Deeper than primes

[The Man]

Don't be overly concerned for me. I'm still using my mind.

Of that I've had no doubt, but OM-zombie seemed befitting of what Doron seems to be expecting.

There are some issues around Doron's OM that I have wanted to be able to discuss with him but haven't had an entry place of mutual understanding to do so.

I believe I have that now.
And if this blew up in my face, I would have to accuse Doron of being totally disingenuous and worse.
But that is where you have placed him already.

"The Value," "Singularity," and now "Direct Perception" are terms unique to Doron to reference the state of consciousness in which there is no differentiation of objects, or one element as opposed to another.

It's not an assertion of something that evidence can be offered as to its existence or non-existence, or its truth-value. It's just a state of consciousness.

The question comes in whether or not the interaction of Local/Non-Local principles of thought is a model of the way we think or a stick figure caricature.
That it is a verbal expression of differentiation is not in dispute, as far as I'm concerned.

Also the supposed utility of the OM partitions is something I want to discuss with Doron.

And then there's the place of mathematical infinity.

I'm not expecting I'll change his point of view.
To a great degree this is a religious matter.
And you know how those things go, whether its Christianity or Rationalism.

I hope at best to move this into a sane, civilized exchange rather than the bickering that's been going on here (and I've participated in).

If it blows up in my face again, I promise to bow out, and hope that others will as well.

Well I wish you the best of luck with that and if Doron were to assert it as simply some religious matter I would most likely bow out as well. However since Doron ascribes this as some paradigm shift in math without apparently understanding that math he purports to be supplanting, then I will remain (like others) to actually give that math its due consideration. Likewise I harbor no delusions of changing Doron’s point of view, but to simply remain as one of the voices of actual math that Doron should have paid more attention to low these many years. I too have hoped to move the discussion to a more productive exchange several times, however Doron’s notions are so engrained in a basic misunderstanding of current math that he can’t even bring himself to just say, “Yes that is how the current paradigm defines, describes or utilizes that concept, while my new paradigm takes this different approach”. Instead he insists that his misinterpretations and misrepresentations of current mathematics are a failure of current mathematics and not simply his misunderstanding of current mathematics. The sad fact is Apathia without the uncivilized bickering and misconceptions, I am afraid that Doron would actually have little to say beyond the simply trivial. I hope I am wrong and you are right that there is some utility to this (at least for Doron’s sake), but Dorn has had ample opportunities and presented nothing but simply trivial, contradictory or irrelevant rhetoric, while you have in fact been doing most of the actual work of trying to find some philosophical bases and utility within this discussion.

 

[Apathia]

No, Direct perception if expressible iff Non-locality and Locality are independent (they are no made or derived of or defined by each other) during their mutuality.

In other words, Non-locality and Locality are exactly mutual independent, where Non-locality provides the Mutuality aspect and Locality provides Independency aspect of this mutual independency space (now known as at least n-Uncertainty x n-Redundancy Tree).

Let's start with Direct Perception.
There no differentiation in it, not this as opposed to that.
The moment we verbally express it (as i just did), we talk of Differentiation and Non-Differentiation to make a difference.
The expression makes a differentiation.

Notice that the terms "Differentiation" and "Non-Differentiation" have as lot in common. we understand them mutually because one word is simply negated.
It's the this is not that that's crucial here.
We have a Direct Perception of _____________________
and we have a direct perception of setting this apart from that by no more than a simple non prefix on the same concept.

We get them together in the same package at the same moment of differentiating verbal expression.
One is not prior to the other in verbal meaning. Non-Fermentation has no verbal meaning apart from "Differentiation."
And again, there is no linguistic meaning in Direct Perception (The Singularity)

This applies to the Local,Non-Local pair as well.

But, I see where you're coming from with this.
"Non-Locality" is one of your terms for that which has no locality, and no non-locality to be strict about the matter.
"So. "Non-Locality" is a state of consciousness on its own not derived from a Local state of consciousness.

But once we begin talking about Direct perception as an object of discourse, we cleave the Whole into terms whose linguistic meanings are integral to each other because they are based on a mere negation of one of the pair.

Let's say The Value is VO.
Suddenly VO is broken, or carved up.
Then we wind up speaking of VO as the Unbroken VO
just because VO prior to the Break, can't be spoken of as any object apart from others.
But "Broken Vo" and "Unbroken VO" are linguistic terms that derive their meaning integrally to each other.

This denies them any claim of being cognitive absolutes independent of each other.
They aren’t prior to the differentiation; they are created together because of it.

And meanwhile there’s the uncomfortable paradox that we can't but speak of VO as an object of discourse, though it can never be so framed.
Any expression of VO then involves contrasting terms that are relative to each other.

Now what’s at steak here is your positing of two linguistic principles that you posit as the structure of any linguistic or cognitive differentiation.
There’s a lot I want to examine here, but I think I’ve had enough for today.

 

[The Man]

Since there is more than one option for "leads" in http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/leads , then please tell us what option you are using in this case.

As I said take your pick, as none of them refer directly as "transformed to" then your bidirectional condition of non-local leads to local and local leads to non-local applies. Not that it really matters much since you did not present any option where non-local leads to local but local does not lead to non-local.

As for the specific use in the statement you quoted then #6 would be that intended use.

 

[Apathia]

Of that I've had no doubt, but OM-zombie seemed befitting of what Doron seems to be expecting.



Well I wish you the best of luck with that and if Doron were to assert it as simply some religious matter I would most likely bow out as well. However since Doron ascribes this as some paradigm shift in math without apparently understanding that math he purports to be supplanting, then I will remain (like others) to actually give that math its due consideration. Likewise I harbor no delusions of changing Doron’s point of view, but to simply remain as one of the voices of actual math that Doron should have paid more attention to low these many years. I too have hoped to move the discussion to a more productive exchange several times, however Doron’s notions are so engrained in a basic misunderstanding of current math that he can’t even bring himself to just say, “Yes that is how the current paradigm defines, describes or utilizes that concept, while my new paradigm takes this different approach”. Instead he insists that his misinterpretations and misrepresentations of current mathematics are a failure of current mathematics and not simply his misunderstanding of current mathematics. The sad fact is Apathia without the uncivilized bickering and misconceptions, I am afraid that Doron would actually have little to say beyond the simply trivial. I hope I am wrong and you are right that there is some utility to this (at least for Doron’s sake), but Dorn has had ample opportunities and presented nothing but simply trivial, contradictory or irrelevant rhetoric, while you have in fact been doing most of the actual work of trying to find some philosophical bases and utility within this discussion.

I was going to say but forgot to, that I'm counting on you and the other math people to take Doron to task when he misunderstands traditional mathematics and its richness.

And I need you too because there are some issues in the Philosophy of Mathematics here, some deep ones, and I admit I'm going to be over my head.

 

[doronshadmi]

Don't be overly concerned for me. I'm still using my mind.

There are some issues around Doron's OM that I have wanted to be able to discuss with him but haven't had an entry place of mutual understanding to do so.

I believe I have that now.
And if this blew up in my face, I would have to accuse Doron of being totally disingenuous and worse.
But that is where you have placed him already.

"The Value," "Singularity," and now "Direct Perception" are terms unique to Doron to reference the state of consciousness in which there is no differentiation of objects, or one element as opposed to another.

It's not an assertion of something that evidence can be offered as to its existence or non-existence, or its truth-value. It's just a state of consciousness.

The question comes in whether or not the interaction of Local/Non-Local principles of thought is a model of the way we think or a stick figure caricature.
That it is a verbal expression of differentiation is not in dispute, as far as I'm concerned.

Also the supposed utility of the OM partitions is something I want to discuss with Doron.

And then there's the place of mathematical infinity.

I'm not expecting I'll change his point of view.
To a great degree this is a religious matter.
And you know how those things go, whether its Christianity or Rationalism.

I hope at best to move this into a sane, civilized exchange rather than the bickering that's been going on here (and I've participated in).

If it blows up in my face again, I promise to bow out, and hope that others will as well.

The simplest expression of direct perception (where direct perception is the ground base of any expression (abstract or not)) is Non-locality\ Locality linkage, such that Non-locality is the Whole aspect of the simplest expression, and Locality is the Part aspect of the simplest expression.

The simplest representation of Whole is ______ (where Whole is not defined or made by parts).

The simplest representation of Part is • (where parts is not a components of the Whole).

By this non-standard strong emergence view, no amount of • can fully cover ___

In other words, by non-standard strong emergence view (as rigorously explained in page 17 of http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OMPT.pdf ) actual infinity is _____ where infinitely many • on it are potential infinity.


___\• linkage result is at least the n-Uncertainty x n-Redundancy tree is the framework, where the researched and the researcher express themselves as organs of a one body of knowledge, called Mathematics.

 

[doronshadmi]

Of that I've had no doubt, but OM-zombie seemed befitting of what Doron seems to be expecting.



Well I wish you the best of luck with that and if Doron were to assert it as simply some religious matter I would most likely bow out as well. However since Doron ascribes this as some paradigm shift in math without apparently understanding that math he purports to be supplanting, then I will remain (like others) to actually give that math its due consideration. Likewise I harbor no delusions of changing Doron’s point of view, but to simply remain as one of the voices of actual math that Doron should have paid more attention to low these many years. I too have hoped to move the discussion to a more productive exchange several times, however Doron’s notions are so engrained in a basic misunderstanding of current math that he can’t even bring himself to just say, “Yes that is how the current paradigm defines, describes or utilizes that concept, while my new paradigm takes this different approach”. Instead he insists that his misinterpretations and misrepresentations of current mathematics are a failure of current mathematics and not simply his misunderstanding of current mathematics. The sad fact is Apathia without the uncivilized bickering and misconceptions, I am afraid that Doron would actually have little to say beyond the simply trivial. I hope I am wrong and you are right that there is some utility to this (at least for Doron’s sake), but Dorn has had ample opportunities and presented nothing but simply trivial, contradictory or irrelevant rhetoric, while you have in fact been doing most of the actual work of trying to find some philosophical bases and utility within this discussion.

The Man,

Is this sream of words is some way to avoid:


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4894822&postcount=4988


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4894929&postcount=4989


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4894972&postcount=4990


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4895440&postcount=5000 ?

 

[zooterkin]

I note that doron continues to ignore requests for a simple demonstration or example of OM.

 

[The Man]

The simplest expression of direct perception (where direct perception is the ground base of any expression (abstract or not)) is Non-locality\ Locality linkage, such that Non-locality is the Whole aspect of the simplest expression, and Locality is the Part aspect of the simplest expression.

The simplest representation of Whole is ______ (where Whole is not defined or made by parts).

The simplest representation of Part is • (where parts is not a components of the Whole).

By this non-standard strong emergence view, no amount of • can fully cover ___

In other words, by non-standard strong emergence view (as rigorously explained in page 17 of http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OMPT.pdf ) actual infinity is _____ where infinitely many • on it are potential infinity.


___\• linkage result is at least the n-Uncertainty x n-Redundancy tree is the framework, where the researched and the researcher express themselves as organs of a one body of knowledge, called Mathematics.

Well here lies your problem Doron, if your parts are not part of (or a component of) your whole then you are taking about a whole different set of parts. This is nether strong emergence, weak emergence or your “non-standard strong emergence view” since you do not view the parts as part of the whole there can be no emergent properties of that whole from those parts that are not part of that whole.

 

[doronshadmi]

As I said take your pick, as none of them refer directly as "transformed to" then your bidirectional condition of non-local leads to local and local leads to non-local applies. Not that it really matters much since you did not present any option where non-local leads to local but local does not lead to non-local.

As for the specific use in the statement you quoted then #6 would be that intended use.

There is more than one #6 in http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/leads so this time please quote it.

 

[Apathia]

The simplest expression of direct perception (where direct perception is the ground base of any expression (abstract or not)) is Non-locality\ Locality linkage, such that Non-locality is the Whole aspect of the simplest expression, and Locality is the Part aspect of the simplest expression.

The simplest representation of Whole is ______ (where Whole is not defined or made by parts).

The simplest representation of Part is • (where parts is not a components of the Whole).

By this non-standard strong emergence view, no amount of • can fully cover ___

In other words, by non-standard strong emergence view (as rigorously explained in page 17 of http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OMPT.pdf ) actual infinity is _____ where infinitely many • on it are potential infinity.


___\• linkage result is at least the n-Uncertainty x n-Redundancy tree is the framework, where the researched and the researcher express themselves as organs of a one body of knowledge, called Mathematics.

I understand what you are saying here and will pick up from here later.
(I have other things to do on my day off.)

 

[The Man]

The Man,

Is this sream of words is some way to avoid:


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4894822&postcount=4988


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4894929&postcount=4989


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4894972&postcount=4990


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4895440&postcount=5000 ?

Is this stream of links of yours some way for you to avoid….

Please demostrate exactly how ordering distinctions is not one of the cases of that tree.

You can use 2-Uncertainty x 2-Redundancy tree:

2X2                                             
                                                
(AB,AB) (AB,A)  (AB,B)  (A,A)   (B,B)   (A,B)   
                                                
A * *   A * *   A * .   A * *   A . .   A * .   
  | |     | |     | |     | |     | |     | |   
B *_*   B *_.   B *_*   B ._.   B *_*   B ._*   
                                                
(2,2) = (AB,AB)                                 
(2,1) = (AB,A),(AB,B)                           
(1,1) = (A,A),(B,B),(A,B)

Why should I bother when you demonstrate it so effectively yourself?

How, for example, (A,B) excludes ordering distinctions ?

For example, let us take (A,B,C) case of 3-Uncertainty x 3-Redundancy tree:

A *  .  .                                                                               
  |  |  |                                                                               
B .  *  . = (A,B,C) , (C,B,A)                                                           
  |  |  |                                                                               
C .__.__*                                                                               
                                                                                        
                                                                                        
A .  *  .                                                                               
  |  |  |                                                                               
B *  .  . = (B,A,C) , (C,A,B)                                                           
  |  |  |                                                                               
C .__.__*                                                                               
                                                                                        
                                                                                        
A *  .  .                                                                               
  |  |  |                                                                               
B .  .  * = (A,C,B) , (B,C,A)                                                           
  |  |  |                                                                               
C .__*__.

The tree is there, all you have to do is to play with it.

By setting (B,A,C) equal to (C,A, B) you are claiming that a reversal in order is not a distinction in your notions that you claim are specifically about distinctions. Similarly although you now claim your tree has the ability to make certain ordering distinction like (A,B,C) is distinguishable from (B,A,C) (apparently from where you place the “*”s) those particular distinctions are not distinctly included in your ‘On’ calculations.

Play with your tree or what ever you want to call it all you want. Until you included ordering distinctions in your ‘On’ calculation then you are excluding ordering distinctions for your notions you claim are based on, well, distinction.

 

[jsfisher]

I note that doron continues to ignore requests for a simple demonstration or example of OM.

That is a bit much to expect right now, now isn't it? After all, OM has undergone a complete transformation from the old truth, which was true then but now was never true, to the new truth, which just recently became always been true.

Do you really expect Doron or Moshe to take time out during this exciting revolution in OM itself (which makes it doubly exciting for all of Mathematics) to provide you with examples? Of the zero examples that existed previously, all have been superseded by the zero examples that exist now.

Be patient. Soon the number of examples will double.

 

[The Man]

There is more than one #6 in http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/leads so this time please quote it.

It would be the first six.

 

[doronshadmi]

Well here lies your problem Doron, if your parts are not part of (or a component of) your whole then you are taking about a whole different set of parts. This is nether strong emergence, weak emergence or your “non-standard strong emergence view” since you do not view the parts as part of the whole there can be no emergent properties of that whole from those parts that are not part of that whole.

No, this is your weak or strong emergence problem because for you the whole is the sum of its parts (in the case of weak-emergence) or greater than the sum of its parts (in the case of strong-emergence).

By non-standard strong emergence the whole is greater than the sum of the (not 'its', but 'the') parts.

 

[doronshadmi]

By setting (B,A,C) equal to (C,A, B) ...

Sorry but there is "," between (B,A,C) and (C,A, B) , please look again in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4894972&postcount=4990 .

 

[doronshadmi]

It would be the first six.

Here it is: (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/leads )

(of a road, passage, etc.) to serve to bring (a person) to a place: The first street on the left will lead you to Andrews Place.

Please explain your argument about Non-locality and Locality according to this quote.

 

[doronshadmi]

That is a bit much to expect right now, now isn't it? After all, OM has undergone a complete transformation from the old truth, which was true then but now was never true, to the new truth, which just recently became always been true.

Do you really expect Doron or Moshe to take time out during this exciting revolution in OM itself (which makes it doubly exciting for all of Mathematics) to provide you with examples? Of the zero examples that existed previously, all have been superseded by the zero examples that exist now.

Be patient. Soon the number of examples will double.

jsfisher do you really not get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4895440&postcount=5000 as the building-block of Quantum Machine?

 

[The Man]

No, this is your weak or strong emergence problem because for you the whole is the sum of its parts (in the case of weak-emergence) or greater than the sum of its parts (in the case of strong-emergence).

By non-standard strong emergence the whole is greater than the sum of the (not 'its', but 'the') parts.

Yeah “the” parts that you claim are not part of 'the' whole or “its” parts. So Doron your notions must be a "non-standard strong emergence" property of compost heaps since compost heaps are one of ‘the’ parts (of organic gardening) that are not any of ‘its’ (meaning your notions) parts, although arguments have and can been made that you are in fact full of it. So which is it Doron are you full of it and ‘the’ parts mentioned are ‘its’ (your notions) parts or are ‘the’ parts not ‘its’ parts and your notions just a “non-standard strong emergence” property of compost heaps?

 

[The Man]

Here it is: (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/leads )


Please explain your argument about Non-locality and Locality according to this quote.

My argument was about the bidirectionality of local leads to non-local and thus non-local leads to local. An argument you have already supported, would you like to change that now.

 

[doronshadmi]

My argument was about the bidirectionality of local leads to non-local and thus non-local leads to local. An argument you have already supported, would you like to change that now.

Leads does not mean defines, because Non-locality is not defined by Locality and Locality is not defined by Non-locality.

What is changed is the ids, such that if the system is leaded form Non-locality to locality we get clear ids, and if the system is leaded form Locality to Non-locality we get superposition of ids.

But also this leading case is nothing but serial observation of the n-Uncertainty x n-Redundancy Tree.