Deeper than primes

[doronshadmi]

I would suggest to avoid certain topics and focus intead on negatively dimensioned Emptiness

I would suggest that you take off the line and the curves from your screen detector, in order to get the analogy of silence.

[qimg]http://img809.imageshack.us/img809/387/doronizedbass.png[/qimg]

 

[jsfisher]

Have you ever considered that maybe the problem is that your reasoning has a built-in property, which prevents the understanding of what is out of your ?

Yes, he has. And since his "box of understanding" is ever increasing, adapting new and useful information while adjusting and correcting the old, he can safely conclude he doesn't suffer from the malady you allege.

You, Doron, on the other hand, are about as closed-minded an individual as I have ever met. You reject things because of ignorance, and you refuse to understand that which you didn't fabricate.

 

[doronshadmi]

Yes, he has. And since his "box of understanding" is ever increasing,

In other words, only an "in the box" reasoning is used, which prevents notions of in-out cross-boxes communication.

You are indeed a "piece of art" jsfisher.

Ride on on your increasing , ignore http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6680376&postcount=13413 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6680709&postcount=13414 and also http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6675359&postcount=13391, why not, everything goes in order to stay in the by ignoring http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6683245&postcount=13419.

 

[laca]

Have you ever considered that maybe the problem is that you are incapable of communicating your ideas?

You're giving Doron way too much credit. My bet is on he's got no ideas at all. Of course, his communication skills are next to inexistent as well.

ETA:

By the way Doron, since you love Wikipedia so much, how about checking out this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_(person).

I think this part is especially interesting:



Hmmm, let's see. You claim that you're right and every other mathematician is wrong, so that's 1. You claim that your discovery will lead to world peace and solve all of civilization's problems, that's 2. You refuse to acknowledge your trivial error of claiming that those two logical statements are different when they are trivially the same, that's 3. And finally, you go on and on about you think is correct but rarely if ever listen to what any of those who are more experienced in mathematics have to say, that's 4.

Hey look at that, you satisfy the 4 criteria of a crank as given by the wonderful people at Wikipedia whom you love so much. You're a crank!

 

[epix]

I would suggest that you take off the line and the curves from your screen detector, in order to get the analogy of silence.

Doron, that's a sequencer and not that thing that your neurolog was discussing with you.

Hey, that's a cool gamma activity. What did you see in your sleep? Can you share?

 

[HatRack]

Have you ever considered that maybe the problem is that your reasoning has a built-in property, which prevents the understanding of what is out of your ?

Yes Doron, I always consider that maybe my reasoning is invalid when I encounter new things. But there is nothing to indicate that anyone's reasoning but yours is invalid in this situation.

Now answer my question:

Have you ever considered that maybe the problem is that you are incapable of communicating your ideas, or that your ideas are trivial, contradictory, and/or irrelevant to anything interesting?

 

[epix]

OM easily does it because it uses tools like cybernetic kernels, Non-local numbers, Redundancy and Uncertainty as fundamental terms of its framework, which enable to build the bridge between Ethics and Logic, as the basic terms that establish the Technology of the consciousness.

1. cybernetic kernels
2. Non-local numbers
3. Redundancy and Uncertainty
4. Ethics and Logic
5.Technology of consciousness

Why is the fifth item bold?

I guess it's unlike any other.

What makes it unique?

Don't even go there.

Why not?

Okay, lets go there...
Those 5 items relate to OM, right? Suppose there is a book with "OM" on its front cover. What is the topic of the book?

You need to open the book to find out, no?

Open the book then.

Where's that book at?

That question never dies. It's all abstract -- OM is the book. You need to open OM -- the letters.

How?

You never opened a book?

You said it's abstract.

If you can't open an abstract book, someone else can.

Who?

Well, that's the thing. The opened book looks like this: O_M. But someone has to open it. In other words, you need to solve whom two uknown variables x and y, the hands, belong to -- you need to solve this expression:
xOMy.



See, when we come across an unfamiliar expression, our mind goes what?

Blank.

Right.

How do you solve that?

Through association. Someone had to write that book. If you know the author, he or she is the first choice.

Do we know the author?

We do. Let's see if it works. substitute x=D and y=I and see what happens...
xOMy => DOMI => DO_______MI => DOron shadMI


That's the name of the author? Doron Shadmi?

Yes.

But I'm not familiar with the topic in the book; that "ron shad."

That's not the topic. You need to solve another x and y inside the book that Doron Shadmi holds in his hands.
DO xy MI



When we are exposed to expressions that...

...our mind goes blank.

Yep. But not always. There is actually a unique solution with respect to DO and MI.

What is it?

Solfege. Set x=R and y=E and the solution is
DO xy MI => DO RE MI

Oh, yes! These are the first three.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solfège
But what is RE? It should be the topic of the book.

I think DO RE MI is the whole enchilada: The author opened the book and he tells us something. Take a look at this:

See the arrows leading from DO to MI? It's like two initials and two "enditions" of name Doron Shadmi.

Aha. But what is the topic; what is it that Doron Shadmi says?

You don't hear anything?

No. Only silence.

The silence says to scroll up the picture:
http://www.rahul.net/raithel/otfw/techofcons.html
See the title?

Aha.
Who is he, Shadmi?

He's a professor at the University of Jerusalem. He studies neural networks, associative thinking, stuff like that. He would write like messy things and then he studies the responses when people read it.

Like when the mind no comprende and goes blank?

Yep.

 

[doronshadmi]

OK, let us do it this way:

Even by Platonic paradigm, which asserts that mathematical objects are independent of the observer, there must be a linkage between the observer and the independent mathematical objects, otherwise the observer can't discover and formally define the already (independent) existence of the Platonic realm.

By the Platonic paradigm the Mathematical Science is the development of formal and rigorous techniques, which are able to express a prices report of the Platonic realm, by avoiding any subjective interpretation of the reported.

The development of the Mathematical Science, according to the Platonic paradigm, is the story of the development of technology of objective reports of the platonic realm.

In other words, the Mathematical science is exactly the development of the methods that are able to discover the already existing Platonic realm.

Let us follow the notion of the mathematician as an observer and objective reporter of the Platonic realm.

For example, let us use the concept of dimensional space (by generalization, dimensional space is not limited to metric space):

Fact 1: There exists an observer (known, in this case, by the name "mathematician")

Fact 2: There is an observed realm, which is independent of the observer, such that the observer is influenced by the observed realm (by developing formal and rigorous techniques, known as The Mathematical Science), which are able to express a prices report of the Platonic realm), but the observed Platonic realm is not influenced by the existence or activity of the observer.

Fact 3: The realm of development is actually a subjective interpretation of the observer, about already fully developed Platonic realm.


According to facts 1-3, dimensional spaces are defined as follows:

a) 0-dimensional space is reported by the existing observer, as follows: "I observe Emptiness. Since I exist then I report at least a point".

b) 1-dimensional space is reported by the existing observer, as follows: "I observe at and beyond ("I report a point")"="I report a line".

c) 2-dimensional space is reported by the existing observer, as follows: "I observe at and beyond ("I report a line" ("I report a point"))"="I report a plane".

d) 3-dimensional space is reported by the existing observer, as follows: "I observe at and beyond ("I report a plane" ("I report a line" ("I report a point")))"="I report a volume".

etc ... ad infinitum.

e) ∞-dimensional space is reported by the existing observer, as follows: "I observe at and beyond ("all dimensional spaces")"="I report Fullness".


According to (a) to (e) and the fact that the observer exists, he/she enables to report dimensional spaces beyond Emptiness by increased order of existence, including the opposite of Emptiness, which is Fullness.

The order of increased existence between Emptiness (which is total non-existence) and Fullness (which is total existence), is a serial report, but a parallel report of it is possible as well, by using the non-local property of being at and beyond a given space.

 

[laca]

OK, let us do it this way:

Oh dear, that doesn't sound good...

<snip, for jake's sake!>

Yep, that was just the right amount of gibberish we come to expect from Doron. He delivers every time!

 

[jsfisher]

In other words, only an "in the box" reasoning is used, which prevents notions of in-out cross-boxes communication.

Seriously, Doron, work on your reading comprehension. Your feeble attempts at childish playground taunts don't even correspond to what is being posted.

How about instead of simply claiming everyone else is stupid with varying degrees of ineptitude on your part, you demonstrate that you are not stupid. So far, you haven't. Exhibiting some actual result unique to Doronetics would be nice. In the many, many years you have clung to this fantasy of yours, you have consistently shown you don't know much about Mathematics and you are a stranger to consistent, non-contradictory reasoning, but you haven't shown anything to suggest Doronetics has any value whatsoever.

Why not focus on that rather than this non-productive and completely false "you don't get it" tact. It only serves to make you look foolish and stupid.

 

[doronshadmi]

Now answer my question:

Have you ever considered that maybe the problem is that you are incapable of communicating your ideas, or that your ideas are trivial, contradictory, and/or irrelevant to anything interesting?

You forgot the word "please".

As for the answer, I am sure that OM does not follow the agreed paradigm that enables communication among your community.

But this is the whole point, OM is a paradigm-shift of this agreement, and in order to communicate with me on the already agreed subjects, you have no choice but to make your move and get out of your box.

Do you think that you are able to do this step?

 

[HatRack]

You forgot the word "please".

Doron, I have no inclination to be polite to you, and neither does anyone else in this thread. As jsfisher said, you spend most of your time claiming that others are too stupid or incompetent to "get it". Add that to the fact that I had to post my question twice to get an answer. But wait...

As for the answer, I am sure that OM does not follow the agreed paradigm that enables communication among your community.

Oh look at that, that is not an answer to the question I asked. The question I asked was:

Have you ever considered that maybe the problem is that you are incapable of communicating your ideas, or that your ideas are trivial, contradictory, and/or irrelevant to anything interesting?

I asked if YOU have ever considered that YOU are the one who is failing to communicate. The response you gave me in no way answers that question. It simply implies that you continue to think the problem lies with everyone else. And you in no way even made an attempt to address the second part of the question.

It's a simple question Doron. Put on your reading comprehension glasses, read it again, and try to give a lucid response.

 

[doronshadmi]

EDIT:

It's a simple question Doron. Put on your reading comprehension glasses, read it again, and try to give a lucid response.

It is a simple answer, in order to communicate according to OM a paradigm-shift of fundamental already agreed terms has to be done.

A forum of Philosophy is exactly the appropriate environment for such a paradigm-shift.

So I ask you a simple question: "Do you wish to research already agreed terms?"

Please pay attention that if your answer is something like "the agreed terms of Real Mathematics are well established and there can't be any paradigm-shift of well established terms, by definition (therefore "paradigm-shift" is another name for "trivial, contradictory, and/or irrelevant to anything interesting")", then there can't be any chance for communication between us, no matter what forum is used in order to search after such a communication.

As you can see, my question about getting out of your box has nothing to do with stupidity, because getting out of your box is based only on your will to do such a step, where the name of this step is called "paradigm-shift".

If your answer to my question is "yes", then:

1) Please reply in details to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6686934&postcount=13448 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6683245&postcount=13419.

2) Please explain in details exactly why

[latex]$$$
\exists z \, \forall (x \ne x) \, (x \ne x) \rightarrow ((x \ne x) \in z)$$$[/latex]​

[latex]$$$
\exists z \, \forall (x = x) \, (x = x) \rightarrow ((x = x) \notin z)$$$[/latex]​

are non-well formed expressions in all considered frameworks?

 

[jsfisher]

It is a simple answer, in order to communicate according to OM a paradigm-shift of fundamental already agreed terms has to be done.

Nonsense. That's just a lame excuse for you not understanding the terminology in the first place.

If you really need new terms for your contrived tangle, define new terms. Oh, but you can't do that, can you? That would require an ability to actually define something instead of just misinterpreting things.

 

[doronshadmi]

Nonsense. That's just a lame excuse for you not understanding the terminology in the first place.

No, it is a also a mutation of already agreed terms. Your anti-evolutionist paradigm is exactly the impossibility of changes (mutations) of already agreed terms.

If you really need new terms for your contrived tangle, define new terms. Oh, but you can't do that, can you? That would require an ability to actually define something instead of just misinterpreting things.

Once again I am not talking only about new terms but about a paradigm-shift of already agreed terms, where the understanding of context-depended frameworks, is fundamentally changed by using also cross-contexts terms.

As long as one rejects cross-contexts terms one can't comprehend the paradigm-shift of context-depended terms.

EDIT:

The fact is that you unconditionally reject http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6667634&postcount=13318 and also refuse to deal in details with http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6674515&postcount=13374.

 

[jsfisher]

No, it is a also a mutation of already agreed terms. Your anti-evolutionist paradigm is exactly the impossibility of changes (mutations) of already agreed terms.

In order for that to be true, you'd need to understand the terminology in the first place. You don't, so your statement is blatantly false.

That aside, you are still trying to hide your ignorance behind a contrived excuse. Give it up. You neither understand the terms you use, nor can you describe what you mean when you use them.

 

[HatRack]

It is a simple answer, in order to communicate according to OM a paradigm-shift of fundamental already agreed terms has to be done.

Absolute nonsense. The word that one uses to denote a concept is arbitrary. For example, one could call a + b subtraction and a - b addition, and it wouldn't change anything except for what it is called. The logical form of the concept denoted by the definition remains the same. Thus, there is no need to do any shifting of already agreed upon terms. Doing so is pointless and confusing.

[latex]$$$
\exists z \, \forall (x \ne x) \, (x \ne x) \rightarrow ((x \ne x) \in z)$$$[/latex]​

[latex]$$$
\exists z \, \forall (x = x) \, (x = x) \rightarrow ((x = x) \notin z)$$$[/latex]​

The reason that these are not well-formed formulas I shall leave as an exercise to you. It is so blatantly obvious what is wrong with them that a 5-year-old who is taught the rudiments of logical syntax could readily point it out.

 

[doronshadmi]

Absolute nonsense. The word that one uses to denote a concept is arbitrary.

Thank you for supporting my argument, a paradigm-shift is not about the word that one uses to denote a given expressions like "a+b" or "a-b" , but it is about a novel understanding of these expressions.

The reason that these are not well-formed formulas I shall leave as an exercise to you. It is so blatantly obvious what is wrong with them that a 5-year-old who is taught the rudiments of logical syntax could readily point it out.

Let us see what we get:

1) You did not answer to my question which is

"Do you wish to research already agreed terms?"

2) You ignored the second part of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6690286&postcount=13453

If your answer to my question is "yes", then:

1) Please reply in details to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6686934&postcount=13448 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6683245&postcount=13419.

2) Please explain in details exactly why

[latex]$$$
\exists z \, \forall (x \ne x) \, (x \ne x) \rightarrow ((x \ne x) \in z)$$$[/latex]​

[latex]$$$
\exists z \, \forall (x = x) \, (x = x) \rightarrow ((x = x) \notin z)$$$[/latex]​

are non-well formed expressions in all considered frameworks?

in two ways:

a) You responded to the second part by avoiding a "yes" answer to my question.

b) You did not provide a detailed answer of part (2) of the second part of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6690286&postcount=13453.

 

[doronshadmi]

You don't

It does no work that way.

The fact is that you unconditionally reject http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6667634&postcount=13318 and also refuse to deal in details with http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6674515&postcount=13374.

Also pleas show that you are able to deal with http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6690286&postcount=13453 .

Only according to your ability to deal in details with the avobe links, your "You don't" can be comprehended.

 

[HatRack]

Thank you for supporting my argument

I do not support any of your arguments. Any support of your point of view that you discern from any of my posts is a complete misinterpretation on your part.

a paradigm-shift is not about the word that one uses to denote a given expressions like "a+b" or "a-b" , but it is about a novel understanding of these expressions.

The rest of us already understand these expressions. You do not. Don't try to rub off your inability to understand basic mathematical concepts such as sets and numbers onto the rest of the world. You are the one who is unable to understand.

And why should I answer your questions in any detail when you never answer even the simplest ones of mine? This question, which is directed at the root of your madness, has been dodged three times now:

Have you ever considered that maybe the problem is that you are incapable of communicating your ideas, or that your ideas are trivial, contradictory, and/or irrelevant to anything interesting?