a thought you defined in your own head but cannot seem to adequacy describe to others.

Since you are not aware that your “Direct perception” is just a thought you created in your own head you imagine your thought as “the source of thoughts”.

Another example of your “closed under thoughts” awareness.

Closed systems develop, as usual your assertions are simply wrong.

In order to know that you have to measure them. Therefore they are not closed.

 

[doronshadmi]

Things can have aspects in common as well as having other aspects not in common. A collection specifically groups things by some common aspect or aspects and as they are not all the same thing then they must also have at least some asspect not in common. Again simply trivial.

It is trivial to anyone that is not aware of the difference between Locality and Non-locality, as you do.

For example:

Things can have aspects in common as well as having other aspects not in common.

nothing prevents a thought from contradicting itself,

Non-locality is to be common AND non-common w.r.t the same thing (the same aspect, in your example), so you are using wrong examples, exactly because you get everything only in terms of Locality, and from this limited reasoning Non-locality is indeed a contradiction and this is exactly all you get time after time.

In your example the things are common to their both aspects and therefore they are local w.r.t these aspects. Again you think only in terms of Locality.

0.9999...= 1 exactly because 3 * 1/3 = 1, your inability to understand simple concepts is all that is “clearly shown” by almost all of your posts.

Only by you local-only reasoning.

By OM 0.999... < 1 exactly by 0.000...1

Also by OM 0.333... < 1/3 exactly by 0.000...1/3

 

[The Man]

The axiom of the empty set ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_empty_set ):

There is a set such that no set is a member of it.

One of the sets that is not a member of the empty set, is the empty set.

If the axiom of the empty set is a definition of creation (as you claim) then we have a circular reasoning because the empty set uses its own creation as a part of the definition that creates it.

I have never claimed any such thing and I am quite familiar with “The axiom of the empty set”. An axiom is not a definition, but can incorporate a definition such as the empty set being defined as having no members.

In order to avoid this circular reasoning where X is used to create X, we say that the definition does not create X but it simply uses it as one of the already existing sets that are not the members of X (where X is the empty set, in this case).

The empty set is not used to create the empty set, again by your supposed “reasoning” since the empty set has no members then everything is “one of the already existing sets that are not the members” even what you claimed has yet to be done “using our imagination in order to create X out of non-existence”

The Man, this abstraction is beyond your abilities.

Once again you simply equate “abstraction” with nonsense.

You do not understand my argument.

You do not understand your argument.

Another example of your “closed under thoughts” awareness.

Another example of your desire for your “awareness” to be, well, thoughtless.

In order to know that you have to measure them. Therefore they are not closed.

Well thank you for confirming that a closed system is a concept you simply cannot comprehend.

Just to try and give you a clue, you do not have to be outside of closed systems to measure them.

 

[The Man]

It is trivial to anyone that is not aware of the difference between Locality and Non-locality, as you do.

For example:

Non-locality is to be common AND non-common w.r.t the same thing (the same aspect, in your example), so you are using wrong examples, exactly because you get everything only in terms of Locality, and from this limited reasoning Non-locality is indeed a contradiction and this is exactly all you get time after time.

In your example the things are common to their both aspects and therefore they are local w.r.t these aspects. Again you think only in terms of Locality.

No I am using the correct examples, your are simply using contradiction. Again you think of your notions only in terms of contradiction. We have been through this before on the other thread Doron. If your Non-locality permits contradictions then there is nothing contradictory about your non-locality being simply local. So your non-locality simply refutes itself whether you consider its contradictions to be invalid or not.

 

[doronshadmi]

Just to try and give you a clue, you do not have to be outside of closed systems to measure them.

In that case they are opened from within (by non-finite interpolation).

 

[doronshadmi]

If your Non-locality permits contradictions

Only from your local-only viewpoint, because you can't get non-locality.

 

[doronshadmi]

An axiom is not a definition,

Definition is used here as a general concept to determine the proprties of things in order to use tham under some system (deductive system, in the case of Math).

The empty set is not used to create the empty set, again by your supposed “reasoning” since the empty set has no members then everything is “one of the already existing sets that are not the members” even what you claimed has yet to be done “using our imagination in order to create X out of non-existence”

Another example of your local verbal-only reasoning, which can't distinguish between X and is verbal expression.

By your verbal-only reasoning silence and the word “silence” are the same thing.

In other words, you can’t get http://www.scribd.com/doc/17039028/OMDP.

You do not understand your argument.

You are closed under your locality.

 

[The Man]

In that case they are opened from within (by non-finite interpolation).

Well Doron, I do have to admit that the one thing I enjoy about this thread is that just when I think you’ve claimed just about the most contradictory nonsense possible you go another step further. You will just make up anything, won’t you, rather then simply admit you don’t actually understand a concept.


Just where do you claim something “opened from within” is open to? If you claim it is open to the outside then you are simply not referring to a closed system being measured from the inside. If you claim that it is open to the inside then it is just closed system as any closed system is open on the inside. I’m banking that you might just claim that it is open to somewhere else like those gaps in the real number line that you claim are at “unknown” locations. Locations even if you do claim you can not know the locations, the locations are still known to be within the boundaries.

 

[The Man]

Only from your local-only viewpoint, because you can't get non-locality.

Well then your non-locality does not permit contradiction and is invalid as a contradiction. Your claims of what I do or don’t get, do not change what you assert.

 

[The Man]

Definition is used here as a general concept to determine the proprties of things in order to use tham under some system (deductive system, in the case of Math).

Still does not make an Axiom a definition.

 

[doronshadmi]

Still does not make an Axiom a definition.

Still you play with words by recycling the jargon of your obsolete community of local-only thinkers, instead of dealing with the core of things.

 

[doronshadmi]

Well then your non-locality does not permit contradiction and is invalid as a contradiction. Your claims of what I do or don’t get, do not change what you assert.

Short memory, isn't it? : http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5176867&postcount=6071.

 

[The Man]

Still you play with words by recycling the jargon of your obsolete community of local-only thinkers, instead of dealing with the core of things.

Any chance of you getting through the recycling of your obsolete jargon and actually "dealing with the core of things" any time soon?

Short memory, isn't it? : http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5176867&postcount=6071.

Obviously not.

 

[jsfisher]

Still you play with words by recycling the jargon of your obsolete community of local-only thinkers, instead of dealing with the core of things.

This is a very funny statement coming from you, Doron. You have made up your very own private false reality, in which you and you alone inhabit, with some of the most willfully ignorant statements possible. You recycle your posts as if somehow that grants them meaning, which, of course, they never had.

Moreover, since you have been so spectacularly wrong about so many things, the only credibility you have is with yourself. Even Moshe has abandoned your fantasy.

But, please, continue with your gibberish and logic circles. I find them very humorous.

 

[Little 10 Toes]

Wow. So I will claim victory over doronshadmi since he has backed down from my challenge

Edit: so from now on, local and non-local has been defined. Let's start using my definitions.

Example: doronshadmi's thinking is non-local (location unknown) since no one knows where it is coming from. In that same token, everyone (including doronshadmi) is non-local since I don't know where they are posting from. I however am local since I know exactly where I am.
All numbers are local since I know where they are in relation to the number zero.

Anyone else have questions for me about how we should be using local and non-local?

 

[doronshadmi]

Here a very simple model that explains OM's reasoning:

By OM's reasoning a line is the minimal form of Non-locality, where a point is the minimal form of Locality.

Now think about an infinitely long line that has two distinct points along it.

Since the line is infinitely long then no matter how far are the two points from each other they do not reach any edge because an infinitely long line is edgeless.

We call this case non-finite extrapolation.

The same thing works in the opposite direction.

No matter how close the points are they are still two distinct points.

We call this case non-finite interpolation.

So by using this simple model we are able to understand both non-finite extrapolation and non-finite interpolation.

Furthermore, by using, for example, finite extrapolation we are able to determine a fixed segment along the non-finite line, and only then concepts like closer or farer has a meaning with respect to the fixed segment.

Only by finite interpolation the two distinct points are able to become to a one point.

Be aware of the fact that all these notions are achieved by using a model that is based on the linkage between Non-locality and Locality.

Complex systems like us can use non-finite interpolation as a non-finite source of energy where the non-finite extrapolation is used as a non-finite environment for non-finite expression of complexity.

By this model we are actually living in a non-entropic universe, but since we get it only by using a finite point of view, we interpret it in terms of death by maximum entropy.

Furthermore we force our finite viewpoint on the non-finite interpolation or extrapolation and as a result we get the non-finite only in terms of Locality.

OM changes all this by providing a single model that enables to understand the linkage between Locality and Non-locality as they appear by infinite or finite interpolation or extrapolation.

One of the tools of this new paradigm is called a non-local number, which is used to deal with non-finite interpolation or extrapolation.

 

[laca]

This is great! Up until now I didn't believe mathematical woo existed. Now I know. Thanks, doron. I was wrong, there is some use for your "theory" after all...

 

[doronshadmi]

Obviously not.

Obviously yes.