Deeper than primes

[Apathia]

What a low level of abstraction.



You do not get the idea.

At the momnet that you ask "what's between bla bla bla" this "bla bla bla" is local w.r.t "what's between the bla bla bla" and "what's between the bla bla bla" is non-local w.r.t "the bla bla bla".

Some analogy:

This is like the horizon, each time new things are not the horizon as long as you go to the horizon, but the line of the horizon is always there in a different level, and it is not made of the things that are gathered by it.

jsfisher's question:

What's between blue and Antarctica?

Doron's answer:

The thing that gathers them into a collection.

But as you point out here, this isn't a "what." It isn't a thing to be put between.
A C B is a misleading construction when C stands for the not local that collects A and B.

A B -- because the C is not a content but a receeding horizon.
Not a thing to be a member of the collection.

There are two ways we treat the pronoun "I".
One is an objective reference where "I" am an object of discourse though not the object of a sentance.

Another is "I" as purely subject. The subjective "I" is always out of reach as an object of discourse, except in a metaphorical or symbolical way.
Trying to signify it as a mathematical sign loses it immediately.
because it is purely non-local.
As such it is neither within nor with out a collection and both within and without a collection.
In other words it is irrelevant and misleading to try to frame That Which Gathers Together Into a Collection as a mathematical object.

The "I" is not an objective thing. It is empty of any essence or catagory.
It is not a non-local object to be quantified.
It is not the real line, just as the receeding horizon is not ground or the suface of the earth.
It's just an empty placeholder.

BTW Doron, in post 2880 you atribute a post The Man made to me. Again, I can never be sure I'm really communicating with you.

 

[Little 10 Toes]

You have missed the analogy.

Nice excuse for not doing anything. I haven't missed anything when you gave me two statements and a question. Let's flashback to what you said:

Let me ask you a question (it is an analogy, so please be careful):

The dimension of . (= its magnitude of existence) is exactly 0.

The dimension of _____ (= its magnitude of existence) is exactly 1.

Can a sum of non-finite . be _____ ?

I asked you to define your symbols and your phrase "its magnitude of existence".

To nitpick, this is a not an analogy, it's two statements and a question.

Please define "its magnitude of existence".
Please confirm that when you say "The dimension of ." you are using '.' (without the quotes) to mean a single point and that the '_______' (without the quotes) in the phrase "The dimension of ________" means a line.

So how's that definition coming along? How's that confirmation going as well.

Oh, and before you say anything else, your next message:

Please read all of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4711347&postcount=2826 .

The two posts ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4708998&postcount=2805 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4710310&postcount=2822 ) are talking on the same thing, and you have missed both of them.

It doesn't contain anything about your original question. It's dealing with your redblue line subtopic, not with you asking me a question.

 

[Little 10 Toes]

BTW Doron, in post 2880 you atribute a post The Man made to me. Again, I can never be sure I'm really communicating with you.

Just do what I do. Report everytime he misquotes you. Perhaps he'll learn something while he's here.

 

[doronshadmi]

In other words it is irrelevant and misleading to try to frame That Which Gathers Together Into a Collection as a mathematical object.

You have missed it.

The difference between the local and the non-local is qualitative.

By using a collection one can measure them indirectly in terms of a quantitative difference, where the measurement unite is called cardinal that its minimal value is 0 (in the case of Emptiness) and its maximal value is ∞ (in the case of Fullness).

As long as you do not get the qualitative difference between non-local (Relation) and local (Element) things, you can't understand them.

BTW Doron, in post 2880 you atribute a post The Man made to me. Again, I can never be sure I'm really communicating with you.

Sorry for that, this is my mistake, the quote is The Man's words.

Another is "I" as purely subject.

Worng.

The "I" is the result of Singularity's self reference, and it is both Non-local AND Local. For more details please read vary carefully http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OMPT.pdf pages 15 - 30.

EDIT:

By the way, Singularity's self reference is exactly what's between Locl and Non-local things.

 

[doronshadmi]

It doesn't contain anything about your original question. It's dealing with your redblue line subtopic, not with you asking me a question.

Yes, it is.

 

[Little 10 Toes]

Please define "the magnitude of existence".

 

[zooterkin]

Also, please define 'crisp', and give an example of a 'crisp id'.

 

[doronshadmi]

Please define "the magnitude of existence".

Do you really do not get that Emptiness has the least magnitude (where "magnitude" is a measurement unit) of existence, and its opposite, called Fullness, has the most magnitude of existence?

It is a straightforward notion.

 

[doronshadmi]

Also, please define 'crisp', and give an example of a 'crisp id'.

Your French fried.

 

[zooterkin]

Your French fried.

Thought as much. You just type the first thing that enters your head, and have no idea what it means; I suspect most the examples you present to back up your usages are the results of searches done when you are challenged, rather than the basis for you choosing to use a term in the first place. Even that supposedly witty rejoinder of 3 words is nonsense. My French fried what?

 

[sympathic]

He probably meant "French Fries" as a joke (I suppose), which should be crisp.

 

[doronshadmi]

He probably meant "French Fries" as a joke (I suppose), which should be crisp.

A crisp answer.

Thought as much. You just type the first thing that enters your head, and have no idea what it means; I suspect most the examples you present to back up your usages are the results of searches done when you are challenged, rather than the basis for you choosing to use a term in the first place. Even that supposedly witty rejoinder of 3 words is nonsense. My French fried what?

A non-crisp answer.

 

[The Man]

What a low level of abstraction.

What a high level of crap.

The insider can't get that the thing that gathers things is permanently not one of those things.

Doron just can’t get what is that he writes.

So if we ask "what’s between the thing that gathers things and the gathered things", we have these options:

No Doron there is another option, actually answering the question so we can observer that answer.

This thing is observed by this question as one of the gathered things (it is on the same level of the gathered things, and there is a thing in another level that gathers them into some collection, for example A B –

So as I said you are considering (or ‘observing’ by your own words) your “thing that gathers things” to be both the ‘gathering thing’ and “one of the gathered things”. Well, as you are claming my surmise was correct I can understand your assertion of “a low level of abstraction” since that surmise was correctly based on your assertions of your ‘abstraction’.

Obviously, since you claim it is a “thing that gathers things” the gathering of itself falls within that ability as defined.

You also seem to be giving anthropomorphic properties to that ‘question’ by claiming “This thing is observed by this question”.

Another option is that that this question is equivalent to the question of "what exists northern to the north pole?" .

Since the question is meaningless, then the answer is that __ is between A B.

So your underline is the answer to a meaningless question? That would just make it a meaningless answer.

We would still like to ‘observe’ an answer to that question Doron and not just your “thing” “observed by this question” or your alternative ‘meaningless’ answer.

 

[doronshadmi]

I can understand your assertion

On the contrary to Obama's slogan:

NO, YOU CAN'T!

 

[Apathia]

You have missed it.

The difference between the local and the non-local is qualitative.

I haven't missed that.
It's a qualitative, symbological, linguistic difference, not a quantitative, mathematical difference.

By using a collection one can measure them indirectly in terms of a quantitative difference, where the measurement unite is called cardinal that its minimal value is 0 (in the case of Emptiness) and its maximal value is ∞ (in the case of Fullness).

By using your unique lingustic device, numbers are made into symbols for metaphysical objects.
You are not doing mathemtics. You are using mathematical terms and elements metaphorically.

As long as you do not get the qualitative difference between non-local (Relation) and local (Element) things, you can't understand them.

I do see the qualitative difference. That's why I'm having so much trouble with your game plan.

But then again, its not a simple distinction. Continually we play off what is at one time an element as a relation and what is at one time a relation as an element. Often in the same sentence we jump a word from one mode of meaning to the other.

The "I" is the result of Singularity's self reference, and it is both Non-local AND Local.

The "I" is merely self-referencing, not a metaphysical enitity.
So, yes, "I" is both Local and Non-Local.
Local as opposed to Non-local is a play of referencing and distinction where an element may be at one time local to a collection and another time non-local to the same collection.
No element is permenatly local or permenantly non-local. Nor do numbers have permenant non-local forms.
At least not in a quantitative sense.

Go ahead and play with metaphorical qualities.
But realize you cannot calculate with them.
You can only calculate with your "crisp" numbers.
The non-local foirms (The mushy ones as opposed to the crisp ones) aren't quantities and aren't logical objects.

But wait, they're supposed to be relations, aren't they?

OH, I forgot the device.
You get
Relation Elements
Element Realtions
Relation Relations
Element Elements

Of course I'm
(let me say it for you)
Wrong.

Ah, "Mushy Numbers"
Just please try to contain this mushiness, so that the whole of mathematics doesn't become an indeterminative slush.

Will we see the interaction of the Soggy and the Crisp?

[QUOTE}By the way, Singularity's self reference is exactly what's between Locl and Non-local things.[/QUOTE]

You're still mushying things up with this "between."
"interpenetrate" would be more apt a metaphor.

 

[The Man]

I haven't missed that.
It's a qualitative, symbological, linguistic difference, not a quantitative, mathematical difference.



By using your unique lingustic device, numbers are made into symbols for metaphysical objects.
You are not doing mathemtics. You are using mathematical terms and elements metaphorically.



I do see the qualitative difference. That's why I'm having so much trouble with your game plan.

But then again, its not a simple distinction. Continually we play off what is at one time an element as a relation and what is at one time a relation as an element. Often in the same sentence we jump a word from one mode of meaning to the other.



The "I" is merely self-referencing, not a metaphysical enitity.
So, yes, "I" is both Local and Non-Local.
Local as opposed to Non-local is a play of referencing and distinction where an element may be at one time local to a collection and another time non-local to the same collection.
No element is permenatly local or permenantly non-local. Nor do numbers have permenant non-local forms.
At least not in a quantitative sense.

Go ahead and play with metaphorical qualities.
But realize you cannot calculate with them.
You can only calculate with your "crisp" numbers.
The non-local foirms (The mushy ones as opposed to the crisp ones) aren't quantities and aren't logical objects.

But wait, they're supposed to be relations, aren't they?

OH, I forgot the device.
You get
Relation Elements
Element Realtions
Relation Relations
Element Elements

Of course I'm
(let me say it for you)
Wrong.

Ah, "Mushy Numbers"
Just please try to contain this mushiness, so that the whole of mathematics doesn't become an indeterminative slush.

Will we see the interaction of thye Soggy and the Crisp?

[QUOTE}By the way, Singularity's self reference is exactly what's between Locl and Non-local things.[/QUOTE}


You're still mushying things uo with this "between."
"interpenetrate" would be more apt a metaphor.

Well I’m glad to see you back in stride on this thread Apathia.

Apparently the mushiness is precisely what he can not contain as the indeterminate slush is all he seems able to present.

You know I’ve been waiting to hear ‘Soggy/Crisp Interaction’ for some time now which would later be followed by people being accused of ‘Soggy only’ or ‘Crisp only’ ‘thinking’ and thus not getting the full ‘Sogginess’ or ‘Crispness’ of his notions. Not to mention the biweekly claim that its ‘simple beauty’ is beyond us.

 

[Apathia]

Oh, it's just that this time the temptation to reply won.
Usually I tell myself, "You don't want to go there."

What he does to mathematics with his unique lingustic abstraction of many names, is bound to come up to contradiction after contradiction.

But I don't think that bothers him in the least, for he wants mathematics to be "soggy."

Remember this picture?

Doron likes it.
I like it.
Doron wants it to be a statement about mathematical time.
Sure there are people who take it as an atrtistic statement about the Theory of Relativity.
But here's the thing, the Theory of Relativity, as any mathematical theory, gives a precise calculation of how time is warped.
It's very crisp.
Doron's program tries to mix quantity and quality in the same stew, so that qualities get a "cardinal" measure and quantities get fuzzy, or incomplete, so to speak.

You can't blame him for trying. There's something attractive about finding a way to objectify qualities and subjectify quantities.
Objectify qualities and we can have an objective morality where what's right can in a sense be calculated.
Subjectify quantities and we're not mere statistics. I'm not a number but a free man.
Doron has his own answer to Dualism.
It's not the only way out oif the dillema, but it's his, his very own religion.

Unfortunately the cost of it is to sogg mathematics.

 

[The Man]

Oh, it's just that this time the temptation to reply won.
Usually I tell myself, "You don't want to go there."

What he does to mathematics with his unique lingustic abstraction of many names, is bound to come up to contradiction after contradiction.

But I don't think that bothers him in the least, for he wants mathematics to be "soggy."

Remember this picture?
[qimg]http://h1.ripway.com/Apathia/40268~The-Persistence-of-Memory-c-1931-Posters.jpg[/qimg]

Doron likes it.
I like it.
Doron wants it to be a statement about mathematical time.
Sure there are people who take it as an atrtistic statement about the Theory of Relativity.
But here's the thing, the Theory of Relativity, as any mathematical theory, gives a precise calculation of how time is warped.
It's very crisp.
Doron's program tries to mix quantity and quality in the same stew, so that qualities get a "cardinal" measure and quantities get fuzzy, or incomplete, so to speak.

You can't blame him for trying. There's something attractive about finding a way to objectify qualities and subjectify quantities.
Objectify qualities and we can have an objective morality where what's right can in a sense be calculated.
Subjectify quantities and we're not mere statistics. I'm not a number but a free man.
Doron has his own answer to Dualism.
It's not the only way out oif the dillema, but it's his, his very own religion.

Unfortunately the cost of it is to sogg mathematics.

I entirely agree and have always liked that picture myself. No, certainly, we can not blame him for trying. Vagueness and indeterminacy have their own enticing appeal; some are drawn to them like moths to a flame. It is part of our flexibility that allows us to function effectively since we are not inherently just logical machines. However it is also our downfall that we must overcome with definitive terms, concepts and language like mathematics in order for us to realize our full potential. So blame him for trying, no. For trying, failing and still trying the same arguments again and again dressed up with just different words, without apparently learning anything, for that we can blame no one but him.

 

[doronshadmi]

But then again, its not a simple distinction. Continually we play off what is at one time an element as a relation and what is at one time a relation as an element.

It is a simple and a qualitative distinction.

a) Relation is always non-local.

b) A point (which is an element) is always local.

c) A line segment (which is an element) is always non-local w.r.t to a point that is on it, but the same line segment can be local w.r.t another line segment or a point that are not on it.

Also a line segment is always local w.r.t a relation.

The (c) case is the one that you have troubles to get, so here are the cases:

1) A line segment is always non-local w.r.t to a point that is on it, for example:

__.__

2) The same line segment can be local w.r.t another line segment or a point that are not on it, for example:

__ __.__ . (the line segment in the middle is local w.r.t the line segment on its left or w.r.t the point on its right.

3) __ + __ = ____ , where the line segments are local w.r.t + or = relations.

In order to get (1),(2),(3) plase read http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OMPT.pdf pages pages 22 - 24.

Also you do not get Singularity's self reference as the bridging between the local AND the non-local.

These qualitative differences are used indirectly as quantitative differences only under the Non-locality\Locality Bridging.

Unfortunately the cost of it is to sogg mathematics.

By using your unique lingustic device, numbers are made into symbols for metaphysical objects.

What you call Mathematics is the limited case of weak emergence, where the Whole is the sum of its parts.

Organic Mathematics is a non-standard Strong Emergence Theory, where the Whole is greater than the sum of the (not its, but the) Parts.

In order to start to get it please read at least http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OMPT.pdf page 17.

Relation Relations
Element Elements

Some example: = + (what you call relation relation) is meaningless at OM.

Some example: 1 __ (what you call element element) is meaningless at OM.

Only relation element or element relation can have a meaning at OM.

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

In other words Apathia, your criticism is based on a fundamental misunderstanding, and therefore it is not relevant, in this case.

First make your homework before you air your view about OM.

Your fandametal mistake Apathia is that you have a "crisp notion" of what Math is not.

There is no difference between you, jsfisher or The Man that have a "crisp notion" of what Math is.

Your both "crisp notions" are wrong, because you do not get that OM is a non-standard Strong Emeregence, that cannot be understood by using Standard or Weak Strong Emeregence.

For trying, failing and still trying the same arguments again and again dressed up with just different words,...

I can understand your assertion

On the contrary to Obama's slogan:

NO, YOU CAN'T!

 

[jsfisher]

In other words Apathia, your criticism is based on a fundamental misunderstanding, and therefore it is not relevant, in this case.

First make you homework before you air your view about OM.

Wow! Talk about biting the hand....

Oh, well. Now, back to an earlier question. You'd said your notion of between was "derived directly form the must have property of any collection of all distinct objects (the standard mathematical notion)." What property of any collection would that be?