Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
dlorde said:
I'm trying to grasp how your ideas will have any practical effect, and I still can't see it. If you can't give a real-world example of how it might work, invent a hypothetical one so I can see the moral and ethical dimensions are incorporated into the science using your language.
Click to expand...

The current scientific paradigm, which easily ignores the real-time presence of the researcher's awareness during his scientific work (you call this ignorance "context dependent"), is exactly the method that artificially causes the dichotomy between Ethics and Logics.

It is a fundamental mistake to think that Ethical considerations cannot be an inseparable property of the scientific real-time tools of the exact sciences, and OM's goal is to develop exactly such tools that will give the scientist the needed Ethical aspects directly through his scientific tools.

If such a goal is achieved, then we do not need politicians or religious leaders in order to decide what to do with a destructive technology, simply because such a technology will not be developed by scientists that are aware of Ethics and Logics\Technologic aspects as built-in properties of their scientific tools.

You do not grasp yet the notion of the Organic Numbers and how they are used to train the mind to be aware of the fine relations between itself and its researched subjects, such that the researcher is aware of itself as an inseparable organ of a one realm (abstract or not) where the researcher is an important factor of the development of that realm.

The gate to the Organic Numbers realm is in pages 18-20 of http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OMPT.pdf but somehow you miss it (you did not get yet the notion of the Cybernetic Kernels and Complexity development, which leads to a natural responsible researcher).
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
Who knows that there is something to be observer if it is not observed? The observed requires an observer, the observer is not necessarily required to actually observe anything. If I close my eyes and do not observe the chooser selecting a glass does that leave my glass still indistinct and a selection to be made by me simply because I did not observe the selection? If again I close my eyes and mentally select the glass on my left, but the chooser takes the glass to my left then rotates the table so that the remaining glass is to my left do I still have the glass on my left I mentally selected when I open my eyes?
Click to expand...

At the risk of draggin the HPC debate into this thread [please forgive me >_<] I'd say that to be conscious is to observe something. Cutting of a particular sensory channel wouldn't change this. Even if one has their optic nerves severed, is rendered deaf, and loses connection to their bodily sensations, if they are still have thoughts, emotions, and mental imagery they are still observing.
 
doronshadmi said:
OK The Man, I get your point, you simply wish not to get the Symmetric\Non-symmetric model and instead you rambling around the Person's personal life, his health problems, his relations with his parents, etc. etc. …

My suggestion to you is: go have a life …
Click to expand...

I don't think he was rambling about someone's personal life. He was just conducting a thought experiment, is all :)
 
Ok, now having waded through the Sweden presentation videos, I think I understand what MosheKlein means by distinction. Let me play this back to MosheKlein for his reaction:

First off, the concept of number being used here has some underlying reference to things, often implicit. You don't just consider 3 as an abstract mathematical construct; there must be 3 things of one sort or another. Beads on a string has been the frequent example in this thread.

Each thing is presumed to have some identity, but the identity may be unknown to use. Distinction refers to the possible ways in which we can distinguish (or not) among those things.

Let's say we have 2 things, with identities A and B. If we don't know which is which, the best we can say is one is either A or B and the other is either B or A. (This would be the superposition of identities that's been mentioned once or twice in this thread.) If we know the identity of one of the things, then by the process of elimination we know the identity of the other.

So, for 2 things, there are 2 distinctions: (AB, AB) and (A, B).

For 3 things, the claim is there are 3 distinctions, ranging from knowing nothing, something, or everything: (ABC, ABC, ABC), (A, BC, BC), and (A, B, C).


How am I doing, MosheKlein?
 
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
Ok, now having waded through the Sweden presentation videos, I think I understand what MosheKlein means by distinction. Let me play this back to MosheKlein for his reaction:

First off, the concept of number being used here has some underlying reference to things, often implicit. You don't just consider 3 as an abstract mathematical construct; there must be 3 things of one sort or another. Beads on a string has been the frequent example in this thread.

Each thing is presumed to have some identity, but the identity may be unknown to use. Distinction refers to the possible ways in which we can distinguish (or not) among those things.

Let's say we have 2 things, with identities A and B. If we don't know which is which, the best we can say is one is either A or B and the other is either B or A. (This would be the superposition of identities that's been mentioned once or twice in this thread.) If we know the identity of one of the things, then by the process of elimination we know the identity of the other.

So, for 2 things, there are 2 distinctions: (AB, AB) and (A, B).

For 3 things, the claim is there are 3 distinctions, ranging from knowing nothing, something, or everything: (ABC, ABC, ABC), (A, BC, BC), and (A, B, C).


How am I doing, MosheKlein?
Click to expand...

You are doing great.

The case of 1 is:

(A)

The case of 2 is:

(AB, AB)
(A, B)

The case of 3 is:

(ABC, ABC, ABC)
(AB, AB, C)
(A, B, C)

The case of 4 is:

(ABCD, ABCD, ABCD, ABCD)
(AB, AB, ABCD, ABCD)
(A, B, ABCD, ABCD)
(AB, AB, AB, AB)
(A, B, AB, AB)
(A, B ,A ,B)
(ABC, ABC, ABC, D)
(AB, AB, C, D)
(A, B, C, D)

Please write case 5.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
The case of 4 is:

(ABCD, ABCD, ABCD, ABCD)
(AB, AB, ABCD, ABCD)
(A, B, ABCD, ABCD)
(AB, AB, AB, AB)
(A, B, AB, AB)
(A, B ,A ,B)
(ABC, ABC, ABC, D)
(AB, AB, C, D)
(A, B, C, D)
Click to expand...


You might want to reconsider a few of those.
 
jsfisher said:
As a mathematical term, property is usually restricted to yes/no propositions. This may seem like an unnecessary nit-pick, especially since I did say it was only usually true, but the phrasing first-order property puts it into the realm of always true.
Click to expand...

Alright. Thanks for the info :)
 
jsfisher said:
You might want to reconsider a few of those.
Click to expand...

The case of 4 is:

(1+1+1+1)
(ABCD, ABCD, ABCD, ABCD)

(2+1+1)
(AB, AB, ABCD, ABCD)
(A, B, ABCD, ABCD)

(2+2)
(AB, AB, AB, AB)
(A, B, AB, AB)
(A, B ,A ,B)

(3+1)
(ABC, ABC, ABC, D)
(AB, AB, C, D)
(A, B, C, D)
 
doronshadmi said:
...
(A, B, ABCD, ABCD)
...
Click to expand...

Taking just one as an example, you don't see any problem with this one? The example (A, B, ABCD, ABCD) expresses the situation where we know the identity of one thing, and the identity of another thing, but uncertain about either of the last two.

Without too much thought, most of us here could narrow the field a bit for those last two.
 
jsfisher said:
Taking just one as an example, you don't see any problem with this one? The example (A, B, ABCD, ABCD) expresses the situation where we know the identity of one thing, and the identity of another thing, but uncertain about either of the last two.

Without too much thought, most of us here could narrow the field a bit for those last two.
Click to expand...

In (A, B, ABCD, ABCD) the A, B part is a recursion of level 2 distinction within level 4 distinction, which has no influence on level 4 distinction.

Please look at this diagram for better understanding:

1-4.jpg


As you see, as long as the partition of 4 is not (3+1), we are under splitting\connecting transitions between partitions, and we can't determine for sure a unique id.

EDIT: When we at (3+1), then +1 has a stable and unique id.

Also, by using the diagram above we can represent case 4 in a more general way:

Instead of ABCD we use 4 in order to represent 4 possible ids.
Instead of ABC we use 3 in order to represent 3 possible ids.
Instead of AB we use 2 in order to represent 2 possible ids.
Instead of A we use 1 in order to represent 1 possible ids.

By using this generalization, case 4 looks like this:

(1+1+1+1)
(4, 4, 4, 4)

(2+1+1)
((2, 2), 4, 4)
(((1), 1), 4, 4)

(2+2)
((2, 2), (2, 2))
(((1), 1), (2, 2))
(((1), 1), ((1), 1))

(3+1)
((3, 3, 3), 1)
(((2, 2), 1), 1)
((((1), 1), 1), 1)
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
In (A, B, ABCD, ABCD) the A, B part is a recursion of level 2 distinction within level 4 distinction, which has no influence on level 4 distinction.
Click to expand...


You are telling how you got it. I don't care how you calculated it. I only care about what it means at this point.
 
jsfisher said:
You are telling how you got it. I don't care how you calculated it. I only care about what it means at this point.
Click to expand...
(A, B, ABCD, ABCD) means: the distinct from of 2 within form 4 ( it is under the partition (2+1+1) ).
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
In (A, B, ABCD, ABCD) the A, B part is a recursion of level 2 distinction within level 4 distinction, which has no influence on level 4 distinction.
Click to expand...

By the way, if you want to focus on your calculation method, you need to explain all the inconsistencies. For example, 4 = 3+1 should be (ABC, ABC, ABC, ABCD) to be consistent with your other "recursions." Why isn't it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom