Deeper than primes

[The Man]

Nope.

For example: some natural law is non-local w.r.t any given space-time zones of several laboratories that discover it by well established scientific experiments.

Nevertheless the discovered natural law and the space-time zones of several laboratories that discover it, are vanished within a black-hole.

The big-bang is actually a white bulge, where the natural law and the given space-time zones of several laboratories that discover it, are derive from.

Well thank you, for that word-salad demonstration that indeed “you get things only at the level of your fantasies”.

 

[epix]

It is possible only if 1-dimension already exists, otherwise 0-dimensional object can't be dragged, because there is no direction.

That's the Catch-22 with the implication that your theory of multi-dimensional manifolds doesn't allow the Big Bang scenario. Not only that, nothing can't ever transform into something. It follows that if you theory is correct we only think that we exist, but we actually don't, or complete nothing doesn't exist and therefore you can drag a point.

 

[epix]

I wrote


Only by a person that can't grasp the notion of non-local and non-composed element in addition to local and non-composed element.

Once again, the term "non-composed element" implies the existence of a "composed element" which is a hugely contradictory term for any rationally thinking person to accept, yet you still haven't supplied an example of that hoping that someone would be able to grasp your strongly counter-intuitive ideas.

 

[Little 10 Toes]

Thank you for finally agreeing what local and non local mean. Now let's define what A and B, or X and Y since you change them, are.

What are "non-composed things"? What qualities are we examining? What is "linked"? What "result"?

If you took the time to understand "AND ( 1 1 --> 1)" you would see that it does mean both. If you took the time to understand "NOR ( 0 0 --> 1)" you would see that it means neither. It's that what I said? "Both or neither."

Please take a look at:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6219380&postcount=11042
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6220750&postcount=11063
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6219680&postcount=11044

First link: does not define what A or B are, does not have the word "non-composed" in it, you do not list the different qualities that are examined, you do not define "linked", you do not define "result"

Second link: you do not define "non-composed", you do not list the different qualities that are examined, does not have the word "linked" in it, does not define the word "result"

Third link: does not define A or B are, does not have the word "non-composed", you do not list the different qualities that are examined, does not have the word "linked" in it, does not define the word result.

Huzzah!! You finally mentioned that A and B are domains!!

Let's go back to one of my original posts and clarify what A and B are in your definition of Local and Nonlocal

If you were going to make it clearer, you could have written this:

1) If the result of one domain (labeled A) sharing a given domain NXOR not sharing a given domain with regard to a second domain (labeled B) is TRUE, then domain A is non-local with regard to domain B.

2) If the result of one domain (labeled A) sharing a given domain XOR not is sharing a given domain with regard to a second domain (labeled B) is TRUE, then domain A is local with regard to domain B.

Now how about more clarification.

You said:

A or B are non-composed things that have different qualities w.r.t each other.

If they are linked, then the result is a composed complexity.

Here is my list of questions. Again.

What are "non-composed things"?
What qualities are we examining?
What is "linked"?
What "result"?
What is "composed complexity"?

 

[epix]

0 dimensional object is an object that has an exact location, 1 dimensional object is an object that does not have an exact location as 0 dimensional object has, and "No dimension" can't be expressed in terms of location at all, whether it is exact (0 dimension) or not (1 dimension).

If the zero-dimensional object has an exact location, what are the means which you locate the object with? What is the environment where the zero-dimensional object can be defined? For example, an Euclidian point, which is zero-dimensional, is defined on the 2-D plane. That's why you can locate it and define its position with 2 coordinates x and y. Where does that 0-dimensional point of yours live when the 1-dimensional object can't be "exactly" located? Can it be located "aproximately?"

 

[doronshadmi]

lacking dimension

Your reply has no building-blocks, which is something beyond the ability of your reasoning.

Your "0 dimension" = "lacking dimension" nonsense is indeed your best reasoning ability.

 

[doronshadmi]

Well thank you, for that word-salad demonstration that indeed “you get things only at the level of your fantasies”.

Thank for demonstrating again the weakness of your reasoning.

 

[doronshadmi]

If the zero-dimensional object has an exact location, what are the means which you locate the object with? What is the environment where the zero-dimensional object can be defined? For example, an Euclidian point, which is zero-dimensional, is defined on the 2-D plane. That's why you can locate it and define its position with 2 coordinates x and y. Where does that 0-dimensional point of yours live when the 1-dimensional object can't be "exactly" located? Can it be located "aproximately?"

The real-line system is a composed result of 0-dimensional and non-composed objects of x coordinates (the values of the real numbers w.r.t a 1-dimension and non-composed space, where "space" is used here as a general concept for any dimension degree).

 

[The Man]

If the zero-dimensional object has an exact location, what are the means which you locate the object with? What is the environment where the zero-dimensional object can be defined? For example, an Euclidian point, which is zero-dimensional, is defined on the 2-D plane. That's why you can locate it and define its position with 2 coordinates x and y. Where does that 0-dimensional point of yours live when the 1-dimensional object can't be "exactly" located? Can it be located "aproximately?"

I think Doron is just confusing, again perhaps deliberately, a concept like a line, ray or line segment spanning multiple (in fact infinite) “locations” (points) as being some inexact location (some error, variation or uncertainty in the location of that line, ray or line segment). Certainly as you note (and as I alluded to before) the only way a point can be located is in some dimensional space, at minimum along a line. If the location of the line is not “exact” as Doron claims then the location of some point along it is equally inexact. Again a line segment as well as a line is defined by points so if Doron’s points have exact locations then that line or line segment is exactly located by those points. As usual Doron simply seems to want it both ways, he wants his points to have exact locations, but the space (at minimum a line or line segment) determining those locations to have an inexact location, as determined by its origin. He also seems to want his line to have an inexact location, in some space, but the points (locations) it transverses to be exact in that space. What he apparently fails to recognize is that locations are (at a minimum) points, so if his locations are inexact (as for his line) it can only be by his points (the locations of the line) being inexact, well, location.


Doron that a line spans multiple locations does not make those locations or locating that line inexact. Exact refers to the precision of those locations and as those locations are, at a minimum just points, any lack of precision in locating your line or some portion of your line (a line segment or ray) only results from a lack of precision in locating your points.

 

[The Man]

Your reply has no building-blocks, which is something beyond the ability of your reasoning.

Your "0 dimension" = "lacking dimension" nonsense is indeed your best reasoning ability.

My reply certainly does have “building-blocks”, quite common ones in fact, they are called letters and words. “your best reasoning ability” still prevents you from comprehending that the only one who needs your particular “non-composed” “building-blocks” are you and your fantasies.

ETA:

So when you find you have 0 apples you are not lacking apples? Additional, as you assert for dimension, the very concept of an apple must go “bye bye” for you when you have 0 apples, yet still you are able to determine that you have 0 apples? The Nonsense Doron remains simply and entirely yours.

 

[AvalonXQ]

I still feel like it should be possible to walk back to the beginning of this whole discussion and come up with something comprehensible.
What do you think are the chances that we can get Doron to choose a single, elementary concept basic to his theory, explain that one concept, address questions and concerns involving the basis of that one concept, and then move on to a second concept, until the discussion makes some kind of coherent sense?

 

[doronshadmi]

So when you find you have 0 apples you are not lacking apples?

0 Dimension is based on the concept of Magnitude, 0 apples is based on the concept of Multitude.

A magnitude like 0 dimension has an exact location w.r.t a magnitude like 1 dimension.

0 apples is the absence of apples.

0 Dimension is not the absence of dimension.

 

[doronshadmi]

Again a line segment as well as a line is defined by points so if Doron’s points have exact locations then that line or line segment is exactly located by those points

You still do not compare the magnitude of a single point w.r.t the magnitude of a single line.

If you do that you will find that the magnitude of a point w.r.t the magnitude of a given line is a local magnitude, where the magnitude of a given line w.r.t the magnitude of a given point is a non-local magnitude, simply because the given line is at AND not at the point's location, where the point is only at that line's location.

All we need is a single point and a single line in order to get this simple fact.

 

[doronshadmi]

Doron that a line spans multiple locations does not make those locations or locating that line inexact. Exact refers to the precision of those locations and as those locations are, at a minimum just points, any lack of precision in locating your line or some portion of your line (a line segment or ray) only results from a lack of precision in locating your points.

Nope.

by being defined w.r.t each other without being components of each other, a given point has an exact location w.r.t to a given line, where a given line does not have an exact location w.r.t a given point, because it is also beyond the shared location, which is a property that a given point does not have w.r.t to a given line.

 

[The Man]

0 Dimension is based on the concept of Magnitude, 0 apples is based on the concept of Multitude.

Actually magnitude is based on the concept of dimension while multitude is based on the concept of magnitude, specifically being many or numerous. “0 Dimension” and “0 apples” are both based on the concept of, well, zero. 0 magnitude is a lack of magnitude (but not necessarily a lack of dimension) just as 0 multitude is a lack of a multitude (but not necessarily a lack of dimension). 0 dimension specifically refers to a lack of dimension. 0 (or even 1) is by no means considered a multitude, but if one has a large number (magnitude) of dimensions one has a multitude of dimensions. 0 is however a magnitude and with a magnitude of 0 for dimension the number of dimensions being considered is, well, 0.So is your confusion simply based on your, perhaps deliberate, misinterpretation of the concepts of magnitude, multitude and certainly dimension?

A magnitude like 0 dimension has an exact location w.r.t a magnitude like 1 dimension.

Again, “exact location” where and in what co-ordinate system?

0 apples is the absence of apples.

0 Dimension is not the absence of dimension.

So how many dimension does your “0 Dimension” have?

You still do not compare the magnitude of a single point w.r.t the magnitude of a single line.

If you do that you will find that the magnitude of a point w.r.t the magnitude of a given line is a local magnitude, where the magnitude of a given line w.r.t the magnitude of a given point is a non-local magnitude, simply because the given line is at AND not at the point's location, where the point is only at that line's location.

All we need is a single point and a single line in order to get this simple fact.

The magnitude of what for “a single point w.r.t the magnitude of” what for “a single line”?


The magnitude of dimensions for a single point is 0 the magnitude of dimensions for a single line is 1. Evidently this is the “simple fact” you keep missing.

 

[doronshadmi]

So how many dimension does your “0 Dimension” have?

The answer to "how many?" is different when you deal with Multitude or Magnitude.

0 apples is based on the concept of Multitude, and in this case the result is the absence of apples.

0 dimension is based on the concept of Magnitude, and in this case the result is a point.

0 is however a magnitude and with a magnitude of 0 for dimension the number of dimensions being considered is, well, 0

"How many dimensions?" is a meaningful question which is based on the concept of Multitude, and one one the valid answers is "0 dimensions".

"How many dimension …?" is an invalid question, exactly as your reasoning about the "0 dimension" is.

The rest of your post is based on this invalid reasoning.

0 is however a magnitude

No, it can be used as magnitude or multitude, as clearly shown by this post.

0 magnitude is a lack of magnitude

No, 0 magnitude is, for example, length 0, and length 0 is a point, where a point is not the absence of the concept of length as "no length" is.

"No length" does not have a location (local or non-local), where length 0 has.

--------------------------

EDIT:

Maybe this can help:

Try to grasp the difference between "0 length" (which is the absence of length, according to your reasoning) and "length 0".

 

[Little 10 Toes]

doronshadmi, I'm asking these questions for the FIFTH time:

From first look (1) and (2) are valid definitions of Non-locality and Locality.

A or B are non-composed things that have different qualities w.r.t each other.

If they are linked, then the result is a composed complexity.

Yes, this is a valid expression of Exclusive OR.

NXOR is NOR ( 0 0 --> 1) + AND ( 1 1 --> 1)

Thank you for finally agreeing what local and non local mean. Now let's define what A and B, or X and Y since you change them, are.

What are "non-composed things"? What qualities are we examining? What is "linked"? What "result"?"

You finally have said that A and B are domains. How about answering the other questions?

 

[doronshadmi]

Once again, the term "non-composed element" implies the existence of a "composed element" which is a hugely contradictory term for any rationally thinking person to accept,

The non-composed are the building-blocks and the composed is the result of their linkage.

yet you still haven't supplied an example of that hoping that someone would be able to grasp your strongly counter-intuitive ideas.

A counter-intuitive idea is the claim that a collection of points can fully cover a given line.

 

[doronshadmi]

That's the Catch-22 with the implication that your theory of multi-dimensional manifolds doesn't allow the Big Bang scenario. Not only that, nothing can't ever transform into something. It follows that if you theory is correct we only think that we exist, but we actually don't, or complete nothing doesn't exist and therefore you can drag a point.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6232250&postcount=11159

 

[doronshadmi]

I still feel like it should be possible to walk back to the beginning of this whole discussion and come up with something comprehensible.
What do you think are the chances that we can get Doron to choose a single, elementary concept basic to his theory, explain that one concept, address questions and concerns involving the basis of that one concept, and then move on to a second concept, until the discussion makes some kind of coherent sense?

This is called a step-by-step reasoning, which is a particular case of OM, exactly as prallel reasoning is.

OM's framework is at least parallel AND step-by-step reasoning.

The Man, jsfisher and the rest of the posters here do not get OM, because they "get" it only in terms of step-by-step reasoning.