• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
Apathia said:
But let's talk "fog."
Your post suggests that a fog isn't a static region of indeterninancy, but a dance that's so quick that there's no determining the exact loication of the dancer.
Click to expand...
A fog (non-local number) does not have an exact location on the real line.
 
Apathia said:
Then you must cease calling OM a "Mathematcs." Your philosophy can't possibly be cramed into that discipline.
And if you insist on continuing to use mathematical language this way, you need to admit to your readers that youv are not talking about the same thing they are accustomed to.

But it seems to me that you keep insisting that you are providing with your OM a Logic of ethical values as well as mathimatical truth values.
And to me that's where you force (or unsucessfuly try to) the Non-Local into what is a rational, researchable, objective, local framework.
Click to expand...
OM is exactly Non-locality/Locality Linkage and I am very clear about that.

There is no way to reduce OM only to its local aspect.

Non-locality/Locality Linkage enables to communication of Ethics withLogics under a one roof.
 
Last edited:
I said:
And to me that's where you force (or unsucessfuly try to) the Non-Local into what is a rational, researchable, objective, local framework.
Click to expand...

Yeah I know. In it's self-state, Non-Locality isn't forced anywhere.

It's that you try to put what isn't logical content into logic.
 
Apathia said:
Just can't stay put, can it?
Has to dance!
(My point beiing that being is dynamic rather than static,)
Click to expand...
It is not static nor dynamic, it is ever opened (incomplete) if infinite complexity is considered.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Non-locality/Locality Linkage enables to communication of Ethics withLogics under a one roof.
Click to expand...

I fear you are missing the actual way logic is involved in ethical discisions, and how science can inform us what is healthy behavior, while ethics informs technology what uses it ought to be put to for the sake of healthy humanity.

As I said they are already aspects of Knowing under Humanity. (Space aliens included.)
 
Apathia said:
I fear you are missing the actual way logic is involved in ethical discisions, and how science can inform us what is healthy behavior, while ethics informs technology what uses it ought to be put to for the sake of healthy humanity.

As I said they are already aspects of Knowing under Humanity. (Space aliens included.)
Click to expand...
I fear you are missing that science today is fragmented into context dependent frameworks that do not deal with ethical questions.


OM is a framework that tries to re-define Science as a comprehensive framework that enables to deal with both Ethics and Logics in a non context-depended view.
 
Last edited:
Apathia said:
Oh yes, I am quite aware of that. But a multi-value logic doesn't achive what you think it does. It doesn't include what is apart from Logical knowing.
Click to expand...

OM is not a multi-valued Logic, because multy-valued Logic is reducible to local-only reasoning.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
The real Buddhist says: "If you meat Buddha along the road, kill him", which means: "Never say amen even not to Buddha himself, because the essence of Buddhism is to be always the mind of the beginner, which always re-researches already agreed notions."
Click to expand...

Oops, your're right. I didn't see that one.
And you are so, so right.
The Buddha advises one to cling to no metaphysical formulation, except perhaps a minimalist statement that all such foundations should be swept away.

As I said, I'm partial to it.
My liking of thinking that way is that it serves me in not treating any metaphysical system I meet much to seriously.

Even if I were not "partial" to some aspects of Buddhism (I don't by it as a religion and have objections to a number of elements.). I'd still find a problem with you not understanding the actual natures of Mathematics and Ethics.

Killiing the Buddha doesn't bring me any closer to buying your program.

Now again, I used the word "Amen" in the context of agreeing with The Man that annoucing a person's supposed philosophy for them was not a tad insulting.
It was not an Amen to The Buddha instead of an Amen to you.

I've paid a good share of attention to your philosophy and understand to some small extent its unique assertions. And I attempt to reply to it on the basis of those and not dismiss it as some other school.

But also I've tried to suggest to you that there are other ways of integrating our Scientific and Ethical concerns.
 
Apathia said:
I'd still find a problem with you not understanding the actual natures of Mathematics and Ethics.
Click to expand...
What is the, so called, actual natures of Mathematics and Ethics?

Apathia said:
But also I've tried to suggest to you that there are other ways of integrating our Scientific and Ethical concerns.
Click to expand...
What enables you to know (by head and by hrart) that there are other ways of integrating our Scientific and Ethical concerns?
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
OM is not a multi-valued Logic, because multy-valued Logic is reducible to local-only reasoning.
Click to expand...

Anyone who looks at your papers sees your Local/Non-Local Complementary Logic. It is not a binary logic but a multivalued one.
And by its nature it is Local.
What you do is use the word's "Local" and "Non-Local" to symbolize what is beyond logic, and then assume that such content is being logically manipulated.

There's a huge disconnect here. I don't think I can show it to you but logic is a manipulation of logical elements. Compassion isn't a logical element. And even if you symbolize it under the term "Non-Local," or use non-local as a symbol for qualitative content, it doesn't get integrated into an OM kind of logic.
Except that perhaps you, in your own mind, attach some symbolic significance to mathematical terms and so when you say them intend something ethical.
But no reader is going to automatically do that.
They are just going to see the mess of contradictions that come about when math terms are used in metaphorical ways apart from their standard definitions.
 
Apathia said:
Anyone who looks at your papers sees your Local/Non-Local Complementary Logic. It is not a binary logic but a multivalued one.
And by its nature it is Local.
Click to expand...
Again, OM IS NOT a multivalued logics.

As long as you get OM as a multivalued logics, you don't get it.

OM is "by its nature" at least Non-localit/Locality Linkage.


Apathia, I realize that you actually in agreement with The Man or jsfisher that force local-only view on OM.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
What is the, so called, actual natures of Mathematics and Ethics?[/QUOT]

You know, I don't think I'd be able to help you see that is statements are different from ought statements, and that quality isn't subject to the same framework as quantity.

You are going to play the is/ought linkage card and the quality/quantity linkage card without ever having a clue how how these actually relate to each other.


What enables you to know (by head and by hrart) that there are other ways of integrating our Scientific and Ethical concerns?
Click to expand...

Living. Doing. Relating.
See post 9572 about Knowing. (And that particular thing isn't "Buddhist.")

If your philosophy is the only way we can develop our technology ethically, than we are burnt toast, buttered side down.
Except in an inspirational sort of way (for you), it has no actual utility.
Click to expand...
 
Apathia said:
My liking of thinking that way is that it serves me in not treating any metaphysical system I meet much to seriously.
Click to expand...
I agree with you, humoristic approach of our notions is crucial to their real quality.

OM is basically an humoristic approach that enables to get some subject from unaccepted views, that take out the to much seriousness that is found among fragmented views, which fight between them just because they have different view of some considered subject.

This ridiculous fight is avoided if we realize that we are all in the same boat as fine and fragile complex systems.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom