Deeper than primes

[doronshadmi]

For something so logical, it's strangely resistant to being expressible in formal language.

One of the essential concepts of any language (formal or informal) is Silence.

This Silence is equivalent to the Emptiness of {}.

That's like talking about invisible pink unicorns.

No, that like be Silent, which your noisy-only relative reasoning can't comprehend.

You try you get Nothing as the absence of things (No thing); this is a relative notion of Nothing.

The totality of Nothing is not understood relatively to existing things.

On the other hand, we can use the existing word "nothing" relatively to other existing things, as follows:

Nothing is better than eternal happiness; a ham sandwich is better than nothing; therefore, a ham sandwich is better than eternal happiness.

If "better" is notated by different levels where the external level is concidered as better than the internal level, then we get this form:

(ham sandwich (Nothing (eternal happiness))) , so as you see, we do not need your, so called, formal language in order to be consistent also in the relative level of existing things.

 

[HatRack]

One of the essential concepts of any language (formal or informal) is Silence.

This Silence is equivalent to the Emptiness of {}.

No, that like be Silent, which your noisy-only relative reasoning can't comprehend.

You try you get Nothing as the absence of things (No thing); this is a relative notion of Nothing.

Prove it.

The totality of Nothing is not understood relatively to existing things.

Prove it.

On the other hand, we can use the existing word "nothing" relatively to other existing things, as follows:

If "better" is notated by different levels where the external level is concidered as better than the internal level, then we get this form:

(ham sandwich (Nothing (eternal happiness))) , so as you see, we do not need your, so called, formal language in order to be consistent also in the relative level of existing things.

Who's the one playing with words and notations again? That was the entire point of my large post, that simply treating the word nothing as an object as opposed to a concept that must be taken into context is fallacious. That seems to have soared straight over your head though.

 

[doronshadmi]

Doron, we use words, phrases, and notation to describe things. I, along with every other human being in the world, am well aware the word silence is not the same physical thing as the phenomena it describes.

Silence is not a thing (abstract or not) exactly as Emptiness is not a thing (abstract or not).

 

[HatRack]

Silence is not a thing (abstract or not) exactly as Emptiness is not a thing (abstract or not).

Doron, it is pointless to dabble in such imprecise language. Whether or not silence (or emptiness) is a thing depends on two things, at the very least:

1. Whether you are referring to "silence" the word or "silence" the concept.
2. How concrete a concept has to be for you to consider it a "thing".

I personally have no problem referring to abstract concepts as things. Hence, when nothing is referred to as the absence of something, I guess you could say I consider nothing to be something.

But, these are all pointless word games that have nothing to do with the problem at hand (you expressing your thoughts in a way that is precise and meaningful to everyone).

 

[jsfisher]

Silence is not a thing (abstract or not) exactly as Emptiness is not a thing (abstract or not).

No. Silence is a perfectly fine thing. I'm enjoying it now, broken only ever so gently by the soft clicking of a keyboard.

Emptiness, on the other hand, is your concoction, so you are free to grant or deny it whatever attributes you like. Just don't pretend it is anything other than Doronetics and not real Mathematics.

 

[doronshadmi]

Prove it.

You get Nothing in terms of existing things because by your reasoning

X is a variable, it can be whatever existent object you wish it to be.

Prove it.

Deep sleep without dreams.

Who's the one playing with words and notations again?

Both of us, so?

That was the entire point of my large post, that simply treating the word nothing as an object as opposed to a concept that must be taken into context is fallacious. That seems to have soared straight over your head though.

You created your own fallacy, and then run in circles in your own creation and claim that we need your creation in order to avoid the fallacy that you created.

I simply exposed your closed game by playing another game that does not use your, so called, formal logic, and still we get consistent results.

 

[doronshadmi]

Doron, it is pointless to dabble in such imprecise language. Whether or not silence (or emptiness) is a thing depends on two things, at the very least:

1. Whether you are referring to "silence" the word or "silence" the concept.
2. How concrete a concept has to be for you to consider it a "thing".

I personally have no problem referring to abstract concepts as things. Hence, when nothing is referred to as the absence of something, I guess you could say I consider nothing to be something.

But, these are all pointless word games that have nothing to do with the problem at hand (you expressing your thoughts in a way that is precise and meaningful to everyone).

You still get Silence relatively.

As long as you are not Silent in the total sense, Silence is relatively understood by your thoughts as the absence of any expression, including your thoughts about it (which is still a thought about the absence of thoughts).

When your mind is directly aware of Silence it is done without any thoughts about it.

Only then you are able to get the total state of Silence, which is actually the simplest state of your mind, where thoughts are born from and expressed as senses, notions, emotions, intuition, analysis, or any other mental activity that can be further expressed by words, notations, actions, reactions, which are found in every aspect of our life.

 

[doronshadmi]

Whether or not silence (or emptiness) is a thing depends on two things

I like it

 

[HatRack]

I simply exposed your closed game by playing another game that does not use your, so called, formal logic, and still we get consistent results.

Says the man who obtains the results {} = 0 and {} ≠ 0 in the same post.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6711389

 

[The Man]

As long as you are not Silent in the total sense, Silence is relatively understood by your thoughts as the absence of any expression, including your thoughts about it (which is still a thought about the absence of thoughts).

No Doron silence is specifically the absence of sound, which is often used as a form of expression.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_silent_musical_compositions

When your mind is directly aware of Silence it is done without any thoughts about it.

Only then you are able to get the total state of Silence, which is actually the simplest state of your mind, where thoughts are born from and expressed as senses, notions, emotions, intuition, analysis, or any other mental activity that can be further expressed by words, notations, actions, reactions, which are found in every aspect of our life.

“directly aware” “without any thoughts about it.”? This is just your usual self contradictory nonsense as well as your propensity to try to pawn off your own thoughts onto something or someone other then just you. Once again your thoughts about your “total state of Silence” and the “simplest state of your mind” that occurred to you while you were engaged in some TDM (where you’re suppose to clear your self of thoughts) only demonstrate that you were doing even just that wrong. However rather than just accept that you were still thinking during such meditations you have invented this whole fantasy about saving our civilization with your “OM” and have wasted decades of your life when you actually could have been making at least some difference in the real world. That is the saddest part Doron, not that you fantasize about saving civilization (there are worse thing to fantasize about) but that you let this fantasy consume you and expect others to do the same.




Got an answer to this question yet?

So now your “magnitude of existence” can have a negative value?

 

[realpaladin]

Thank you for agree with me that -1 is an existing thing exactly like 1 or 0.

It is a number... what of it? It is not a magnitude.

You miss the magnitude part, please reread.

EDIT:

No one of them is Emptiness, which is a concept that The Man can't get exactly becuse he asks about negative existence as a magnitude that is less than Emptiness.

Emptiness? Existence? I don't want to get out the old mantra... learn math! But hey... let's answer this in a different way:

Emptiness has nothing to do with existence. Emptiness is a state of what is contained inside a container.
If the container is not containing anything, it is empty.

And The Man tries to point out to you that you mix different disciplines without checking what the consequences are for your formulations.

 

[realpaladin]

No, I'm afraid that's not the flaw. Let's look at the statement carefully.<snippety>

Pssst... I know it makes it all a bit more cumbersome, but... could you enter formula's in Unicode characters?

We can enter them in Mathematica etc. then... well, Doron won't because he only uses Turbo Pascal or Delphi as we know from some screenies earlier.

But at least it gives him a fair chance to use some software to verify, since math is not entirely his strong point.

 

[epix]

That's not what I asked. I asked for you to point out the logical flaw in the statement. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_fallacy to understand what a logical flaw is.

There is no way to find a logical flaw in a single statement alone, such as "All dolls belong to Clara," as much there is no logical flaw in any of Doron's axioms regarding Fullness, Emptiness, non-locality and so on. Someone has decided on properties of the empty set and one of them is that the empty set is a subset of any set including itself. That's not apparent though; only when the power set shows it.

The statement implies in general that nothing is always a part of something and many folks would take an issue with it. Simply put, the power set P(S) includes something that is not listed in S. I guess that the particular property of the empty set stops the leak somewhere.

 

[epix]

Only then you are able to get the total state of Silence, which is actually the simplest state of your mind, where thoughts are born from and expressed as senses, notions, emotions, intuition, analysis, or any other mental activity that can be further expressed by words, notations, actions, reactions, which are found in every aspect of our life.

Silence is included in the Axiom of Self-incrimination:
You have the right to remain silent and refuse to answer questions.

Have you ever heard of Miranda Topological Space?
That space is kind of small and may be shared with more than one point.

 

[jsfisher]

Am I correct that Archimedes viewed the "for all" quantifier as requiring at least one? I seem to remember that. So, "all Greeks are liars" meant there was one or more examples.

I can understand why Archimedes and those of his era would have thought this way. It followed the convention of colloquial natural language (frequently a stranger to consistency, simplicity, and logic). Also, there was not a well-formed concept of zero to displace one in one-or-more, nor was there a formal system for expression to make obvious the several advantages of a zero-based origin.

Doron, on the other hand, is not so disadvantaged, but he substitutes willful ignorance to defend himself from modern convention.

Nonetheless, if Doron wants the less useful meaning for "for all", inconsistent with "there exists", he's welcome to it in his motley Doronetics. Real Mathematics can remain as is.

 

[epix]

Am I correct that Archimedes viewed the "for all" quantifier as requiring at least one? I seem to remember that. So, "all Greeks are liars" meant there was one or more examples.

I can understand why Archimedes and those of his era would have thought this way. It followed the convention of colloquial natural language (frequently a stranger to consistency, simplicity, and logic).

I think that any language is consistent, simple and logical when applied in the environment out of which it originated. The noted inventors of the past were successfully communicating with their assistants and investors by preserving the structure of a natural language.

Prime numbers would be consistently odd, if it were not for 2. The only way to preserve consistency is to create an abstract world and impose arbitrary rules over it the way it would work. A deck of cards is a set and Black Jack is one of those abstract worlds that really works -- for the casino.

Doron has been shuffling a deck of custom-painted cards most of the time; rarely he deals. I think I know why . . .

 

[HatRack]

There is no way to find a logical flaw in a single statement alone, such as "All dolls belong to Clara,"

That depends on what your definition of "logical flaw" is. I personally consider statements of the form "A and ~A" to be logically flawed.

 

[doronshadmi]

Says the man who obtains the results {} = 0 and {} ≠ 0 in the same post.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6711389

Says the man that between |{}| and {}.

 

[doronshadmi]

“directly aware” “without any thoughts about it.”?

Yes.

And your noisy mind can't get it, so?

 

[doronshadmi]

Emptiness?

Yes, and it is not a set becuse a set is an exiting thing (abstract or not).

According to ZF "all members of {} are sets" (Or by jsfisher's words: "Every member of {} is a set, without exception" ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6713481&postcount=13621 )) .

In other words, ZF does not follow its own determination.