Deeper than primes

[The Man]

For a contradiction we need 100% probability for A AND 100% probability for not-A, where A is Local.

Let us say that A is local (for example: the coin's flip example). Since each flip has 50% probability for A ('heads') AND 50% probability for not-A ('tails') under superposition, we do not have a contradiction under flip's superposition, because:

50% probability for A ('heads') AND 50% probability for not-A ('tails') = flip's superposition

Is NOT

100% probability for A ('heads') AND 100% probability for not-A ('tails') = flip's contradiction.

In other words, thank you The Man for helping to support my argument.

(by the way, 50% probability for A ('heads') AND -50% probability for not-A ('tails')(or vice versa) = no flip is tended to collapse to a 100% actual result of A ('heads') OR not-A ('tails') local result)



No, the intermediate result that is not 100% empty AND not 100% full enables us to research, in the first place. You mix between the ontological foundations of the researchable (which are Emptiness and Fullness) and some existing researchable result, where a researchable result must be more than 100% empty AND less than 100% full, otherwise it is not researchable. The magnitude of existence of Emptiness (value 0) or Fullness (value ∞) can be defined only indirectly, by using, for example an existing tool like set, that its magnitude of existence is more than 100% Emptiness (more than 0) AND less than 100% Fullness (less than ∞).



0 is not Emptiness and ∞ is not Fullness. The intermediate ontological result that is not 100% empty AND not 100% full enables us to indirectly research (by using a set) the magnitude of the existence of Emptiness (value 0) and the magnitude of the existence of Fullness (value ∞). Also ∞ (the magnitude of exitence of Fullness) is not ∞ (the magnitude of existence of a non-finite collection).

In other words The Man, you simply do not understand with what you deal here, and make a word salad out of it.

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

Now, let us check what you have to say about the Line\point example.



Here you trivially and artificially force the local view of Line\point interaction ("A point is either on a line or it is not and the line either includes that point or it does not.") and brutally ignore the non-local view of this interaction, which is (by basically using your example):

"A line is (on the point) AND (not the point) and it does not include the point, because it is an atom, exactly as the point is an atom (the line and the point ar not derived from each other).


In other words The Man, you simply do not understand with what you deal here, and make a word salad out of it.

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


In general, you are a living proof of why standard reasoning is too weak in order to deal with OM's reasoning.

Well thanks Doron for again confirming that you have absolutely no clue as to what the words you use actually mean or what you are talking about. Oh, and you mention your ‘atoms’ again, which version are you referring to this time your ‘atoms’ that are indivisible and non composite or your ‘atoms’ that are composed as divisions?

 

[doronshadmi]

Well thanks Doron for again confirming that you have absolutely no clue as to what the words you use actually mean or what you are talking about. Oh, and you mention your ‘atoms’ again, which version are you referring to this time your ‘atoms’ that are indivisible and non composite or your ‘atoms’ that are composed as divisions?

Ya, look who is talking.

 

[jsfisher]

Ya, look who is talking.

Oh? Got any examples where The Man has used terms contrary to their accepted meaning, or invented new terms without providing any meaning for them whatsoever, or made statements that contradicted each other, or...so many other possibilities?

 

[doronshadmi]

Oh? Got any examples where The Man has used terms contrary to their accepted meaning, or invented new terms without providing any meaning for them whatsoever, or made statements that contradicted each other, or...so many other possibilities?

Again you miss the point.

You and The Man do not understand http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4671588&postcount=2666 exactly because you are using the currently agreed Standard Logic.

Because all you can get is the Standard Reasoning, you are unable to distinguish between local and non-local things.

As a result you get everything only in terms of Locality and see contradictions everywhere.

For example: You do not distinguish between the non-local [_]_ and the local [_] , and as a result you get [_]_ in terms of [_].

In [_] AND out [ ]_ is a contradiction, because a local thing cannot be in AND out of a given domain.

In [_]_ AND out [_]_ is not a contradiction, because a non-local thing is exactly in AND out of a given domain.

You and The Man can't get it, because your reasoning is too weak (it is limited to a local-only reasoning) in order to get OM.

 

[doronshadmi]

Without a loss of generality ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Without_loss_of_generality ) we can define Impossibility as follows:

"By using the Standard Reasoning, it is impossible for jsfisher and The Man to get OM."

I wish to thank you from the bottom of my heart to your profound influence on the development of OM. I sincerely mean it without using any cynicism, and especially for you I wish to finish our dialog by: "No more, no less is not the way to get OM".

 

[The Man]

Without a loss of generality ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Without_loss_of_generality ) we can define Impossibility as follows:

"By using the Standard Reasoning, it is impossible for jsfisher and The Man to get OM."

I wish to thank you from the bottom of my heart to your profound influence on the development of OM. I sincerely mean it without using any cynicism, and especially for you I wish to finish our dialog by: "No more, no less is not the way to get OM".

Unfortunately Doron, as sincere as your thanks may be, we simply can not accept responsibility for whatever it is you think we might have done for you. Sorry jsfisher but I do not whish to speak for you, however I am certain that I am not speaking out of turn on this matter. Doron, you have consistently ignored our remarks in preference for your own misinterpretations. When we try to explain the actual meaning and application of the terminology you use you simply regurgitate your own bizarre and misguided application. We have tried to help, but all you seem to read of it is some confirmation of your own personal misinterpretation of what we say. So thank yourself Doron and do not try to pawn off your inability to comprehend what others are telling you as some kind of help on their part. Spare us your thanks and actually make an effort to understand the terms you use, the concepts they infer and thus what you are talking about, that would be thanks enough for us.

 

[The Man]

Again you miss the point.

You and The Man do not understand http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4671588&postcount=2666 exactly because you are using the currently agreed Standard Logic.

Because all you can get is the Standard Reasoning, you are unable to distinguish between local and non-local things.

As a result you get everything only in terms of Locality and see contradictions everywhere.

For example: You do not distinguish between the non-local [_]_ and the local [_] , and as a result you get [_]_ in terms of [_].

In [_] AND out [ ]_ is a contradiction, because a local thing cannot be in AND out of a given domain.

In [_]_ AND out [_]_ is not a contradiction, because a non-local thing is exactly in AND out of a given domain.

You and The Man can't get it, because your reasoning is too weak (it is limited to a local-only reasoning) in order to get OM.

No Doron, as usual it just comes down to your simple lack of specificity. Fine, you want to make your definitions of “in” and “out” so unspecific in your “non-local” sense that something, specifically your ‘indivisible’ ‘non-local’ ‘atoms’, must be both “in” and “out”. All you have done is to remove any utility of the distinction between “in” and “out” for your “non-local” ‘atomic’ consideration in your notions that you claim have ‘distinction as a first order property’. Without specificity there is no utility and as such the unspecific nature of your notions makes them useless

 

[doronshadmi]

No Doron, as usual it just comes down to your simple lack of specificity. Fine, you want to make your definitions of “in” and “out” so unspecific in your “non-local” sense that something, specifically your ‘indivisible’ ‘non-local’ ‘atoms’, must be both “in” and “out”. All you have done is to remove any utility of the distinction between “in” and “out” for your “non-local” ‘atomic’ consideration in your notions that you claim have ‘distinction as a first order property’. Without specificity there is no utility and as such the unspecific nature of your notions makes them useless

No The Man.

"in" AND "out" explicitly uses "in" and "out" as essential concepts that are connected by non-locality ( __ is simultaneously "in" AND "out" w.r.t a given domain, and this notion is notated as [_]_).

You can't get it because your reasoning is closed under Locality (you do not distinguish between [_]_ and ([_] or [ ]_) , simply because you are using a reasoning that can get things only in terms of [_] or [ ]_).

It is quite sad to see your impossible struggle to get [_]_ in terms of [_] or [ ]_ , because to claim, for example, that [_]_ AND [_] is the same thing, is indeed a contradiction.

My heart with you, but I can't help you. You and only you can help to yourself to overcome this impossibility.

When we try to explain the actual meaning and application of the terminology you use you simply regurgitate your own bizarre and misguided application.

It is bizarre as long as [_]_ and [_] is the same thing for you.

We have tried to help,

The only way to get OM is to help yourself to get it, which is somthing that you did not do all along this thread.

Spare us your thanks and actually make an effort to understand the terms you use,

If, for a change, you stop your affords to help me to be like you, then maybe there is some chance that you will start to get OM.

 

[The Man]

No The Man.

"in" AND "out" explicitly uses "in" and "out" as essential concepts that are connected by non-locality ( __ is simultaneously "in" AND "out" w.r.t a given domain, and this notion is notated as [_]_).

You can't get it because your reasoning is closed under Locality (you do not distinguish between [_]_ and ([_] or [ ]_) , simply because you are using a reasoning that can get things only in terms of [_] or [ ]_).

Doron, I do not ‘distinguish between’ them because they are simply meaningless representations that you have given some significance in your own mind but can not seem to relate that significance to anyone without contradicting yourself.

It is quite sad to see your impossible struggle to get [_]_ in terms of [_] or [ ]_ , because to claim, for example, that [_]_ AND [_] is the same thing, is indeed a contradiction.

What struggle are you talking about? They are your claims Doron, the ‘struggle’ to effectively explain and support them is yours and yours alone.

My heart with you, but I can't help you. You and only you can help to yourself to overcome this impossibility.

Spare me your sympathetic platitudes; you are going to need them for yourself. Particularly if you think it is incumbent on anyone but you to overcome whatever ‘impossibilities’ you perceive in your own notions.

It is bizarre as long as [_]_ and [_] is the same thing for you.

No Doron it is bizarre as long as you remain unable to understand the meaning and conceptual basis of the words and phrases you use.

The only way to get OM is to help yourself to get it, which is somthing that you did not do all along this thread.

Ah the mating call of the con artist to the credulous. “I can’t specifically explain it to you, you just have to ‘get it’ for yourself”. You should try looking up cold reading and related techniques, that seems to be what you expect as a result, people to make connections for themselves that your notions do not or can not make explicitly and consistently on their own.

If, for a change, you stop your affords to help me to be like you, then maybe there is some chance that you will start to get OM.

What in the word makes you think I want anyone including myself to ‘be like me’. For myself at least I have little choice but to be like me and likewise just being able to understand the general meaning of words you use and the concepts they infer is also a requirement if you are expecting communicate effectively. Language is a common ground Doron; with it different people can express their differing perspectives. Without that common ground there is just words meaning one thing for one and something else to another, concepts that when communicated are no longer the same concept, explanations that basically explain nothing and definitions that are indefinite. Have no questions about it Doron the responsibility is yours to understand the concepts and terminology that you use to express you notions. Not just your interpretations of them, but as they are understood and interpreted by the audience you are addressing. There is an old saying and I can’t remember who it is attributed to, but it goes like this..

“The failure of a presenter to get a point across demonstrates a lack of knowledge by that presenter of the subject, the audience or both.”

 

[doronshadmi]

Language is a common ground Doron;

Language is a developed common ground The Man;

Doron, I do not ‘distinguish between’ them because they are simply meaningless representations that you have given some significance in your own mind but can not seem to relate that significance to anyone without contradicting yourself.

The one who claims that [_]_ AND ([_] OR [ ]_) is the same thing, gets only contradiction.

There is nothing to add in your case The Man.

 

[The Man]

Language is a developed common ground The Man;

Yes developed, past tense. The words, phrases and concepts you are using already have ‘developed’ common meanings, please learn them. Then perhaps you can go from there.

The one who claims that [_]_ AND ([_] OR [ ]_) is the same thing, gets only contradiction.

There is nothing to add in your case The Man.

Well we have heard that from you many times before.

 

[jsfisher]

Without a loss of generality ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Without_loss_of_generality ) we can define Impossibility as follows....

Even with a handy link to the definition of a phrase, you still can't use it correctly.

 

[jsfisher]

Unfortunately Doron, as sincere as your thanks may be, we simply can not accept responsibility for whatever it is you think we might have done for you. Sorry jsfisher but I do not whish to speak for you, however I am certain that I am not speaking out of turn on this matter. Doron, you have consistently ignored our remarks in preference for your own misinterpretations. When we try to explain the actual meaning and application of the terminology you use you simply regurgitate your own bizarre and misguided application. We have tried to help, but all you seem to read of it is some confirmation of your own personal misinterpretation of what we say. So thank yourself Doron and do not try to pawn off your inability to comprehend what others are telling you as some kind of help on their part. Spare us your thanks and actually make an effort to understand the terms you use, the concepts they infer and thus what you are talking about, that would be thanks enough for us.

You expressed my sentiments better than I would have.

 

[doronshadmi]

If _ is local then (in [_] AND out [ ]_) is a contradiction.

If ___ is non-local then NOT(in [_]_ AND out [_]_) is a contradiction.

No Doron it is bizarre as long as you remain unable to understand the meaning and conceptual basis of the words and phrases you use.

No The Man it is bizarre as long as you remain unable to understand the meaning and conceptual basis of the words and phrases you read.

 

[The Man]

If _ is local then (in [_] AND out [ ]_) is a contradiction.

If ____ is non-local then NOT(in [_]_ AND out [_]_) is a contradiction.



No The Man it is bizarre as long as you remain unable to understand the meaning and conceptual basis of the words and phrases you read.

Doron, again the problem is not that others do not understand what you are saying it is that you do not understand what you are saying. ‘In’ and ‘out’ are simply definitions of location and so they are both specifically local. Might one be able to consider something that transverses that boundary between what one would define as ‘in’ and what one would define as ‘out’, well of course. It is quite simple and trivial to define such a thing once you have defined the locations, classifications or identifications considered to be ‘in’ and thus those considered to be out. There is absolutely no contradiction in that it is also quite simple and trivial to define what portion or aspect of that thing meets the criteria you have created for ‘in’ and thus what portion or aspect meets the criteria you have created for ‘out’. In fact it is quite necessary in order to demonstrate that your thing resides at locations or has aspects considered to be ‘in’ as well as those considered to be out. The problems comes Doron, when you set no specific location or identification criteria for ‘in’ and thus no criteria for ‘out’ thereby removing any utility of those distinctions. Furthermore you insist that your thing is an ‘atom’ and is ‘indivisible’ such that no portion or aspect can be ‘in’ while some other portion or aspect is ‘out’. Instead try to assert it as being in a superposition of ‘in’ and ‘out’ ‘states’, without understanding what those words actually mean, how to apply them or even if they can be applied in that consideration. The lack of specificity, the misunderstanding and the contradictions are yours and yours alone Doron. I doubt anyone on this thread would have a problem discussing or making a point understood about something being ‘in’ and ‘out’ because we can be specific, define the applicable locations or aspects, understand the common terminology, not include extraneous and irrelevant terminology to try as explain such simple and trivial issues as well as not directly contradict ourselves with almost every other statement (if not just in the same statement).

 

[jsfisher]

If _ is local ...
If ___ is non-local ...

You still cannot explain what you mean by these words I've bolded, can you?

No The Man it is bizarre as long as you remain unable to understand the meaning and conceptual basis of the words and phrases you read.

And just whose fault is it that you haven't explained the meanings of those words from your secret vocabulary.

 

[doronshadmi]

The problems comes Doron, when you set no specific location or identification criteria for ‘in’ and thus no criteria for ‘out’ thereby removing any utility of those distinctions. Furthermore you insist that your thing is an ‘atom’ and is ‘indivisible’ such that no portion or aspect can be ‘in’ while some other portion or aspect is ‘out’.

The terms "in" "out" are determined by a domain, for example:

[in]out

A local element can be in one an only one state w.r.t the domain's [in]out determination.

In other words, a local element is in OR out w.r.t the domain's [in]out determination and this is tautology in terms of Locality.

A non-local element must be in both states w.r.t the domain's [in]out determination.

In other words, a non-local element is in AND out w.r.t the domain's [in]out determination and this is tautology in terms of Non-locality.

An element cannot be both local AND non-local w.r.t the domain's [in]out determination.

In order to get it all you have is to understand the difference between [in]out (in AND out) which is naturally non-local,
and [in]out or [in]out (in OR out) which is naturally local.

Any reasoning that tries to force (to use a non-natural reasoning) the non-local in terms of the local, or the non-local in terms of the local, leads to contradiction.

In general The Man and jsfisher, you force the local tautology on the non-local tautology all along this thread, and the result of this forcing is indeed a contradiction.

 

[The Man]

The terms "in" "out" are determined by a domain, for example:

[in]out

Yet again you have made no definitive statements as to the definition of that domain boundary and thus your distinctions of ‘[in]out’ remains without utility.

A local element can be in one an only one state w.r.t the domain's [in]out determination.

In other words, a local element is in OR out w.r.t the domain's [in]out determination and this is tautology in terms of Locality.

A non-local element must be in both states w.r.t the domain's [in]out determination.

In other words, a non-local element is in AND out w.r.t the domain's [in]out determination and this is tautology in terms of Non-locality.

An element cannot be both local AND non-local w.r.t the domain's [in]out determination.

Well seeing as you have not defined the attributes or aspects of your ‘element’ or your ‘domain’ boundary you can not make any definitive statements about the relation of that element to that boundary. All you are doing is making baseless assertions about relationships of ‘domains’ and ‘elements’ you have not and perhaps can not specifically and consistently define.

In order to get it all you have is to understand the difference between [in]out (in AND out) which is naturally non-local,
and [in]out or [in]out (in OR out) which is naturally local.

No Doron in order to ‘get it’ all we have to do is understand that it is simple and trivial to define a ‘domain’ boundary then define something that traverses that boundary. This is again your tendency to make a mountain out of a molehill in ascribing some universal significance to what is so easily definable, while you actually do not define either your boundary conditions or your traversing element.

Any reasoning that tries to force (to use a non-natural reasoning) the non-local in terms of the local, or the non-local in terms of the local, leads to contradiction.

Oh hold the presses a new Doronophrase ‘non-natural reasoning’. Crap is natural Doron and it certainly describes your ‘reasoning’.

In general The Man and jsfisher, you force the local tautology on the non-local tautology all along this thread, and the result of this forcing is indeed a contradiction.

So now you want to add ‘tautology’ to the words you do not understand and misuse, now asserting the result of a tautology (the negation of a contradiction) “is indeed a contradiction”. You even contradict yourself when you speak of contradiction.


Let’s apply some of Doron’s assertions, something he never seems to do effectivly.

Along the real number line we can define our ‘in’ domain as the interval (-5,5) anything else is considered ‘out’.

With three lines each five units in length that can also be represented as intervals as follows Line ‘A’ [-3,2], Line ‘B’ [-10, -5] and Line ‘C’ [2,7]. Lines ‘A’ and ‘B’ are local by Doron’s assertions, line ‘A’ being only ‘in’ the defined ‘domain’ and line ‘B’ being only ‘out’ of the defined ‘domain’ line ‘C’ would be ‘non-local’ by Dorons assertions as it is partially ‘in’ and partially ‘out’ of the defined ‘domain’. All the lines are essentially the same (5 units in length) the only difference between them is their locations along the real number line. As such it is simple and trivial to see that ‘local’ and ‘non-local’ are just results of some defined location regardless of what you choose to call that location or those locations, the defined ‘domain’ and the defined ‘lines’ in this case.

 

[doronshadmi]

Yet again you have made no definitive statements as to the definition of that domain boundary and thus your distinctions of ‘[in]out’ remains without utility.

Wrong.

Given any domain, it is at least defined as [in]out

With three lines each five units in length that can also be represented as intervals as follows Line ‘A’ [-3,2], Line ‘B’ [-10, -5] and Line ‘C’ [2,7]. Lines ‘A’ and ‘B’ are local by Doron’s assertions, line ‘A’ being only ‘in’ the defined ‘domain’ and line ‘B’ being only ‘out’ of the defined ‘domain’ line ‘C’ would be ‘non-local’ by Dorons assertions as it is partially ‘in’ and partially ‘out’ of the defined ‘domain’. All the lines are essentially the same (5 units in length) the only difference between them is their locations along the real number line. As such it is simple and trivial to see that ‘local’ and ‘non-local’ are just results of some defined location regardless of what you choose to call that location or those locations, the defined ‘domain’ and the defined ‘lines’ in this case.

Wrong again.

In order to distinguish between local element and non-local element, we define its state w.r.t a given domain.

The Man continues to use the wrong examples, and as a result cannot get the difference between locality and non-locality w.r.t a given domain.

 

[jsfisher]

Wrong.

Given any domain, it is at least defined as [in]out

But you have failed to define those things...or at least how to distinguish between the two.

Wrong again.

In order to distinguish between local element and non-local element, we define its state w.r.t a given domain.

You don't define something's state. You define terms that can be used to describe something's state. Well, no, you, Doron, don't ever define anything. I meant "you" in the impersonal pronoun sense, in this case meaning anyone except you.