Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
doronshadmi said:
The fact is that one gets ~A [logical connective] A individually (step-by-step) and simultaneously (at-once).
Click to expand...

So now you no longer need “to compare between ~"the shadows on the wall" AND "the shadows on the wall"”? What “(step-by-step)” are you referring to? Seeing the light reflecting from the wall is only one step that “simultaneously” defines the shadows you mentioned. Regardless of what you would like to think “one gets” “individually (step-by-step) and simultaneously (at-once).”, with some “[logical connective]” just thrown in there by you. The fact remains that one only sees the reflected light which defines the areas that light is not reflected.

doronshadmi said:
Furthermore, you have missed the allegory of Plato's Cave exactly because you are closed under the ignorance that is characterized by it.
Click to expand...

Nope, I didn’t miss it, that ignorance remains just yours and apparently deliberately so. Even with “the allegory of Plato's Cave” and using it as an example, you still apparently simply do not want to see how one aspect (the reflected light) defines another (the shadows).
 
The Man said:
Even with “the allegory of Plato's Cave” and using it as an example, you still apparently simply do not want to see how one aspect (the reflected light) defines another (the shadows).
Click to expand...
1) You do not understand the meaning of shadow (represents ignorance in the allegory of Plato's Cave).


2) By non-allegory yet one gets both of them as different states of the same framework, and you The Man have no logical basis for light\shadow comparison, which is non-local w.r.t them, exactly as represented by the line in the following Venn Diagram:

4789944385_7e4d198597.jpg


So in both cases, you have no case (also because by your non-allegory light\shadow A;~A are limited to the particular case of X and X-void).
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by epix
A = It is cold
~A = It is not cold
Click to expand...

doronshadmi said:
What enables you to know both states?
Click to expand...
The negation symbol '~' that precedes A. Duh. :rolleyes:


"EYES" and "BRAIN" are the local aspect and "____" is the non-local aspect of "EYES____BRAIN" Linkage.
Click to expand...

If '______' connecting EYES and BRAIN is the "non-local" aspect of the physiology that enables us to see; if you regard the optical nerve as "non-local" while the eyes and brain are local, presumably to the human head, then don't bother with your definition of Local and Non-local, coz as I said before, 1+1=3 is hard to chew on.

Your "closed local-only viewing" prevented you to see and assume that OR and N in your name could be logical connectives, given the con-text of your "work." You are just getting repeatedly shot by ricocheting bullets from your submachine gun fired at others. You better make amends . . .
 
doronshadmi said:
1) You do not understand the meaning of shadow (represents ignorance in the allegory of Plato's Cave).
Click to expand...

I’m quite familiar with “the allegory of Plato's Cave” and the ignorance (shadow or not) still remains entirely yours.

Again…

The Man said:
Open your eyes Doron and climb out of your box and you may just find that what you thought were, and you interpreted as, “shadows on the wall” were actually ~"shadows on the wall".
Click to expand...




doronshadmi said:
2) By non-allegory yet one gets both of them as different states of the same framework, and you The Man have no logical basis for light\shadow comparison, which is non-local w.r.t them, exactly as represented by the line in the following Venn Diagram:

[qimg]http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4077/4789944385_7e4d198597.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Again..

The Man said:
Who needs "to compare between ~"the shadows on the wall" AND "the shadows on the wall”", other than you? Why do you need “to compare between ~"the shadows on the wall" AND "the shadows on the wall""? The fact remains that one can see ~"the shadows on the wall" and that defines "the shadows on the wall".
Click to expand...



doronshadmi said:
So in both cases, you have no case (also because by your non-allegory light\shadow A;~A are limited to the particular case of X and X-void).
Click to expand...

No Doron, the limitation of which you speak is still only yours and again due to your apparently deliberate ignorance. Just as the light which is technically all you can see defines the shadow, ~A defines A. Once again it is simply you that has “no case”. Stop being just a prisoner in your own cave watching shadows on the wall Doron.
 
V
doronshadmi said:
There is no such a thing.

Please read:


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6176489&postcount=10850

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6178837&postcount=10863
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as what?
A distinction between parallel and serial quantities?
No such thing as parallel quantity?
No such thing as serial quantity?
No such thing as quantity?

Your cited posts do not give me the basic understanding I need to sort out just what you mean by "serial" and "parallel."

"How many?" question is usually based on distinction between different ids that are added to each other in order to define a sum, which is a certain size.

But Non-locality\Locality Linkage is not limited to distinct ids, and in this case the "How many?" question is extended beyond the different ids that are added to each other in order to define a sum.

By this extension the "How many?" question can't capture the complexity of the parallel/serial linkage of k-Uncertainty x k-Redundancy tree, where each part of it is both global AND local case of it, because of the qualitative principle that stands at the basis of Quantity.
Click to expand...

So common classes of identification don't really have anything to do with it.
Ordinary math asks "how many," and this "how many" always implies a how many of what.

But OM doesn't concern itself with this kind of what, but goes beyond it.
There are the members of the Shamus Scamp Fan Club: Charles, Milly, James, and Lacy.
How many members of this fan club are there?
No!
This is not a good OM question.
The id isn't members of the Shamus Scamp Fan Club.
The what of OM is their individual ids: Charles, Milly, James, Lacy.
Four?
No! No! No!
OM goes beyond these distinct ids to take in any id, and even what isn't ided.
Charles, Milly, James, Lacy, refrigerator, ball cap, esophageal sphincter, and whatever. All get to be non-local members of the Shamus Scamp Fan Club.
(Especially since there is no such club.)
But of course "how many" can't contain this chaos of complexity.

The simultaneity of no more than one value = Serial.
No wait that's Parallel!
The simultaneity of more than one value = Parallel.
No wait! That's Serial!
What's the essential meanings of these terms that flip flop their meanings if you try to apply them?

I know. Quantity is supposed to be a Parallel/Serial Linkage.
There's not a Parallel quantity as opposed to a Serial quantity.
"Parallel" and "Serial" are qualities prior to quantity.
But the devil of confusion is always in the detail of how this is supposed to fit together.

But anyway, it's wrong to say there are parallel quantities and Serial Quantities. There are just whatever quantities, not of a what but of a /.

Again. It's not Mathematics as we know it.
Traditional math deals in quantities of members of classes with some common classifier of identification.

OM deals in an Sorcerer's Apprentice matrix of things thrown together by virtue of the /.

On No! Post 10863:
Parallel is a "Bridging"
Serial is a "Bridging."
Both result of Uncertintiy/Redundancy Bridging.

And those two players?
Of course if we examine them closely, they too will be the result of some kind of bridging.

It's / Linkage all the way down.
 
Alas not everyone evidences Victorian sensibilities. :wackyeek: (post 10915)

Now for quality humor, Epix, I've nominated you again. :lol2:
 
Last edited:
Apathia said:
The simultaneity of no more than one value = Serial.
No wait that's Parallel!
The simultaneity of more than one value = Parallel.
No wait! That's Serial!
What's the essential meanings of these terms that flip flop their meanings if you try to apply them?
Click to expand...

Nevermind this.
I thought that "Parallel" signified the repetition of a single selfsame id or value, while "Serial" entailed the addition of different individuals.

It makes more sense to think you are trying to say that "serial" involves the application of the same group id or classifier: tree, for example, count the trees.
While parallel observation looks beyond a single classifier and counts the trees, the stumps, the bushes, the ants, the litter left by the campers, and Jupiter.
But of this apprisal, I'm surely as wrong.

Since I don't have a spouse, it's good for me to have somewhere to go that I will be inevitable wrong.
 
doronshadmi said:
Under serial observation (focused on Singular comparisons) we get anti-symmetric collection of certain ids.

Under parallel observation (focused on Non singular comparisons) we get symmetric collection of uncertain ids.
Click to expand...
Doron, can you check on that Time___Place local linkage? Today date is 8-3, and 8 - 3 = 5. If the place is the USA, then 5 means Connecticut, coz it is the 5th State of the Union. See, the date 8-3 is special due to the symmetry of the numbers: if you cut 8 vertically and take the right part away then you get 3. I know that there has been some problem with symmetry and asymmetry in your work, and that could cause a problem in the core processor. Can you check on the news coming from Connecticut, if there is any? The core processor becomes unstable under a certain condition and can negatively affect reasoning of the members that are linked to it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom