Deeper than primes

[doronshadmi]

Oh, and for the rest, that sentence is 100% word salad.

ddt, What You See Is What You Get, and you don't get, for example, http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5905638&postcount=9737 .

And why you don't get it? Because you refuse to accept Non-locality as an additional qualitative property, that if linked with the opposite qualitative property, we get the Complexity within AND without us.

For example, you do not understand the invariant proportions 1/2 and 3/4 as rigorously defined in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5905638&postcount=9737 , and fundamentally change the standard approach about fractals.

You are still forcing finitism and limits on infinite complexity, by claiming, for example that 0.999…[base 10] (which is a single path into the depth of some infinite fractal) is nothing but some representation of 1 (where 1 is definitely not a single path into the depth of some infinite fractal).

By forcing finitism and limits on a complex thing like an infinite fractal, you actually cut off any chance to develop mathematical tools that enable to research infinite fractals.

We do not need more than that in order to demonstrate why all you get is world salad.

 

[zooterkin]

The complexity around you and within you is a direct results of the linkage between the non-local qualitative aspect and the local qualitative aspect of the atomic self-state.

Sums and fogs share the same complex garden, that is derived from the atomic self-state.

Really? How does that answer the question? To remind you, you claimed:

OM is a tool that is used to research how the atomic self-state manifests itself by getting infinite complexity out of minimum linkage among qualitative ids.

Please give an example of OM being used as a tool to do anything at all.

 

[Apathia]

And why you don't get it? Because you refuse to accept Non-locality as an additional qualitative property, that if linked with the opposite qualitative property, we get the Complexity within AND without us.

I always like to comment on the moments when the issue is clearly stated (at least to my reading).
It's true that Mathematics doesn't accept the Non-local as a property, especially of numbers.
This is a corollary to modern Ontology's assertion that existence or being is not a property anything possesses.

Key to Doron's way of number is that he asserts that Non-locality is a quality, a quality that can be possessed as an inherent property of a number.

When he goes on to assert that "cardinality is a measure of existence," he is not only asserting that existence is also an inherent property of number, but that Non-locality as an inherent property can be quantified.
Enter the Organic Numbers with their links between the inherent properties of Locality and Non-Locality.

Now the reason that I sometimes assert that Buddhist thought and Western Mathematics have more in common than Mathematics and Doron's unique take on Vedic thought is that it (Buddhism) pretty much consistently states in all its various sects that existence or being is not an inherent property anything possesses.
Also Buddhist thought doesn't make of the concept of Infinity an ontological reality.

But I bring Buddhism into this discussion to point out that there is a highly ethical philosophical tradition that doesn't find itself opposed or smothered by Western Mathematics and Science and doesn't require that they be cut back to the roots for a new, more spiritual, paradigm.

BTW Vedic Mathematics never entailed or even thought to do Doron's redo.
It's his only.
Vedic Mathematics carried on with the same concept of number common to all of mathematics on this planet.

 

[Apathia]

BTW 2: Quantum Theory including quantum entanglement is doing just fine with contemporary mathematics.
The people who are looking for those ellusive and dubious "hidden variables" do complain.
But I'd wager that if they did make something of such things, it wouldn't involve ditching Limits and Analytic Geometry.

To anticipate a question:

Doron: So how do you account for Complexity.

Apathia: Me? I don't account for Complexity.
I start there.
It's much more complex and rich than combinations of black and white pixels.

 

[The Man]

You should learn what coherent-activity means. In your dead brain there is no coherent-activity.

Again you should learn what coherent means.

Furthermore, by measure a dead brain tissue you actually will find a non-coherent results that are derived from the process of tissue's decomposition, which is non-coherent.

Really? Please cite any published results of such a study.

Only a live brain can manifest coherent-activity among its components.

Again

You should learn what coherent means. Look at your own example, you will see that when the R and L activity drop to nothing simultaneously the coherence remains at about 100%.

Any self-state is not local and not non-local w.r.t itself, exactly as any atom is at its self-state.

So now your “Local” and “Non-local” are “not” “aspects” of your atomic self-state?

Non-local or Local are the minimal qualitative manifestations that are derived from the atomic self-state.

Not according to you since “Any self-state is not local and not non-local w.r.t itself, exactly as any atom is at its self-state.”

Your local-only reasoning naturally can't get it, similarly as (by analogy) a one eye viewer can't get 3D.

Your loco-only “reasoning” you can’t gat that poor analogies do not alleviate your direct contradictions.

Nonsense, Dedekin's cut and open\clopen sets are derived form the same principle, such that some considered element is not a member of a considered collection, and yet there is a linkage between them, which is non-local because it is not any of the linked elements. Your local-only reasoning can't comprehend that.

Dedekin's cut is specifically based on half open sets, if you had actually read your own cited reference you would have known that. They are not “derived form the same principle” one (Dedekin's cut) is specifically based upon the other (half open sets). Your "direct perception" has failed you again.

At this particular part I spoke about a closed set, where the limit is a member of that set, but you have missed it.

You mean this “particular part”…

Also you can't grasp the notion of the inclusion of non-locality as the linkage among some id that is considered as a limit of the members that share with it the same set.

There is no mention of closed sets, but you do refer to your “non-locality as the linkage among some id that is considered as a limit..” and as you note above “there is a linkage between them, which is non-local because it is not any of the linked elements.” In a closed set those limits are some “of the linked elements” so in order for any of those limits to be “non-local because it is not any of the linked elements” they can not be members of the set.

Your loco-only practice works extra hours, days, weeks, months, years and decades without any result.

Yes, a D3 vision can't be known by a one eye viewer.

Glad to see you agree. So isn’t it about time you stopped wasting extra hours, days, weeks, months, years and decades without any result and you start leaning something? Like for example that bad analogies do not alleviate you directly contradicting yourself.

 

[doronshadmi]

Again you should learn what coherent means.

The right term is coherent-activity, and not just coherent.

So now your “Local” and “Non-local” are “not” “aspects” of your atomic self-state?

Not according to you since “Any self-state is not local and not non-local w.r.t itself, exactly as any atom is at its self-state.”

Again your branch-only reasoning can't get the trunk (the atomic self-state as the foundation of any branch).

Please cite any published results of such a study.

You still do not get the meaning of coherent-activity, if you need a published paper that researches the coherent-activity of tissue's decomposition.

In a closed set those limits are some “of the linked elements” so in order for any of those limits to be “non-local because it is not any of the linked elements” they can not be members of the set.

Again you ignorance of Non-locality is shown because you get it in terms to the members (the Localities) and not in terms of the linkage among the members.

So isn’t it about time you stopped wasting extra hours, days, weeks, months, years and decades without any result and you start leaning something? Like for example that bad analogies do not alleviate you directly contradicting yourself.

So isn’t it about time you stopped wasting extra hours, days, weeks, months, years and decades without any ability to get Non-Locality?

Like for example that your local-only reasoning of Non-locality is the cause of why you get it as a contradiction.

 

[doronshadmi]

I always like to comment on the moments when the issue is clearly stated (at least to my reading).
It's true that Mathematics doesn't accept the Non-local as a property, especially of numbers.
This is a corollary to modern Ontology's assertion that existence or being is not a property anything possesses.

Key to Doron's way of number is that he asserts that Non-locality is a quality, a quality that can be possessed as an inherent property of a number.

When he goes on to assert that "cardinality is a measure of existence," he is not only asserting that existence is also an inherent property of number, but that Non-locality as an inherent property can be quantified.
Enter the Organic Numbers with their links between the inherent properties of Locality and Non-Locality.

Now the reason that I sometimes assert that Buddhist thought and Western Mathematics have more in common than Mathematics and Doron's unique take on Vedic thought is that it (Buddhism) pretty much consistently states in all its various sects that existence or being is not an inherent property anything possesses.
Also Buddhist thought doesn't make of the concept of Infinity an ontological reality.

But I bring Buddhism into this discussion to point out that there is a highly ethical philosophical tradition that doesn't find itself opposed or smothered by Western Mathematics and Science and doesn't require that they be cut back to the roots for a new, more spiritual, paradigm.

BTW Vedic Mathematics never entailed or even thought to do Doron's redo.
It's his only.
Vedic Mathematics carried on with the same concept of number common to all of mathematics on this planet.

Apathia, what exactly prevents from you to get the Trunk/Braches Model and why do you force vedic mathematics on OM?

 

[doronshadmi]

BTW 2: Quantum Theory including quantum entanglement is doing just fine with contemporary mathematics.
The people who are looking for those ellusive and dubious "hidden variables" do complain.
But I'd wager that if they did make something of such things, it wouldn't involve ditching Limits and Analytic Geometry.

To anticipate a question:

Doron: So how do you account for Complexity.

Apathia: Me? I don't account for Complexity.
I start there.
It's much more complex and rich than combinations of black and white pixels.

You still miss the fact that OM does not stop on accounting Complexity, but it is based on direct perception of the reseached subject.

You still forcing notions that are taken from Standard Math, on OM.

It's much more complex and rich than combinations of black and white pixels.

Pixels are locals, you still do not get Non-locality.

 

[doronshadmi]

BTW 2: Quantum Theory including quantum entanglement is doing just fine with contemporary mathematics.
The people who are looking for those ellusive and dubious "hidden variables" do complain.
But I'd wager that if they did make something of such things, it wouldn't involve ditching Limits and Analytic Geometry.

You describe the current tools that are used in QM, so?

Also limits are used by OM, but in this case we deal with finite systems.

 

[Apathia]

Apathia, what exactly prevents from you to get the Trunk/Braches Model and why do you force vedic mathematics on OM?

1. I see the model. I also see that the model is a very poor cartoon figure for reality.

2. No. I'm not forcing Vedic Mathematics on OM. OM is indeed a different animal with a very different concept of number in which quantities are given qualitative property and qualities are given quantitative properties.

As soon as you insist that cardinality is a "measure of existance" you do this.
Even if you insist that Quality remains quality in its self state and Quantity remains quantity in its self state.
You very intention for OM is that, because you want a mathematics that expresses qualities, values, and ethical principles.

Ancient Vedic Mathematics has much more in common with contemporary mathematics than it does your OM.

As for philosophy, your views do have some Vedic roots, as you have expressed yourself in citing TMs project of the "Unified Field."

 

[Apathia]

Pixels are locals, you still do not get Non-locality.

Have you really noticed the most obvious structure of your OM as is apperant
in so many of your diagrams?
And in your "truth table" presentation of OM?

Take two elements: The Point and The Infinite Line.
Make combos, multifacited combos, deep combos, so-called fractal combos.

But reality is actually much more complex than that simple device.
Especially if you are wanting to express the analogical natures of things and values.

In spite if your intentions to to express the aspects of reality that are beyond the digital, you offer a stick figure, black and white model and hope that it somehow generates transcendence and subjectivity.

But I'm missing that The Line stands for transcedence and subjectivity, right?
Oh, put I know what it stands for. I know what it symbolizes.
But it is just a symbol. Subjectivity is only there in your intention to treat a sign as a symbol.
On paper and in the language of mathematics (which is a language of signs, not symbols) all thos combos are combos of local elements.

The mathematicians here read tham as local signs, because in the language of mathematics that's all they are.
It's only as you invest upon them a meaning that isn't inherent to those signs and manipulations that they become for you your OM.

Take 1 + -1 = 0
It's a simple mathematical statement.

On of our forum members, Undercover Elephant, uses it as a symbol of metaphysic of Neutural Monism.
You could use it to symbolize you very different view of the two ontological principles.
Other interpretations can be offered.
But all such interepretations aren't mathematics.
They are using mathematical signs as metaphysical symbols.

You do precisely this in your exposition of OM as linkages or bridges between the local and the non-local.
But you do it without the slightest awareness of the lingustic and conceptual leap you are making.
When others don't see that leap (because it isn't there in the words and numbers themsleves) you accuse them of not seeing what you claim as a "Direct Perception."
That "perception" is your projection upon mathematical language.
I see what meaning you are investing, but I see that you are the sorce of that meaning.

 

[Skeptic]

You simply can't grasp that sums (in the case of positive added values) are the results of a finite addition.

Er, Doron, we all know the sum of the series is NOT a sum of an infinite number of elements, but the LIMIT of an infinite SEQUENCE of partial -- finite -- sums.

It's just that it's often convenient to speak of the "infinite sum" 1+1/2+1/4+... instead of being precise and saying what this colloquial term really means, namely, that it's the limit of the sequence {1, (1+1/2), (1+1/2+1/4),...}.

Open any Freshman's math textbook and you'll find the "sum" (or "infinite sum") of an infinite series defined in the way I just gave. There is no infinite summation.

You are, as usual, confusing symbols or words -- in this case, a definition ("infinite sum") that defines no new mathematical elements but is merely used as a verbal shortcut -- with reality, that is, you think that people using the words "infinite sum" or "the sum of an infinite series" means that they are actually summing (using the addition operation) an infinite number of times "at once". They're not.

In principle there is nothing you can say about infinite series that you cannot equally well say about infinite sequences. In fact the transition from one to another is trivial. It's just that it's more convenient to sometimes work with one and not with another.

1 – (1/2+1/4+1/8+1/16+…) > 0 by fog 0.000...1/2

2 - (1/1+1/2+1/4+1/8+...) > 0 by fog 0.000...1/2

Uh-huh...

Quite apart that it isn't clear what on earth Doron means when he put the "1/2" at the "end" of an infinite sequence of zeroes -- which is the equivalent of putting a point at the "end" of a line -- it's amusing to see what the results of using his own definitions would be.

For example, let's take the first line:

1 - (1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + ...) = fog 0.00000......1/2

Multiply both sides by 2:

2*1 - 2*(1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + ...) = 2* fog 0.0000 .... 1/2

Or:

2 - (1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 ....) = 2* fog 0.000000.... 1/2

But, according to Doron's own definition (2nd line):

2 - (1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 ...) = fog 0.0000.... 1/2

Therefore:

2* fog 0.000.... 1/2 = fog 0.0000..... 1/2

But if 2X=X, then obviously X=0, that is:

fog 0.000000... 1/2 = 0

Which would make Doron's definitions mean:

1 – (1/2+1/4+1/8+1/16+…) > 0 by 0

2 - (1/1+1/2+1/4+1/8+...) > 0 by 0

Or:

1 – (1/2+1/4+1/8+1/16+…) = 0

2 - (1/1+1/2+1/4+1/8+...) = 0

...which is what we're trying to tell you all along, Doron!

In other words, if Doron wants to define "fog 0.0000.....1/2" or "fog 0.0000....1" or "fog 0.0000.....10^100", his way, he is quite free to do so, but -- to be consistent with his very own definitions -- all these "fogs" must be all = 0, and are, in other words, just a fancy way of writing the number "0".

Doron has many more definitions of "0" than the rest of us -- infinitely more, in fact. I suppose that's another way of saying he has infinitely more holes in his head than the average mathematician does?

 

[The Man]

The right term is coherent-activity, and not just coherent.

‘Coherrent’ is the operative word that you have a demonstrative difficulty with. Again their being no left frontal activity is coherent with their being no right frontal activity. Your own "example" clearly demonstrates that.

Again your branch-only reasoning can't get the trunk (the atomic self-state as the foundation of any branch).

Again your bad analogies do nothing to alleviate your directly contradicting statements.

You still do not get the meaning of coherent-activity, if you need a published paper that researches the coherent-activity of tissue's decomposition.

You made the claim; it is up to you to support it. Please show where ‘tissue decomposition’ or the “coherent-activity of tissue's decomposition” is represented on the EEGs and coherence charts of your “example”. However a lack of left frontal activity corresponding to a lack of right frontal activity maintaining a coherence of around 100% is clearly visible in your “example”.

Again you ignorance of Non-locality is shown because you get it in terms to the members (the Localities) and not in terms of the linkage among the members.

“because it is not any of the linked elements” was your claim not mine, if you don’t want it “in terms to the members” then don’t put it in those terms, just as “in terms of the linkage among the members” is “terms to the members”. As usual Doron you just don’t know what you want to claim and end up simply contradicting yourself.

So isn’t it about time you stopped wasting extra hours, days, weeks, months, years and decades without any ability to get Non-Locality?

Doron I have explained non-locality to you in different contexts many times (as have others). You are the only one who claims you can not explain your notion of non-locality and your insistence on directly contradicting yourself demonstrates that. The wasted hours, days, weeks, months, years and decades, remain entirely yours.

Like for example that your local-only reasoning of Non-locality is the cause of why you get it as a contradiction.

Nope, again it is just your loco-only “reasoning” that simply insists upon contradicting itself.

 

[The Man]

You are, as usual, confusing symbols or words -- in this case, a definition ("infinite sum") that defines no new mathematical elements but is merely used as a verbal shortcut -- with reality, that is, you think that people using the words "infinite sum" or "the sum of an infinite series" means that they are actually summing (using the addition operation) an infinite number of times "at once". They're not.

Basically the reasoning (if you could call it that) behind all of Doron's infinite list types of strawman augments. Not realizing that the utility comes from understanding and employing the relations of the elements in the set or collection or its characteristics (such as cardinality) and not from actually listing or adding elements an infinite number of times.

 

[doronshadmi]

Er, Doron, we all know the sum of the series is NOT a sum of an infinite number of elements, but the LIMIT of an infinite SEQUENCE of partial -- finite -- sums.

It's just that it's often convenient to speak of the "infinite sum" 1+1/2+1/4+... instead of being precise and saying what this colloquial term really means, namely, that it's the limit of the sequence {1, (1+1/2), (1+1/2+1/4),...}.

Open any Freshman's math textbook and you'll find the "sum" (or "infinite sum") of an infinite series defined in the way I just gave. There is no infinite summation.

So according to any Freshman's math textbook a limit is the sum of an infinite series, which is not the result of infinite summation.

Very consistent.

Quite apart that it isn't clear what on earth Doron means when he put the "1/2" at the "end" of an infinite sequence of zeroes -- which is the equivalent of putting a point at the "end" of a line

And this is where you fail because the …1/2 part of the expression 0.000…1/2 is exactly the invariant proportion upon infinitely many scale levels (known also as self similarity over scales), which is the non-local linkage between the all infinitely many added convergent values, and the limit point, where 0.000…1/2 > 0.

By your local reasoning, you are unable, for example, to understand that 0.999…[base 10] is not a numeral that represents 1, but it is a number of its own, called non-local number or a fog.

1-0.999…[base 10]=0.000...1[base 10]=0.000...1/10, where ...1/10 is an invariant proportion upon infinitely many scale levels (known also as self similarity over scales).

For example, let's take the first line:

1 - (1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + ...) = fog 0.00000......1/2

Multiply both sides by 2:

2*1 - 2*(1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + ...) = 2* fog 0.0000 .... 1/2

Or:

2 - (1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 ....) = 2* fog 0.000000.... 1/2

But, according to Doron's own definition (2nd line):

2 - (1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 ...) = fog 0.0000.... 1/2

Therefore:

2* fog 0.000.... 1/2 = fog 0.0000..... 1/2

But if 2X=X, then obviously X=0, that is:

fog 0.000000... 1/2 = 0

By invariant proportion the difference between 1 - (1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + ...) and 2 - (1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 ...) is the same as the difference between 1/2 and 2/4.

The self similarity over scales clearly shown also by the following diagram, where the values 1,2,4,8,16,32,… etc. are not reached, ad infinituum, exactly because of the …1/2 part of the expression 0.000…1/2, which is the invariant proportion upon infinitely many scale levels (known also as self similarity over scales):

You are using incorrect methods to analyze an invariant proportion, which is the self-similarity of some fractal upon infinitely many scale levels, where (1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + ...) or (1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 ...) is actually the same fractal that can be expressed also by 0.111…[base 2], 1.111…[base 2] etc… ad infinitum (the left diagram, in this case):

...which is what we're trying to tell you all along, Doron!

In other words, if Doron wants to define "fog 0.0000.....1/2" or "fog 0.0000....1" or "fog 0.0000.....10^100", his way, he is quite free to do so, but -- to be consistent with his very own definitions -- all these "fogs" must be all = 0, and are, in other words, just a fancy way of writing the number "0".

Doron has many more definitions of "0" than the rest of us -- infinitely more, in fact. I suppose that's another way of saying he has infinitely more holes in his head than the average mathematician does?

Again: By invariant proportion the difference between 1 - (1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + ...) and 2 - (1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 ...) is the same as the difference between 1/2 and 2/4.

 

[doronshadmi]

1. I see the model. I also see that the model is a very poor cartoon figure for reality.

Since when direct perception is a very poor cartoon of reality?

Even if you insist that Quality remains quality in its self state and Quantity remains quantity in its self state.

You have missed it. I say that quantity is the result of the linkage between opposite qualities.

I also claim that your little story of cutting fingers in order to be enlightened has nothing to do with compassion, so if this is your complex reality, I am not a participator of it.

 

[doronshadmi]

Take 1 + -1 = 0
It's a simple mathematical statement.

Where 1 , -1 are the local aspect and + , = are the non-local aspect of this statement, so?

Take two elements: The Point and The Infinite Line.
Make combos, multifacited combos, deep combos, so-called fractal combos.

But reality is actually much more complex than that simple device.
Especially if you are wanting to express the analogical natures of things and values.

Again you force Standard Math notions on OM.

OM's tables, diagrams, symbols are nothing but tools that help us to get the essence of things by direct perception.

In other words OM's tools can fundamentally be changed by direct perception, exactly because some tool of X is not X, exactly as a lecture about silence is not silence.

I see what meaning you are investing, but I see that you are the sorce of that meaning.

So you get only the local aspect of direct perception.

In other words, you still do not get OM.

 

[Skeptic]

By invariant proportion the difference between 1 - (1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + ...) and 2 - (1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 ...) is the same as the difference between 1/2 and 2/4.

You know something? For the first time in his life, probably, Doron actually made a correct mathematical claim...

 

[jsfisher]

So according to any Freshman's math textbook a limit is the sum of an infinite series, which is not the result of infinite summation.

Perhaps if you actually worked on your reading comprehension skills you'd find out that you are wrong yet again.

 

[doronshadmi]

You know something? For the first time in his life, probably, Doron actually made a correct mathematical claim...

Which means that by invariant proportion fog 0.000...1/2 > sum 0, or in other words, for the first time of your life you get fogs, unless you are using 1/2-2/4=0 and miss again the fact that fog 0.000...1/2 > sum 0.

By invariant proportion the difference between 1 - (1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + ...) and 2 - (1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 ...) is the same as the difference between 1/2 and 2/4, where in both cases we deal with a value > 0.

Please see http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5914757&postcount=9762 .