Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Man said:
Let’s look at another or your ridiculously contradictory assertions



So interaction is “A=A” and you have also referred to ‘definition’ as just yyyy ‘=’ xxx. So in order to define a relation like ‘=’ as you note above requiring your ‘interaction’ of ‘self-reference’ that definition then becomes ‘= = =’ where ‘=’ is the ‘element’, the ‘relation’ and the entire ‘interaction’. Your ‘REI’ falls apart when applied to ‘=’ the primary ‘element’ of ‘relation’ in your ‘interaction’.
Click to expand...
Nonsense.

A=A is REI general form where A is a placeholder for Element.

The position in the formula A=A is important.

In that case = = = is the same as A = =


A = =

AAA.jpg



The Man said:
Hey, what you do to yourself with your REI in the privacy of your own home is your business. We do not need to hear about your “most direct and intimate experience of one's self” or what it “is not less then”.
Click to expand...
Your rudeness blocks your brain.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Nonsense.

A=A is REI general form where A is a placeholder for Element.

The position in the formula A=A is important.

In that case = = = is the same as A = =


A = =

[qimg]http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/AAA.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

So your ‘REI’ is meaningless since it is only ‘= = =’, with “A” as a “placeholder” for ‘=’ would just make it ‘A A A’.


doronshadmi said:
Your rudeness blocks your brain.
Click to expand...

While your arrogance and ignorance defines yours.
 
doronshadmi said:
No.

Backwards cannot be less than Locality (its cardinal has not predecessor).

Forward cannot be more than Non-locality (its cardinal has no successor).
Click to expand...

So you do not understand the word ‘research’, it is better then that you continue to use your own personal delineation of it as “re-search” exemplifying your propensity to search the same areas again and again yet still find nothing.
 
doronshadmi said:
Please define some Well Formed Formula, where no relation is used in this definition
Click to expand...

You either don't understand at all what a formula is, or you are asking for the trivial, or both. One doesn't define a formula. A string of symbols either does or does not obey the rules for what constitutes a formula. The formula, A, obeys all the rules.

Now, if you want meaning attributed to the formula or any of its sub-formulae, that's a different matter.

(do not forget your reaction in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4504307&postcount=2085 ).
Click to expand...

That would be my request for your definition of non-locality. Still working on that, are you?
 
The Man said:
So your ‘REI’ is meaningless since it is only ‘= = =’, with “A” as a “placeholder” for ‘=’ would just make it ‘A A A’.
Click to expand...
No.

There are at least two types of placeholders, one for Relation and one for Element, where Relation is Non-local w.r.t Element and Element is Local w.r.t Relation.

Relation can be: Equation, Operation, Logical connective, Class, etc.

Element can be: Value, Member, Object, etc.
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
So you do not understand the word ‘research’, it is better then that you continue to use your own personal delineation of it as “re-search” exemplifying your propensity to search the same areas again and again yet still find nothing.
Click to expand...
In your realm research is an endless regresion because you understand Atom as a composite thing.
 
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
One doesn't define a formula. A string of symbols either does or does not obey the rules for what constitutes a formula. The formula, A, obeys all the rules.
Click to expand...

What determines the rules for what constitutes a formula?

EDIT: If you say definition, I'll ask what defines the definition?
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
No.

There are at least two types of placeholders, one for Relation and one for Element, where Relation is Non-local w.r.t Element and Element is Local w.r.t Relation.

Relation can be: Equation, Operation, Logical connective, Class, etc.

Element can be: Value, Member, Object, etc.
Click to expand...

In your self-referencing definition of your primary ‘relation’ ‘=’ of your ‘interaction’ all of your ‘placeholders’ are holding those places for ‘=’, your ‘placeholder’ dodge doesn’t cut it. In your notions ‘=’ can be and must be ‘relation’, ‘element’ and your whole ‘interaction’ as ‘= = =’. You can play this ‘placeholder’ game if you want by replacing one or more of the ‘=’ with some other symbol so it does not look quite as ridiculous but your ‘REI’ notion still comes down to just ‘= = =’ in its most precise ‘self-referencing interaction relation defining’ form.
 
doronshadmi said:
In your realm research is an endless regresion because you understand Atom as a composite thing.
Click to expand...


No, in the real world research is an endless regression as well as an endless progression because, well, we don’t know everything. If we did know everything there would be no need to do any research. Is that why you never seem to do any research?
 
The Man said:
In your self-referencing definition of your primary ‘relation’ ‘=’ of your ‘interaction’ all of your ‘placeholders’ are holding those places for ‘=’, your ‘placeholder’ dodge doesn’t cut it. In your notions ‘=’ can be and must be ‘relation’, ‘element’ and your whole ‘interaction’ as ‘= = =’. You can play this ‘placeholder’ game if you want by replacing one or more of the ‘=’ with some other symbol so it does not look quite as ridiculous but your ‘REI’ notion still comes down to just ‘= = =’ in its most precise ‘self-referencing interaction relation defining’ form.
Click to expand...

No.

In = = = only the middle is Relation.

You did not get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4518433&postcount=2181 .
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
No, in the real world research is an endless regression as well as an endless progression because, well, we don’t know everything. If we did know everything there would be no need to do any research. Is that why you never seem to do any research?
Click to expand...
We don't know everything and cannot know everything also because any research changes the realm in some way, whether it is micro or macro.

It does not mean that there are no constants (atoms), but knowing the constants is not enough, similarly as knowing the keys of some musical instrument, does not able to know what music can be composed by using them.

Any non-trivial result is the outcome on non-trivial interactions between constants.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
What determines the rules for what constitutes a formula?

If you say definition, I'll ask what defines the definition?
Click to expand...

Well lets take the ‘REI’ ‘= = =’ “placeholder” approach since in your ‘REI’ you have already stated ‘=’ as the primary relation for ‘definition’ as well as for your ‘self-reference interaction’. So replacing your “placeholders” and correcting tenses for readability we have ‘definition defines defining’.

If you had actually done some research on what defines a well formed formula you would have found that it is the formal grammar of the formal language that is being applied to that formula.

Do you have any formal grammar and formal language for your formulas, so far all the formulas we have from you are ‘I’, ‘A = A’ and ‘= = =’ or ‘A = =’ if you prefer your pretend ‘placeholders’ all these formulas are the same so your language only says one thing ‘= = =’.
 
doronshadmi said:
We don't know everything and cannot know everything also because any research changes the realm in some way, whether it is micro or macro.
Click to expand...

Well then, welcome to the realm of never ending research. Are you planning on actually do some anytime soon or are you just going to stick with you “re-search” going over the same old ground again and again, finding nothing and explaining nothing.

doronshadmi said:
It does not mean that there are no constants (atoms), but knowing the constants is not enough, similarly as knowing the keys of some musical instrument, does not able to know what music can be composed by using them.
Click to expand...

Being constant does not make something an “atom” especially not in your usage of the term as a non-composite thing. The speed of light is constant yet it is still a speed requiring both time and space for the composition of that proportion.


doronshadmi said:
Any non-trivial result is the outcome on non-trivial interactions between constants.
Click to expand...

More gibberish the result of the interactions between constants is, well, constant and therefore ‘immediately evident’ or ‘trivial’
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom