Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
jsfisher said:
Ok, show us. Express it formally.
Click to expand...

Direct Preception is the formalism here, not your bla bla bla ...

Also we do not need the existing of infinite collections in order to directly get the a existence of X that has no sub-exiting things.

This X is exactly Non-locality, which is beyond your limited local-only abstract ability.

The Cardinality of the existence of Set is exactly ∞.

The Cardinality of no members is exactly 0.

The existence of that has Cardinality ∞ does not depend on the non-existence of members (sub-existing things).

You simply can't get the Stage\Players Direct Perception representation.
 
doronshadmi said:
Direct Preception is the formalism here, not your bla bla bla ...
Click to expand...

[ASIDE]
Is anyone else amused by the frequent misspelling doron makes for direct perception. The misspelling is more honest.
[/ASIDE]

I see. So you cannot express it formally. Just as predicted. You could have just said that, though, rather than all the other nonsense.
 
jsfisher said:
[ASIDE]
Is anyone else amused by the frequent misspelling doron makes for direct perception. The misspelling is more honest.
[/ASIDE]

I see. So you cannot express it formally. Just as predicted. You could have just said that, though, rather than all the other nonsense.
Click to expand...
In other words, you can't get what is clealry and simply written in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5008236&postcount=5741 and also in:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4984812&postcount=5603

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4986142&postcount=5606

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4986816&postcount=5609

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4989496&postcount=5618

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4989523&postcount=5619

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4989626&postcount=5623

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4992070&postcount=5627

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4992270&postcount=5628

exactly because of what you call Formalism.
 
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
Doron, you have such a novel way of expressing your thoughts, unconstrained by common meaning and usage of language.
Click to expand...
It is indeed novel to anyone that has no ability to use Direct Perception as real formalism (not the bla bla bla ... "formalism").

Here is some example of the result of your bla bla bla ... "formalism:

There is a need to take the Mathematical Science out of the hands of closed minds like The Man and you, which strangle this science to death by their arbitrary limitations, right at its foundations.

As a result this science becomes a blind force used by blind people, and the results of this blind force can be seen in any laboratory that uses this science in order to develop more and more "efficient" biological, chemical of atomic weapons, that have one and only one purpose, which is: Destroying Complexity.

Destroying Complexity is your expertise, jsfisher, and you demonstrate it right from the foundations of your framework,
where |{{a,b,c,…}}|=|{{}}|=|{{{}}}|=|{{{{}}}}|= …= 1 .


Here are the details: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5008114&postcount=5726 .
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
No, religion is based on beliefs.

Direct Perception is the exact state that does not need belief in order to be known and expressed.
Click to expand...

In other words, bliss ignorance. Pray tell me, what are you smoking? I'm sure there's some people over here who'd like to start a business in it (link).
 
doronshadmi said:
It is indeed novel to anyone that has no ability to use Direct Perception as real formalism (not the bla bla bla ... "formalism").
Click to expand...

It would have been more convincing had you spelled it preception. Be that as it may, there is nothing formal about it. It is just your beliefs, prejudice, and misunderstandings that comprise your direct perception.

Something is true in your imaginary world simply because you want it to be so. Very convenient, don't you think? No proofs, no explanations are necessary. Just declare it true and move on.
 
jsfisher said:
ddt, don't bother. It involves an analogy. Doron is so very, very bad with analogies.
Click to expand...

No, you are unable to understand an use analogies.

Futhermore you are ignorent of the source of your mental activity, and this is your main problem all along this thread.
 
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
So exact, in fact, that you continue to have to change your OM to attempt to circumvent each new contradiction or inconsistency.
Click to expand...

Exact is not the opposite of improvement, as it appears in your under-formalin reasoning, so?

The incompetence of infinite sets is an exact property of their existence, so?
 
The current tangent on direct perception has devolved into bickering for which I am 50% responsible. I will suspend my participation in further such discussions for now. Instead, I'd like to return to the starting point for this particular aside.

Doron claimed "There exists X that has no sub-existing things" for his Axiom of the Empty Set.

I claimed any formal expression of that would require quantification over an infinite collection. Doron rejected my claim, and was then challenged to provide a formal expression for his axiom.

Instead of providing that formal expression, doron launched out on a tangent about things that may or may not be true via direct perception, but never was there an actual formal expression given of his axiom.

So, I will ask doron again: Please provide a formal expression of your Axiom of the Empty Set. I am not looking for any justification for the axiom or for characteristics of the empty set or other interesting tib-bits of fact or fancy. All I expect is a mathematical restatement of "There exists X that has no sub-existing things".
 
jsfisher said:
The current tangent on direct perception has devolved into bickering for which I am 50% responsible. I will suspend my participation in further such discussions for now. Instead, I'd like to return to the starting point for this particular aside.

Doron claimed "There exists X that has no sub-existing things" for his Axiom of the Empty Set.

I claimed any formal expression of that would require quantification over an infinite collection. Doron rejected my claim, and was then challenged to provide a formal expression for his axiom.

Instead of providing that formal expression, doron launched out on a tangent about things that may or may not be true via direct perception, but never was there an actual formal expression given of his axiom.

So, I will ask doron again: Please provide a formal expression of your Axiom of the Empty Set. I am not looking for any justification for the axiom or for characteristics of the empty set or other interesting tib-bits of fact or fancy. All I expect is a mathematical restatement of "There exists X that has no sub-existing things".
Click to expand...

He will not provide you with any formal expression. He does not know how to. His excuse for covering this up is what he calls Direct Perception - he would tell you that he does not need to define it or express it formally in order for it to be.
 
sympathic said:
He will not provide you with any formal expression. He does not know how to. His excuse for covering this up is what he calls Direct Perception - he would tell you that he does not need to define it or express it formally in order for it to be.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know. That can result in yet another tangent since axioms aren't simply self-evident truths, as doron seems to want to believe. The parallel line axiom in geometry is a good example. Leave it in, you get Euclidean geometry; take it out, non-Euclidean. It doesn't matter what one perceives to be the truth; it is just a matter of choice of what sort of mathematical system is needed for whatever purpose.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom