Deeper than primes

[doronshadmi]

No Doron once again that definition is what defines an irrational number.

The definition that an irrational number is any number that is not the result of the ratio between two integers, is simply the first stage of my argument.

You stop at that stage, but I continue to use the first stage in order to show that irrational numbers are also the limits of rational numbers along the real-line, by using Dedekind’s cuts.

In that case an irrational number is an example of a limit that does not belong to the set of the limited elements (the rational numbers, in this case).

Still there is a linkage between the limit and the limited elements, where this linkage is fundamentally different than the limit or the limited elements, such that it is non-local w.r.t them.

I also showed that this non-local property is defined also among elements of the same set, if one of these elements is used as the limit of the other elements of the considered set.

So Non-locality/Locality reasoning is consistent whether the limit belongs to the set of the limited elements, or not.

 

[Baylor]

You bumped your thread 4,005 times. Time to call it a day, donchya think?

 

[doronshadmi]

You bumped your thread 4,005 times. Time to call it a day, donchya think?

Or a night, who knows?

 

[doronshadmi]

David Scharf ( http://www.mum.edu/faculty/scharf_david.html )— Research Focus ( http://www.mum.edu/faculty/scharf_david_research.html )

Common sense tells us — and there is good scientific and philosophical support for this — that the conscious mind can be causally efficacious, and while this efficacy may be transmitted by the biophysics of our brain and nervous system, it refuses to reduce to biophysics. This points to a kind of interactionism between the conscious mind and the brain, but what kind of interactionism? In the seventeenth century, when modern science was in its infancy, it may have seemed reasonable for Descartes to propose an interactionism between mind and matter as radically distinct substances, where matter was the subject of the new mathematical physics, and mind was outside its domain. But today Cartesian interactionism seems decidedly less plausible because, among other reasons, if something — even if it is consciousness itself — is interacting with the physical domain, physics is going to want to understand it, incorporate it into the scientific domain, and model its interactions with suitable equations. So it would make more sense, nowadays, to suppose that mind and matter are two expressions of a common underlying substance and, what’s more, this theme is in keeping with the trend toward unification that has predominated in contemporary science — particularly, in recent advances in theoretical physics. According to the Vedic perspective of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, as developed in partnership with John Hagelin, the unified field of physics is identical to Transcendental Consciousness, the deepest level of the conscious mind.

According to this Vedic conception an individual mind is only a surface-level manifestation of consciousness. This contrasts sharply with contemporary physicalist approaches, which start from the assumption that consciousness is only a localized phenomenon, dependent on a particular individual’s brain and nervous system. In this context, it is perhaps not surprising that physicalism in all its manifestations has so far failed to provide a satisfactory resolution of the mind-body problem. The reason: neither consciousness nor its intrinsic cognitive properties are reducible to the localized, ultimately classical-physics brain. Rather, consciousness has its deepest roots in a fundamental symmetry represented in the unified field of contemporary quantum field theory. Although ultimately the Vedic conception is a type of monism, at the level of neuroscience the intervention of mind will be understood as an interaction between mind and brain. If these ideas are proven right, this interaction will only be successfully described in the context of advanced physics, utilizing all the resources that advanced physics can bring to bear, including spatial and temporal nonlocality as well as the more exotic symmetry principles.

 

[Apathia]

your question? Who is this “your” and exactly is his question?

Ah!
Who is this that asks this question?
(It's the classic Korean Zen hwadu.) ("hwadu" - a Korean Zen koan.)

"Where is the one that asks?" is another.

(I'm assuming you're not asking that question conventionally. But if you are, the answer is in the post.)

 

[Apathia]

David Scharf ( http://www.mum.edu/faculty/scharf_david.html )— Research Focus ( http://www.mum.edu/faculty/scharf_david_research.html )

Quote:

Common sense tells us — and there is good scientific and philosophical support for this — that the conscious mind can be causally efficacious, and while this efficacy may be transmitted by the biophysics of our brain and nervous system, it refuses to reduce to biophysics. This points to a kind of interactionism between the conscious mind and the brain, but what kind of interactionism? In the seventeenth century, when modern science was in its infancy, it may have seemed reasonable for Descartes to propose an interactionism between mind and matter as radically distinct substances, where matter was the subject of the new mathematical physics, and mind was outside its domain. But today Cartesian interactionism seems decidedly less plausible because, among other reasons, if something — even if it is consciousness itself — is interacting with the physical domain, physics is going to want to understand it, incorporate it into the scientific domain, and model its interactions with suitable equations. So it would make more sense, nowadays, to suppose that mind and matter are two expressions of a common underlying substance and, what’s more, this theme is in keeping with the trend toward unification that has predominated in contemporary science — particularly, in recent advances in theoretical physics. According to the Vedic perspective of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, as developed in partnership with John Hagelin, the unified field of physics is identical to Transcendental Consciousness, the deepest level of the conscious mind.

According to this Vedic conception an individual mind is only a surface-level manifestation of consciousness. This contrasts sharply with contemporary physicalist approaches, which start from the assumption that consciousness is only a localized phenomenon, dependent on a particular individual’s brain and nervous system. In this context, it is perhaps not surprising that physicalism in all its manifestations has so far failed to provide a satisfactory resolution of the mind-body problem. The reason: neither consciousness nor its intrinsic cognitive properties are reducible to the localized, ultimately classical-physics brain. Rather, consciousness has its deepest roots in a fundamental symmetry represented in the unified field of contemporary quantum field theory. Although ultimately the Vedic conception is a type of monism, at the level of neuroscience the intervention of mind will be understood as an interaction between mind and brain. If these ideas are proven right, this interaction will only be successfully described in the context of advanced physics, utilizing all the resources that advanced physics can bring to bear, including spatial and temporal nonlocality as well as the more exotic symmetry principles.

Now there's where you could address dlord's unanswered question.

Your Organic Mathematics is intended to show how number and mathematics is a result of an interaction between the local, individual consciousness and the non-local, universal, Unified Consciousness. .

 

[The Man]

No measurement that is related to the coherence activity can be taken from a dead brain.

A lack of left frontal activity is coherent with a lack of right frontal activity Doron

Deep sleep, or damaged brain’s activities are not characterized by a coherent brain activity, as observed, for example in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJfgzMbDhcE .

No such claims are made by that “example”.

How do you know that for sure (as a person the does not practice any mental technique that enables you to be aware of the source of any mental activity?)

Based on your own assertions at that your “direct perception” continues to fail you as it does above. I do practice a “mental technique”, it’s called learning. You should try it sometime.

And the union is non-local w.r.t all local (unique ids) elements of the considered collection.

Doron the union is a “unique id” that its elements are ‘local’ to.

It is simply your inability to get a simple notion like “mutual independency” where things are linked with each other (mutuality) without lose their identities (independency).

Doron we have been over this before “mutually independent” means that changes to one do not result in changes to the other. They are not dependent on each other, thus independent and that independence from each other is mutual. The mutual ‘link’, as you put it, is specifically their shared lack of dependency upon each other.

Your “mutual dependency” is nothing but using only one aspect of that linkage, by ignoring the saved independency under this linkage.

Again Doron we have been over this before “mutual dependency” means that changes to one results in changes to the other. They are specifically dependent upon each other which is the negation of independent, they specifically have no “independency” in that regard to be, well, ‘saved’.

By your muddy reasoning we actually get “mutual mutuality” or “dependent dependency”, which are equivalent to your “mutual dependency” statement.

No Doron it is simply your deliberately ‘foggy’ “reasoning” and your “direct perception” that has failed you yet again.

You simply can’t grasp the axiomatic state among the two qualitative aspects of the atomic self-state, which are not derived from each other exactly like two axioms (they have independent qualities), and yet they are unique manifestations of a one common source that enables their consistent linkage.

Again “two qualitative aspects of the atomic self-state” means your “self-state” isn’t “atomic” (indivisible) by your own ascriptions as you deliberately divide it into “two qualitative aspects” just so you can recombine them again into your “complex” contrivance.

I can’t explain non-locality, because you consistently using only local view of the researched subjects, whether they are abstract of not.

No Doron you “can’t explain non-locality” because you insist on directly contradicting yourself and have succumb to your own subjective, self contradictory and generally contradictory interpretations “of the researched subjects, whether they are abstract of not”.

As a result your ‘explanations’ are only apparently meaningful to you, which again answers your previous question.

How do you know that for sure (as a person the does not practice any mental technique that enables you to be aware of the source of any mental activity?)

The definition that an irrational number is any number that is not the result of the ratio between two integers, is simply the first stage of my argument.

You stop at that stage, but I continue to use the first stage in order to show that irrational numbers are also the limits of rational numbers along the real-line, by using Dedekind’s cuts.

In that case an irrational number is an example of a limit that does not belong to the set of the limited elements (the rational numbers, in this case).

Still there is a linkage between the limit and the limited elements, where this linkage is fundamentally different than the limit or the limited elements, such that it is non-local w.r.t them.

I also showed that this non-local property is defined also among elements of the same set, if one of these elements is used as the limit of the other elements of the considered set.

So Non-locality/Locality reasoning is consistent whether the limit belongs to the set of the limited elements, or not.

Again Doron we have been over this before, a limit does not need to be a member of the set, but it can be. Your “Non-locality/Locality reasoning is” simply inconsistent with itself, again specifically in your “belongs to AND does not belong to” ascription of “Non-locality”. Have you decided to officially change that ascription to ‘belongs to some set, space or domain AND belongs to some other set, space or domain’ as we discussed before?

 

[doronshadmi]

Based on your own assertions at that your “direct perception” continues to fail you as it does above.

No activity of R = No activity of L, but our learning The Man ("I do practice a “mental technique”, it’s called learning") does not distinguish between coherent activity and no activity.

Doron the union is a “unique id” that its elements are ‘local’ to.

Out leaning The Man still can't get the non-locality of the union w.r.t to the local ids, again a partial learning is observed.

Again “two qualitative aspects of the atomic self-state” means your “self-state” isn’t “atomic” (indivisible) by your own ascriptions as you deliberately divide it into “two qualitative aspects”

No branches (qualitative aspects) divide the trunk (the atomic self-state).

They are simply different manifestations of a one thing, but your limited learning ability can't grasp that.

No Doron you “can’t explain non-locality”

Your local-only learning practice has nothing to say about non-locality.

Again Doron we have been over this before,

You have been before, now and after in local-only learning state of mind, that can't get even simple thing like Dedekin's cut and how it is related to my argument about the exclusion of the limit w.r.t a given set.

Also you can't grasp the notion of the inclusion of non-locality as the linkage among some id that is considered as a limit of the members that share with it the same set.

Your local-only practice works extra hours, without any result.

 

[doronshadmi]

Quote:


Now there's where you could address dlord's unanswered question.

Your Organic Mathematics is intended to show how number and mathematics is a result of an interaction between the local, individual consciousness and the non-local, universal, Unified Consciousness. .

OM is a tool that is used to research how the atomic self-state manifests itself by getting infinite complexity out of minimum linkage among qualitative ids.

 

[Skeptic]

No Doron it is simply your deliberately ‘foggy’

I doubt it's deliberate....

Again Doron we have been over this before, a limit does not need to be a member of the set, but it can be.

Okay, so Doron doesn't understand limits -- or compactness -- either. Surprise, surprise, surprise.

 

[Skeptic]

OM is a tool that is used to research how the atomic self-state manifests itself by getting infinite complexity out of minimum linkage among qualitative ids.

Yes, but can you change a tire with it?

 

[The Man]

No activity of R = No activity of L, but our learning The Man ("I do practice a “mental technique”, it’s called learning") does not distinguish between coherent activity and no activity.

You should learn what coherent means. Look at your own example, you will see that when the R and L activity drop to nothing simultaneously the coherence remains at about 100%.

Out leaning The Man still can't get the non-locality of the union w.r.t to the local ids, again a partial learning is observed.

Tell us Doron, in regards to your “self-state”, what is “non-local” “w.r.t” to itself?

No branches (qualitative aspects) divide the trunk (the atomic self-state).

Again Doron you divide your “atomic self-state” into those aspects deliberately just so you can combine them again into your “complex” contrivance.

They are simply different manifestations of a one thing, but your limited learning ability can't grasp that.

They are simply your “manifestations” Doron, but your “direct perception” “can't grasp that”.

Your local-only learning practice has nothing to say about non-locality.

Your loco-only “reasoning” can only describe your notion of “non-locality” by directly contradicting itself.

You have been before, now and after in local-only learning state of mind, that can't get even simple thing like Dedekin's cut and how it is related to my argument about the exclusion of the limit w.r.t a given set.

A set can be open (the limits are not members of the set), closed (the limits are members of the set) or half open (one of the limits is a member of the set) without even considering “Dedekin's cut”. You are just arguing with yourself.

Also you can't grasp the notion of the inclusion of non-locality as the linkage among some id that is considered as a limit of the members that share with it the same set.

Doron a limit that is not a member of the set specifically does not “share with it the same set”.

Your local-only practice works extra hours, without any result.

Your loco-only practice works extra hours, days, weeks, months, years and decades without any result.

 

[The Man]

I doubt it's deliberate....

I would like to think so Skeptic, but Doron’s simple refusal to understand that the difference of the infinite convergent series ½+¼+1/8+1/16... from 2 times that series (1+½+¼+1/8+1/16...) is that series and thus the sum of that series equals 1. Doron insists on making that simple self similar relationship ‘foggy’, so I am left with the inescapable conclusion that his “fog” must be deliberate.

 

[zooterkin]

OM is a tool that is used to research how the atomic self-state manifests itself by getting infinite complexity out of minimum linkage among qualitative ids.

It is? Ok, please give an example of this.

 

[doronshadmi]

You should learn what coherent means. Look at your own example, you will see that when the R and L activity drop to nothing simultaneously the coherence remains at about 100%.

You should learn what coherent-activity means. In your dead brain there is no coherent-activity.

Furthermore, by measure a dead brain tissue you actually will find a non-coherent results that are derived from the process of tissue's decomposition, which is non-coherent.

Only a live brain can manifest coherent-activity among its components.

Tell us Doron, in regards to your “self-state”, what is “non-local” “w.r.t” to itself

Any self-state is not local and not non-local w.r.t itself, exactly as any atom is at its self-state.

Non-local or Local are the minimal qualitative manifestations that are derived from the atomic self-state. Your local-only reasoning naturally can't get it, similarly as (by analogy) a one eye viewer can't get 3D.

A set can be open (the limits are not members of the set), closed (the limits are members of the set) or half open (one of the limits is a member of the set) without even considering “Dedekin's cut”.

Nonsense, Dedekin's cut and open\clopen sets are derived form the same principle, such that some considered element is not a member of a considered collection, and yet there is a linkage between them, which is non-local because it is not any of the linked elements. Your local-only reasoning can't comprehend that.

Doron a limit that is not a member of the set specifically does not “share with it the same set”.

At this particular part I spoke about a closed set, where the limit is a member of that set, but you have missed it.

Your loco-only practice works extra hours, days, weeks, months, years and decades without any result.

Yes, a D3 vision can't be known by a one eye viewer.

 

[doronshadmi]

It is? Ok, please give an example of this.

The complexity around you and within you is a direct results of the linkage between the non-local qualitative aspect and the local qualitative aspect of the atomic self-state.

Sums and fogs share the same complex garden, that is derived from the atomic self-state.

 

[doronshadmi]

I would like to think so Skeptic, but Doron’s simple refusal to understand that the difference of the infinite convergent series ½+¼+1/8+1/16... from 2 times that series (1+½+¼+1/8+1/16...) is that series and thus the sum of that series equals 1. Doron insists on making that simple self similar relationship ‘foggy’, so I am left with the inescapable conclusion that his “fog” must be deliberate.

You simply can't grasp that sums (in the case of positive added values) are the results of a finite addition.

Your local-only reasoning can't grasp http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5721761&postcount=9104 and fog 0.000...1/2, such that:

1 – (1/2+1/4+1/8+1/16+…) > 0 by fog 0.000...1/2

2 - (1/1+1/2+1/4+1/8+...) > 0 by fog 0.000...1/2

4 - (2/1+1/1+1/2+1/4+...) > 0 by fog 0.000...1/2

...

Aslo you can't get fog 0.000...3/4 in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5890520&postcount=9686 .

 

[doronshadmi]

Yes, but can you change a tire with it?

Without it (the reseached subjects of OM, where OM is no more than some research tool) there is no tire and no one that chages the tire.

 

[doronshadmi]

I think that we carefully have to investigate what actually enables complex structures.

I have found that Complexity is derived from the linkage of opposites such that they do not contradict each other during linkage.

As I get it, self awareness development is essential to non-destructive linkage between opposites, and by practicing TM for example, we actually reinforce this linkage, which in turn enables finer manifestations of complex forms.

In my opinion, the nervous system of self-aware complex systems, is more software than hardware, such that their abilities to develop internal and external complex forms is increased by non-linear frequency.

Non-linear complexity development, as I get it, is actually the non-linear development of the balance between opposites, which is exactly the manifestation of the linkage (the unified-field, which is the natural source of opposites) among opposites.

Reduction is only the local aspect of complex systems, and can't really capture complexity's development similarly as (by analogy) a one eye viewer can't get 3D vision.

Non-linearity and Chaos Theory plays a main role in our understanding of Complexity's development as a result of a developed balance between opposites like order and disorder.


Here are two papers about this interesting subject:

Is the normal heartbeat chaotic or homeostatic?
http://reylab.bidmc.harvard.edu/pubs/1991/nps-1991-6-87.pdf


Some outstanding paper from the class of Spring '03 of Oregon University:

Human Beings as Chaotic Systems:
http://www.physics.orst.edu/~stetza/ph407H/Chaos.pdf


As I get it, Self similarity upon different scale levels is exactly the optimal condition to develop deeper awareness of finer mental activity, where the non-local property of this self-similarity over scales is the property that actually enables us to transcend and directly be aware of the source of all possible manifested phenomena, which are naturally free of contradiction, otherwise they do not exist as complex forms.

I believe that we can learn much form our biological complexity, for example, our heart:

Each cell of our heart has the ability work (to produce a beat) independently of the other cells. Yet this independent (local) ability is synchronized by special cells that (by using a non-local principle with respect to the independent cells) coordinate their independent abilities into a one coherent heartbeat, which actually enables our existence as living complex systems.

Furthermore, by Chaos Theory we have learned that this Non-local\Local linkage is characterized by self-similarity over different scale levels of each heartbeat, which actually demonstrates the beauty that is found at the basis of the non-linear dynamics of our heart.

It enables simple principles to manifest great complexity by avoiding contradiction between the independent ability of each heart cell to work in its own beat (if the linkage between Non-locality and Locality is interrupted, we get independent beats which contradict each others, our heart stops and we die).

So our heart is a concrete example of Mutual Independency (synchronization (non-locality) among independent beats (locality)).

In general any autonomy that is based on dichotomy between opposites, can't be used as a fruitful base ground for Complexity's development, because by this dichotomy the opposites are not opened to each other, and without this openness there is no Complexity. Actually the whole idea of Complexity is derived from the ability of opposites to be developed beyond their isolated ids without losing their ids during interaction (Mutual Independency).

In my opinion, Complexity is the exact manifestation of linked ids, where linked ids is actually the fundamental term of any axiomatic system, such that each axiom saves its id (it is not derived from any other axiom) during linkage (the unified field) and each axiom does not contradict any other axiom (again, because all ids are derived from the same source, known as the unified field).

Mutual Independency is the main principle, where the mutual and the independent are oneped to each other.

 

[ddt]

OM is a tool that is used to research how the atomic self-state manifests itself by getting infinite complexity out of minimum linkage among qualitative ids.

Well, the infinite complexity part is right insofar as that you've been unable, after over 5,500 posts here and thousands more on other fora, to explain it properly.

Oh, and for the rest, that sentence is 100% word salad.