Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
doronshadmi said:
No, the single 0-dim w.r.t the curved 1-dim element, is not on that 1-dim curved element.

Furthermore, no infinitely many 0-dim elements on this curved 1-dim element are this curved 1-dim element.
Click to expand...

What is the relation? If the 0-dim element is not on the 1-dim element there need to be additional line-segments or 1-dim multiples to define that relation, or no precise measurements are possible.

Cumbersome.

For simplicity and elegance of ye olden skillz, therefore I score!

The score goes up, the crowd starts getting noisy.
Scoreboard for real questions:
Math: 4
Physics: 4
OM: 0

This is getting really silly now Doron. Just saying 'you don't get it!' is deluding yourself that you do get it.

You do not.
 
realpaladin said:
Missed that question. Thanks Zooterkin.

Well doron,

In math, your answer is lim(1), i.e. it approaches one, but never reaches it.

In physics, it is 1 <of arbitrary unit> - Plancks length (if you want to get into more detail, you will get into Heisenberg, Feynman etc. and have to read 'The Elegant Universe')

And guess what, they are not the same answers!
Click to expand...

Bold augmentation mine. Where <of arbitrary unit> means, whatever unit the question was posed in.

And for math, the question of unit is meaningless.

Slamdunk on you Doron!
 
realpaladin said:
What is the relation? If the 0-dim element is not on the 1-dim element there need to be additional line-segments or 1-dim multiples to define that relation, or no precise measurements are possible.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

But also here we have No-locality\Locality linkage.


Realpaladin you are a mobile one-man laboratory that provides a non-finite stream of wrong assumptions and false conclusions, that can help a lot to other posters here to realize what direction not to take.

So actually you help a lot to explain what OM is not.


It think it is the right time to air your view about http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4885673&postcount=4791 .
 
doronshadmi said:
Exactly.

But also here we have No-locality\Locality linkage.
Click to expand...

This means OM is a failure?


doronshadmi said:
Realpaladin you are a mobile
Click to expand...
How do you know I am mobile? I might be a paraplegic!

Doron, the man of assumptions!

doronshadmi said:
one-man laboratory that provides a non-finite stream of wrong assumptions and false conclusions
Click to expand...

None of which you have succesfully rebutted! :)


doronshadmi said:
, that can help a lot to other posters here to realize what direction not to take.

So actually you help a lot to explain what OM is not.
Click to expand...

Well said! Moshe, you heard it from the man himself! He does not want you to take OM seriously anymore.

Why you need childish wordplay is beyond me. I am so looking forward to the email to Microsoft.

doronshadmi said:
It think it is the right time to air your view about http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4885673&postcount=4791 .
Click to expand...

Yes, you 'missed' these posts again, didn't you?

Mr. Random Linkage.

I would say your grasp of English is not the tightest thing, but at least it is a lot tighter than your grasp on reality.
 
doronshadmi said:
Thank you for flying OM.
Click to expand...

At least I got on the plane.

At this very moment you are using Non-locality\Locality linkage, where in this case Non-locality is represented by "+" and Locality is represented by "Orange".

As you see, you can't avoid OM.

All is needed now is that you directly get OM, instead of get it only on the level of its different verbal-based representations.
Click to expand...

But I'm still sitting on the runway.

"Parallel," "Serial," "Redundancy," "Uncertainty," "Local," "Non-Local,"
"orange, +, and 3 are all verbal representations. So any more that I say on the subject of Organic Numbers doesn't touch the real understanding and can only be a flawed explanation.

I'll tell you right away the flaw in the way I presented Organic Numbers.

I said that the parallel aspect of an ON represents an individual in non-locality with respect to a given class or classes.
But you see being non-local that way doesn't amount to being Non-Local or being outside of a cognitive location. It's there in a different class - its own. So that non-locality amounts to no more than being in a different location with respect to a given class or classes.

And this is not what you mean to represent by those words.

It's what the mind does. It uses spatial metaphors to represent abstract concepts.
Right away here 'parallel" individuals are framed as mathematical objects in a different space called non-local, which is simply a different conceptual location.

"a different conceptual location" that's all my illustration of Anthony's quarters and oranges can really amount to as far as non-locality goes.

You wish with your markers and bridges to give a designation of elements in respect to their Non-Locality.
A representation, a metaphor is made, but the manipulation of the elements is just shifting things around in different conceptual locations.

Or take the non-local element as being the one in "memory." Again it amounts to merely a different conceptual location.

The intent behind it all is not to treat "William" as an object in a location,
but regard him in his own light that is not located but contains all locations.
William is a "You," not an "it" as Martin Buber characterized.
OM wants to embrace this, but manipulation of partitions of mathematical objects that are parallel or serial doesn't amount to the spiritual intent.
Just objects in different locations.

Oh, I see that the parallel elements are intended to be both within and outside the classes as you defined the non-local. But in the Anthony’s quarters illustration of using ON, no more than different conceptual location is involved.

So these illustrations of ON aren’t going to make it to Non-Locality or to the direct perception of a "you" instead of just an "it."

So, the plane remains on the ground.

Number 3 and also our abilities to classify (in any possible degree) its elements, are both the result of Non-locality\Locality linkage.
Click to expand...

I've never disputed this. Non-Locality is an indispensable player in cognition.
But it’s like the eye that can see many things but not itself.
Give it a designation in a system, and it is immediately not that.
Neti-neti.

I think you saw how easily talk of the local vs. the non-local could be confusing and miss your ultimate aim.
So you put forth an alternate presentation of "REI" in which oranges are "elements" and "+" and other operators are "relations."
It's a starker distinction. Relations are not objects to be misallocated.

But relations are often cognitive objects as well. In mathematics the operators are mathematical objects.

I can't really speak about Organic Numbers and get my plane off the ground.
There are other ways I fly, and even in speaking of those, the language can be grounding, though the intention is to fly through the groundless.
But perhaps I share some of those approaches with you to get to that missing "Direct Perception."
 
Apathia said:
net-neti
Click to expand...

Neti-neti is exactly a verbal-based way to say that no verbal-based way can get Non-locality\Locality linkage, if one is not aware of direct-perception, as the silent basis of its verbal-based skills.

Neti-neti tells you that any verbal-based representation is not direct-perception awareness.

The rest of your post is based on the misunderstanding of "neti-neti".
 
doronshadmi said:
Neti-neti is exactly a verbal-based way to say that no verbal-based way can get Non-locality\Locality linkage, if one is not aware of direct-perception, as the silent basis of its verbal-based skills.

Neti-neti tells you that any verbal-based representation is not direct-perception awareness.

The rest of your post is based on the misunderstanding of "neti-neti".
Click to expand...

I'm a little surprised you didn't jump on my statement that the "eye cannot see itself" and point out it can in a mirror. There's reflection which corressponds to your "Redundncy."

I agree with your usage "neti-neti."

I have to run do something, but I'll be back and continue in another post.
 
Allow me to cut to the chase of what I feel is important here.

I take it that your spiritual intention is to see and treat others as beings rather than mere mathematical objets.

As a being in my own light, I am not merely a object in some location.
I'm "Non-Local" so to speak, and in the moment of personal encounter, Iam not an object bound to a location, but all lcations are in my light.

I'm not another sample of a type (Uncertainty).
Or another reflection of the self-same thing (Redundancy)
I am not an "It." to be counted or sized up.
I am not a number.
Not even an Organic Number.

And all this applies to you as well when I address your person, rather than merely talk about you.

As you have seen, one an talk about and even use Organic Numbers (as a way of partitioning Redundancy and Uncertainty; one can talk about Locality-Non-Locality bridging producing parallel elements; and one can talk about Relation-Element Interaction, and entirely miss what is truely Non-Local about you and I.

Organic Number offers up an intentional metaphor to take into account Being.
But its elements are still objects of discourse and designated things.

Maybe as a "Direct Perception" you see me as a Subject rather than a mere object to be Organically numbered.

I hope so.
 
Apathia said:
Allow me to cut to the chase of what I feel is important here.

I take it that your spiritual intention is to see and treat others as beings rather than mere mathematical objets.

As a being in my own light, I am not merely a object in some location.
I'm "Non-Local" so to speak, and in the moment of personal encounter, Iam not an object bound to a location, but all lcations are in my light.

I'm not another sample of a type (Uncertainty).
Or another reflection of the self-same thing (Redundancy)
I am not an "It." to be counted or sized up.
I am not a number.
Not even an Organic Number.

And all this applies to you as well when I address your person, rather than merely talk about you.

As you have seen, one an talk about and even use Organic Numbers (as a way of partitioning Redundancy and Uncertainty; one can talk about Locality-Non-Locality bridging producing parallel elements; and one can talk about Relation-Element Interaction, and entirely miss what is truely Non-Local about you and I.

Organic Number offers up an intentional metaphor to take into account Being.
But its elements are still objects of discourse and designated things.

Maybe as a "Direct Perception" you see me as a Subject rather than a mere object to be Organically numbered.

I hope so.
Click to expand...

Direct perception is self-aware silence that manifests itself by Non-locality\Locality linkage.

The definition above is not silence itself, simply because silence is the source of any definition, and not vise versa.

Being does not exist, Being is the source of existence.

Be directly aware of Being, and you are aware of the source of existence.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Direct perception is self-aware silence that manifests itself by Non-locality\Locality linkage.

The definition above is not silence itself, simply because silence is the source of any definition, and not vise versa.

Being does not exist, Being is the source of existence.
Click to expand...

I can't argue with that! :)

But I put the manifestation a different way:
http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/heartstr.htm

But I fear for all that, you don't see me.
 
doronshadmi said:
Both of them are the result of Non-locality\Locality linkage, which is a fact that can't be percepted (a new word for direct perception) by your verbal-based noisy mind.
Click to expand...
How can you percept that my mind is noisy and that I am not just toying with you to see if you do get OM?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom