Deeper than primes

[doronshadmi]

I'll ask again, since you didn't answer the question. What is your definition of ?

The slogan is the definition, in this case.

 

[dlorde]

This is another example of how jsfisher gets things only by a step-by-step reasoning.

Isn't step-by-step progress characteristic of reasoning? What sort of reasoning (other than fallacious) does not proceed step by step?

 

[doronshadmi]

Isn't step-by-step progress characteristic of reasoning? What sort of reasoning (other than fallacious) does not proceed step by step?

Parallel reasoning.

 

[zooterkin]

Parallel reasoning.

Doesn't that just mean two (or more) strands of reasoning happening side-by-side?

 

[dlorde]

Parallel reasoning.

I'm aware of 'parallel reasoning' as in the evaluation and comparison of a number of arguments for similarity with some target argument, but that is certainly stepwise... can you briefly expand on what you mean and how it is not stepwise?

 

[doronshadmi]

Doesn't that just mean two (or more) strands of reasoning happening side-by-side?

Good question.

The answer is given in http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OMPT.pdf .

 

[doronshadmi]

I'm aware of 'parallel reasoning' as in the evaluation and comparison of a number of arguments for similarity with some target argument, but that is certainly stepwise... can you briefly expand on what you mean and how it is not stepwise?

Please read http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OMPT.pdf .

You can find a lot of examples there.

 

[zooterkin]

Good question.

The answer is given in http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OMPT.pdf .

Since you define "parallel thinking" in terms of "non-locality", which you don't define, then no, the answer is not in that 'paper'.

 

[doronshadmi]

Since you define "parallel thinking" in terms of "non-locality", which you don't define, then no, the answer is not in that 'paper'.

Also non-locality is defined in http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OMPT.pdf (see at least pages 22-23) .

 

[zooterkin]

Also non-locality is defined in http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OMPT.pdf (see at least pages 22-23) .

First, why are you defining on page 22 something that you use on page 1?


Secondly, that's not a definition of terms, nor does it makes any sense.

x or y are elements.
Definition A: If only a one relation is needed in order to define the relations from x to y, then x is called Local.
Example: a point is a local element.
Definition B: If more than one relation is needed in order to define the relations from x to y, then x is called Non-local.
Example: a line segment can be non-local element with respect to another element.

"a line segment can be non-local...". How about a real example, or a definition that would enable one to tell which case applied to a particular line segment?

Thirdly, why, when asked specific questions, can you not answer them directly rather than pointing to a 30 page PDF file?

 

[doronshadmi]

First, why are you defining on page 22 something that you use on page 1?

Secondly, that's not a definition of terms, nor does it makes any sense.

"a line segment can be non-local...". How about a real example, or a definition that would enable one to tell which case applied to a particular line segment?

Thirdly, why, when asked specific questions, can you not answer them directly rather than pointing to a 30 page PDF file?

Order is not a main principle in a not-only step-by-step reasoning.

Furthermore, you have to read the whole paper before you air your view on any part of it.

The connections between the whole and the parts are the main principle here.

Your last reply is a typical example of a person that wishes to get things only by a step-by-step reasoning.

This is exactly the reason of why such a person can't get OM reasoning.

 

[zooterkin]

Order is not a main principle in a not-only step-by-step reasoning.

Words rearrange these make sense to sensible into order a.

This is exactly the reason of why such a person can't get OM reasoning.

How many people in the world do you know who 'get' OM reasoning?

 

[The Man]

Order is not a main principle in a not-only step-by-step reasoning.

Furthermore, you have to read the whole paper before you air your view on any part of it.

Again with your “only step by step” requirement for your “not-only step-by-step reasoning”.

The connections between the whole and the parts are the main principle here.

Wow, the ‘whole’ being ‘connected’ in some way to ‘the parts’.

Little red ‘non-local’ hood: "Why grandma, what typical in the box thinking you have".

The big bad PDF: "All the better to fool myself with, my dear"

Your last reply is a typical example of a person that wishes to get things only by a step-by-step reasoning.

This is exactly the reason of why such a person can't get OM reasoning.

Your last reply is a typical example of your tendency to simply label people due your inability to explain your “parallel reasoning” and thus requiring that others follow your “step by step” process by firstly wishing to get your “OM reasoning”, before actually getting anything, well, reasonable. That you simply accept your assertions because you ‘wish to’ is about the most apparent aspect of any of your threads. That you simply wish others would do likewise is the second most apparent aspect.

 

[doronshadmi]

Words rearrange these make sense to sensible into order a.



How many people in the world do you know who 'get' OM reasoning?

Most of the people are using day by day both parallel and serial reasoning under a one framework.

The current community of mathematicians is nothing but a group of people that trains its members to thing only by a step-by-step reasoning.

As a result they miss the common reasoning that is the basis of both parallel and serial reasonings.

OM is dedicated to this common reasoning, and exactly because of this it is not limited to any particular thinking style or any particular representation method.

 

[doronshadmi]

Your last reply is a typical example of your tendency to simply label people due your inability to explain your “parallel reasoning” and thus requiring that others follow your “step by step” process by firstly wishing to get your “OM reasoning”, before actually getting anything, well, reasonable. That you simply accept your assertions because you ‘wish to’ is about the most apparent aspect of any of your threads. That you simply wish others would do likewise is the second most apparent aspect.

Your last reply is another step of not getting OM.

It can be improved if you help jsfisher to not be afraid of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4812099&postcount=3691 .

 

[jsfisher]

It can be improved if you help jsfisher to not be afraid of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4812099&postcount=3691 .

Afraid? You have again concluded incorrectly. Those posts of yours are just more of your confusion. Even by your own admission they do not head anywhere; they are pointless. They are not worthy of any sort of response.

 

[Little 10 Toes]

Most of the people are using day by day both parallel and serial reasoning under a one framework.

Give examples please. But first please explain what "under a one framework" means since it does not parse into proper English.

 

[jsfisher]

Give examples please. But first please explain what "under a one framework" means since it does not parse into proper English.

It would also be useful if Doron could justify why he gets different results than the rest of the world. It's not like mathematical truth is subject to perspective, after all.

 

[doronshadmi]

It would also be useful if Doron could justify why he gets different results than the rest of the world. It's not like mathematical truth is subject to perspective, after all.

Post http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4805347&postcount=3645 is simple and clearly shows the unnecessary complicated "truth" of your community about the real numbers.

What you call "mathematical truth" is nothing but the arbitrary limitation of a step-by-step reasoning.

OM claims that no rigorous scientific research can be done if we ignore any of its significant factors.

OM's reasoning is dedicated to the development of the bridge between the researched and the researcher, in order to rigorously define the common base ground of both of them.

We are not talking here about banding scientific results by researchers' subjective points of view.

On the contrary, we are talking here about a rigorous scientific research that tries to understand the deep associations between the researched and the researcher, in order to avoid hidden subjective assumptions at the basis of modern science.

Quantum Mechanics is such a bridging that actually discovered by Modern Physics, and now it is the right time to discover it at the foundations of the mathematical science.

It can be done only if we do not ignore the possible influences between the researched and the researcher and research them under a one comprehensive scientific framework.

One of the examples of such an attitude is the novel view of Distinction as a first-order property of the concept of Number, as clearly written in http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OMPT.pdf .

Afraid? You have again concluded incorrectly. Those posts of yours are just more of your confusion. Even by your own admission they do not head anywhere; they are pointless. They are not worthy of any sort of response.

Such a reply to Post http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4805347&postcount=3645 is a direct result of a community that trains its members to strangle any notion at its birth.

There is a beautiful phrase in English which is: "to air ones view" which is the opposite of "to strangle ones view"

The determination to define any notion before it is used has a devastating result on our abilities to get it from several points of view, and as a result we easily fall into the illusion that some definition is the one and only one possibility to understand a given notion.

OM's reasoning is based on more than a one point of view of the researched subject, which enables to research the non-trivial associations that can be found between several researched subjects.

By this approach, some subject is researched relatively and not relatively (for example http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OMPT.pdf pages 22-24) and both points of view enrich our knowledge about it.

Give examples please. But first please explain what "under a one framework" means since it does not parse into proper English.

Do you really believe that our reality can be reduced to "if A then B" relations?

Our reality is much more complex than "if A then B" relations, and only a tiny part of it obeys this mechanical relation.

The wet dream of a lot of scientists (of both abstract and non-abstract sciences) is to reduce any given reality to "if A then B" relations, but this wet dream is nothing but an illusion because reality is beyond any attempt to categorize it, exactly because Uncertainty and Redundancy are fundamentals that cannot be captured by any packaging method.

Instead of looking at Uncertainty and Redundancy as a back ground noise that has be eliminated in order to get the "if A then B" necessary truth, OM enables the researcher to air his view by not ignoring the non-trivial accusations that may exist between the researched, where the researcher's possible influences on the results are inseparable and significant factor of the research, whether it is abstract or not.

OM is not for lazy minds that reduces anything to "if A then B" .

 

[zooterkin]

One of the examples of such an attitude is the novel view of Distinction as a first-order property of the concept of Number, as clearly written in http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OMPT.pdf .

Doron, you've been told many times not to give your own meanings to words that have well-established ones already. Here's another example. What do you mean when you say, "clearly", since it's clearly not what the rest of us mean?