Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
epix said:
Logical functions are open to any variables A, B, C ... There is no need for a membership card.
Click to expand...

Nope.

At "Function(A,B,C,...)" expression "Function( )" is the Non-local aspect and "A,B,C,..." is the Local aspect.
 
Last edited:
epix said:
Composed-only reasoning is a consequence of the hardware that enables us to reason and which is composed. It's a composition of neurons, axons, synapses, and all that local linkage. It's impossible for human beings to figure out stuff that requires non-composed reasoning. Only we are up to that task. Right, class?

Yeah.
Click to expand...

Nope.

Composed reasoning is the result of the linkage among at least two kinds of non-composed aspects.
 
doronshadmi said:
Nope.

Composed reasoning is the result of the linkage among at least two kinds of non-composed aspects.
Click to expand...
That's interesting. If you put aside the term "non-composed aspect," cause the union of the words lacks clear meaning, and just consider non-composed articles, such as chemical elements, then you can draw some analogies which can be false but also true.

The verb "compose" is often used to describe an assembly of components. A musical composition called "symphony" is composed of movements; a chord is a composition of three different notes; etc.

Elements are articles that are not composed or are regarded as such. In the decimal system, digits from 0 to 9 are elements and can create compositions 3452, 65, 4476 and so on. Now, the linkage between numbers could be math operators, such as '+'. You usually link things for a purpose, so the purpose of using '+' to link 123 with 78, for example, is to create another number. But sometimes the linkage takes on various forms, such as

41 + x = 89.

You need to reason out the value of 'x'. What kind of reasoning is required to figure it out when 41 and 89 are the composed terms and '+', 'x', and '=' are the elements, or the non-composed terms, coz '+x=' is a nonsensical composition w.r.t. to math? In other words, would you use composed or non-composed reasoning to figure out the value of 'x'?
 
epix said:
If you put aside the term "non-composed aspect," cause the union of the words lacks clear meaning,
Click to expand...

It has a meaning if you get Y form, which is the minimal composed result of two levels, the un-manifested "trunk" level and the manifested non-composed aspects of the "branches" level, known as Non-locality and Locality.

They are not sub-elements of each other (because they are non-composed) and not the sub-elements of the "trunk" level, because the "trunk" is un-manifested and therefore can't be defined not in terms of the non-composed and not in terms of the composed (I call it "the atomic self-state", which is beyond the atomic state (it is actually beyond the composed and the non-composed). In order to avoid confusion
I change "the atomic self-state" to "the self-state").

Peoples like The Man, which use a reasoning that can't deal with the non-composed and the un-manifested, do not get the fact that the "trunk" is the un-manifested level of the non-composed aspects of the "branches" level, and therefore they are not its sub-elements (as explained above).

The "trunk" is the un-manifested level, and the non-composed aspects, known as Non-locality and Locality, are the manifested non-composed level.

"Trunk" level with "Non-local\Local branches" level, is the minimal composed form Y:

4748174621_de8c1f73f9.jpg


As you can see, Non-locality and Locality non-composed aspects are vanished into the un-manifested and derive from the un-manifested.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
It has a meaning if you get Y form, which is the minimal composed result of two levels, the un-manifested "trunk" level and the manifested non-composed aspects of the "branches" level, known as Non-locality and Locality.
Click to expand...
I didn't say that it had no meaning; I said that it hadn't a clear meaning, which is supported by the fact that the Google search engine query returned only one instance of "non-composed aspect," which was attributable to you. No one else uses this term.

Why?

Well, I guess that if something doesn't have clear meaning, people just don't use it.

That's why I switched from "non-composed aspect" to "non-composed article" and used chemical elements for the example what I meant by "non-composed article." Then I made an analogy between chemical elements and the ten digits of the decimal system hoping that you would be able to grasp the difference between 1, 2, 3 (non-composed) and 123 (composed). Unfortunately you failed to discern the distinction, coz you are boxed in and can only understand arguments based on "non-composed or composed aspects." Maybe if you use a real example of what composed and non-composed aspect could be compared to, then I can adjust my example and you can answer my question so I can learn more about "composed and non-composed reasoning" and the difference.
 
epix said:
I didn't say that it had no meaning; I said that it hadn't a clear meaning, which is supported by the fact that the Google search engine query returned only one instance of "non-composed aspect," which was attributable to you. No one else uses this term.

Why?

Well, I guess that if something doesn't have clear meaning, people just don't use it.

That's why I switched from "non-composed aspect" to "non-composed article" and used chemical elements for the example what I meant by "non-composed article." Then I made an analogy between chemical elements and the ten digits of the decimal system hoping that you would be able to grasp the difference between 1, 2, 3 (non-composed) and 123 (composed). Unfortunately you failed to discern the distinction, coz you are boxed in and can only understand arguments based on "non-composed or composed aspects." Maybe if you use a real example of what composed and non-composed aspect could be compared to, then I can adjust my example and you can answer my question so I can learn more about "composed and non-composed reasoning" and the difference.
Click to expand...

Please refreash your screen and see a better version of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6224634&postcount=11104.
 
epix said:
Then I made an analogy between chemical elements and the ten digits of the decimal system hoping that you would be able to grasp the difference between 1, 2, 3 (non-composed) and 123 (composed).
Click to expand...
Your analogy is invalid because 1 or 2 or 3 are composed.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Your analogy is invalid because 1 or 2 or 3 are composed.
Click to expand...
No, it is valid. 1 = "one digit," 2 = "one digit," 3 = "one digit," and therefore the digits cannot be composed.

Don't get confused and distracted by the verbal equivalents, like "1" is a composition of O, N, and E, and so on.
 
epix said:
No, it is valid. 1 = "one digit," 2 = "one digit," 3 = "one digit," and therefore the digits cannot be composed.

Don't get confused and distracted by the verbal equivalents, like "1" is a composition of O, N, and E, and so on.
Click to expand...

Ok, let us follow your analogy by ignoring 1,2,3 or 123 as representations of some Quantity.

1 or 2 or 3 is non-composed.

123 is a composed result of 1 or 2 or 3, which does not change the fact that 1 or 2 or 3 are non-composed.

In that case we ask: "What enables the composition of 1,2,3?"

The answer is: 123 where ___ is the non-composed and non-local aspect of 123 composed result, and 1 or 2 or 3 are the non-composed and local aspect of 123 composed result.

Try to avoid ___ or 1,2,3 aspects and you don't have 123 composed result.

123 composed result does not change the fact that 1 or 2 or 3 or ___ are non-composed.
 
Last edited:
epix said:
Elements are articles that are not composed or are regarded as such. In the decimal system, digits from 0 to 9 are elements and can create compositions 3452, 65, 4476 and so on. Now, the linkage between numbers could be math operators, such as '+'. You usually link things for a purpose, so the purpose of using '+' to link 123 with 78, for example, is to create another number. But sometimes the linkage takes on various forms, such as

41 + x = 89.

You need to reason out the value of 'x'. What kind of reasoning is required to figure it out when 41 and 89 are the composed terms and '+', 'x', and '=' are the elements, or the non-composed terms, coz '+x=' is a nonsensical composition w.r.t. to math? In other words, would you use composed or non-composed reasoning to figure out the value of 'x'?
Click to expand...

Non-locality\Locality Linkage is universal where one of its manifestations is the mathematical science.

By following your mathematical examples, "+" or "=" represent relations (which are non-local w.r.t to constants or variables), "41","89" represent composed results of Non-locality\Locality Linkage, and "x" represents a placeholder of composed or non-composed cases.
 
doronshadmi said:
No The Man, I simply show that your "always TRUE” is not Universal Truth, because it is limited to Local-only framework, where elements are excluded w.r.t each other domains.
Click to expand...

No Doron you simply show again (and as I asserted before) that your "always TRUE” is not, well, “always TRUE”.

doronshadmi said:
It is always TRUE (a tautology), but it does not change the fact that it is also a local-only TRUE.
Click to expand...

doronshadmi said:
You are the one that asserts that your "always TRUE” is universal, so your assertion is indeed false assertion.
Click to expand...


Doron you are the one who invents his own self-contradictory universe to claim that a tautology and what you assert yourself “is always TRUE (a tautology)” to be “a local-only TRUE”. Once again it is your own assertions that indeed make your own assertions false assertions.
 
doronshadmi said:
This is another example of your inability to get notions by generalization.
Click to expand...

This is another example, among many examples, of your inability to get that “generalization” does not mean you just making up whatever self-contradictory nonsense that suits you at any given time.
 
doronshadmi said:
Only if you ignore the composed result of the linkage among A\B non-composed elements, and this is exactly what you are doing,
Click to expand...


Once again Doron you simply, and evidently deliberately, ignore that you’re A,B or “line” are by your own limitation “non-composed elements”. Then foolishly assert your own “composed result of the linkage among A\B non-composed elements” which still specifically requires them to be “non-composed elements”


doronshadmi said:
you ignore the fact that your reasoning can't deal with the non-composed, and you also ignore the fact that OM deals both with the non-composed and the composed.
Click to expand...

Once again this is simply your own failed reasoning that you insist on positing upon others. Nothing restricts one from considering something as a whole, however you specifically limit you’re A, B and “line” from being “composed” or more specifically from being composed of sub elements. The limitation, ignorance and failure remain, again apparently deliberately, simply yours.
 
doronshadmi said:
Peoples like The Man, which use a reasoning that can't deal with the non-composed and the un-manifested, do not get the fact that the "trunk" is the un-manifested level of the non-composed aspects of the "branches" level, and therefore they are not its sub-elements (as explained above).
Click to expand...

“Peoples” like Doron, who simply do not use reasoning, can’t deal with the fact that their simply lack of reasoning is not demonstrated by everyone. As a result he feels he must posit his own lack of reasoning onto others as well as his “un-manifested” nonsense to claim his "trunk", which he deliberately divides into two “aspects” just so he can recombine them again, is as “non-composed” as his “aspects” he divides it into. So his whole contrivance is a “non-composed” “un-manifested” "trunk", that he deliberately ‘manifests’ into two “non-composed” “branches” that are not “sub-elements” of that “trunk” nor do they have “sub-elements” themselves, just so he can recombine them again into his own “composed” “linkage”. A rather long way around with his contrived nonsense just to get from his own “non-composed” “un-manifested” "trunk" to his own “composed” ‘manifested’ “linkage”, particularly considering that he asserts himself that his separate "branches" can not be “researched”, well, separately.
 
The Man said:
Doron, referring to your own post and simply repeating your own failed reasoning still does not make that the reasoning of anyone else but you. Again stop simply trying to posit your own failed reasoning onto others.
Click to expand...

It is clear now that you have no case.
 
The Man said:
This is another example, among many examples, of your inability to get that “generalization” does not mean you just making up whatever self-contradictory nonsense that suits you at any given time.
Click to expand...

It is clear now that you have no case.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom