Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Man said:
Are you now claiming that your “magnitude of existence” is limited to only sets or collections
Click to expand...

It is simply amazing to see how your limited reasoning can't get simple notions like Emptiness (which has no predecessor, and it is weaker than any existing thing, whether it is negative, positive, imaginary or whatever), Fullness (which has no successor, and it is stronger then any collection of existing things, whether they are negative, positive, imaginary or whatever) and Non-locality (which is an atomic cross-context, derived from the strength of Fullness, which gives it its non-local atomic property).
 
zooterkin said:
Are you by any chance parroting something that was said to you?

ETA: It seems you are. The difference is, Doron, mathematics works. You've yet to demonstrate a single thing you can do with OM, let alone something that OM can do which maths can't.
Click to expand...
Show me a cross-context atom like 1-dimensional space w.r.t a context-dependent atom like 0-dimensional space, by using traditional mathematics.

EDIT:

Show the mathematical explanation of the "unreasonable ineffectiveness" of mathematics in the cognitive sciences.

OM easily does it because it uses tools like cybernetic kernels, Non-local numbers, Redundancy and Uncertainty as fundamental terms of its framework, which enable to build the bridge between Ethics and Logic, as the basic terms that establish the Technology of the consciousness.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Show me a cross-context atom like 1-dimensional space w.r.t a context-dependent atom like 0-dimensional space, by using traditional mathematics.
Click to expand...

How about you answer the question, not substitute your own version. You have yet to define a single thing in OM in any accepted sense of the word. Even if you could define a "cross-context atom like 1-dimensional space w.r.t a context-dependent atom like 0-dimensional space" (whatever that means), what good is it? What can you do with OM that you cannot with mathematics?

Show the mathematical explanation of the "unreasonable ineffectiveness" of mathematics in the cognitive sciences.

OM easily does it because it uses tools like cybernetic kernels, Non-local numbers, Redundancy and Uncertainty as fundamental terms of its framework, which enable to build the bridge between Ethics and Logic, as the basic terms that establish the Technology of the consciousness.
Click to expand...

Time to ladle the soup, Doron.
 
doronshadmi said:
It is simply amazing to see how your limited reasoning can't get simple notions like Emptiness (which has no predecessor, and it is weaker than any existing thing, whether it is negative, positive, imaginary or whatever), Fullness (which has no successor, and it is stronger then any collection of existing things, whether they are negative, positive, imaginary or whatever) and Non-locality (which is an atomic cross-context, derived from the strength of Fullness, which gives it its non-local atomic property).
Click to expand...


You are easily amazed and apparently easily beguiled by your own meaningless ascriptions, as your purported “notions” are simply self-contradictory nonsense.

“weaker than”? “stronger then”? “the strength of Fullness”? So you have some self-consistent criteria by which you measure this “strength” and/or that ‘weakness’? If not then these are just the same meaningless and arbitrary ascriptions you’ve used to pretend you actually have some notion of what you are talking about, even when it is about your own “notions”.

As yet you have provided no reason for the exclusion of negative existence as a predecessor to your “Emptiness” other than that you simply want to claim it has “no predecessor” in some ordering and that it is “weaker than” what you just arbitrarily ascribe as “stronger then” your “Emptiness”. The conclusion remains that you simply have none.

Once again this “non-local atomic property” due to your “atomic cross-context, derived from the strength of Fullness” is the one where you just directly contradict yourself?
 
doronshadmi said:
It is simply amazing to see how your limited reasoning can't get simple notions like Emptiness (which has no predecessor, and it is weaker than any existing thing, whether it is negative, positive, imaginary or whatever)
Click to expand...
It's been proven that Emptiness -- the way you stuffed it into your axioms --doesn't exist and therefore is not comparable to any existing thing. Your "novel notions" are obvious bunk, coz you proved yourself not capable of following the simplest that B.C.E. math an logic came up with. So how can you improve something that you don't have the slightest idea about?

Your head's EMPTY and you're FULL of it.

Oops. LOL.
You know, they're little...
 
zooterkin said:
What can you do with OM that you cannot with mathematics?
Time to ladle the soup, Doron.
Click to expand...
OM is a well-organized system of categorical thoughts that prevents harmful self-implication.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/UnsolvedProblems.html

OM provides a powerful philosophical background for the solution of the open problems that mathematics can formulate, but is unable to solve, such as the twin prime conjecture or Goldbach conjecture.
http://www.coolissues.com/mathematics/Tprimes/tprimes.htm

OM builds its axiomatic structure on the unreasonably disputed existence of predecessor processor (OM preprocessor) that resides within the unconscious frame of global existence and is called like any other function within the realm of the unreachable but obtainable w.r.t. the non-local cross-context mediator.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UCzhN2clis
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
OM easily does it because it uses tools like cybernetic kernels, Non-local numbers, Redundancy and Uncertainty as fundamental terms of its framework, which enable to build the bridge between Ethics and Logic, as the basic terms that establish the Technology of the consciousness.
Click to expand...

LOL. One must admit that Doron is very skilled at packing a whopping number of meaningless words into a single sentence. Cybernetic kernels! Yea, those sound so badass.
 
The Man said:
Once again this “non-local atomic property” due to your “atomic cross-context, derived from the strength of Fullness” is the one where you just directly contradict yourself?
Click to expand...
No, this is the case where your context-dependent framework, gets the cross-context as a contradiction, and indeed this is all you can get from your context-dependent view.

The Man said:
The conclusion remains that you simply have none.
Click to expand...
From your collection-only context-dependent view you can't comprehend Emptiness as "that has no predecessor" and Fullness has "that has no successor".

By your limited notion you simply can't comprehend totalities like Emptiness or Fullness and the relative parallel\serial complex existence between them.

It also can't get some simple facts of complexity's self reference like:

No member of a given set is identical to that given set, and any attempt to force identity between a member of a given set to that set fails, because it is resulted by infinite regression that prevents the exact identification of the given set, for example:

A = {1,2,A}

If set {1,2,A} is forced to be identical to member A, then set A = {1,2,{1,2{1,2,{1,2,{1,2,{…}}}}}}

S = {[qimg]http://www.umpi.maine.edu/info/nmms/Images/nickieatmirror.jpg[/qimg]}( http://www.umpi.maine.edu/info/nmms/mirrors.htm )

It also can't get the following facts about the following diagram:
4423020214_32d511c7f7.jpg


a) All bended orange forms have the same length > 0.

b) There are infinitely many bended orange forms, where each form has finitely many bends, such that each bend is distinguished from the other bends, because between any pair of bends there is a non-bended form, such that one bend of the pair is A, the other bend of the pair is B, and the non-bended form is equivalent to ≠ between A and B, which is expressed as A≠B.

c) In order to get an orange form with infinitely many bends, the form has to be totally bended, such that there is no non-bended form between any arbitrary [A,B], but it is impossible, because the non-bended form is equivalent to ≠ between A and B, which enables the distinction of A or B bends.

d) In that case we have no choice but to conclude that a totally bended form is exactly a single point, and there is no such a thing like totally bended form that its length > 0.

e) According to (a) to (d) any arbitrary bended form has length > 0 only if it has finitely many bends (it is not totally bended).

f) Any transition from non-totally bended form (has length > 0) to totally bended form (has length = 0) has no intermediate degrees.
 
Last edited:
A correction of (f):

f) Any transition from some arbitrary non-totally bended form (has length > 0) to totally bended form (has length = 0) ignores the infinitely many intermediate non-totally bended forms (have length > 0), and as a result no infinite amount of non-totally bended forms is summable into a finite value.
 
Last edited:
epix said:
It's been proven that Emptiness -- the way you stuffed it into your axioms --doesn't exist and therefore is not comparable to any existing thing.
Click to expand...
No, it's been proven that you are not able to grasp that Emptiness (that has no predecessor) is the immediate predecessor of a point.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
No, this is the case where your context-dependent framework, gets the cross-context as a contradiction, and indeed this is all you can get from your context-dependent view.
Click to expand...

Once again Doron stop trying to simply ascribe aspects of your own failed reasoning onto others.

As I’ve said before…

The Man said:
No Doron it is only possible if you are using a criteria to establish "not at" that is something other than the negation of the criteria you used to establish "at". That is just being self-inconsistent.
Click to expand...

And…


The Man said:
Once again you demonstrate your inability to understand that "B is at AND not at A" is simply and directly self-contradictory. As noted and explained before, your acceptance of such an obvious self-contradiction is most likely due to the fact that you are using some criteria for asserting that "B" is "not at A" that is something other than the negation of the criteria you use for asserting that "B" is "at" "A". Which is again just self-inconsistent. Also it is highly unlikely that you are using your same criteria for "at" in your "B is at" "A" as you are for your "A is at" "B", which would be a generally inconsistent use of your criteria for "at".
Click to expand...

So are you claiming that you are deliberately being inconsistent as opposed to simply being directly self-contradictory? Your assertions of late would seem to indicate that is your intended preference as your “cross-context” assertion seems to infer some deliberately inconsistent, well, context.



doronshadmi said:
From your collection-only context-dependent view you can't comprehend Emptiness as "that has no predecessor" and Fullness has "that has no successor".
Click to expand...

Once again Doron stop trying to simply ascribe aspects of your own failed reasoning onto others.

“collection-only context-dependent view”? Doron you’re the one who keeps associating his “magnitude of existence” with cardinality, a “collection-only context” and a value that can not go negative specifically because of that “collection-only context”. If you simply do not like your own self-imposed “collection-only context” then just stop using it.


doronshadmi said:
By your limited notion you simply can't comprehend totalities like Emptiness or Fullness and the relative parallel\serial complex existence between them.

It also can't get some simple facts of complexity's self reference like:

No member of a given set is identical to that given set, and any attempt to force identity between a member of a given set to that set fails, because it is resulted by infinite regression that prevents the exact identification of the given set, for example:

A = {1,2,A}

If set {1,2,A} is forced to be identical to member A, then set A = {1,2,{1,2{1,2,{1,2,{1,2,{…}}}}}}

S = {[qimg]http://www.umpi.maine.edu/info/nmms/Images/nickieatmirror.jpg[/qimg]}( http://www.umpi.maine.edu/info/nmms/mirrors.htm )

It also can't get the following facts about the following diagram:
[qimg]http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4034/4423020214_32d511c7f7.jpg[/qimg]

a) All bended orange forms have the same length > 0.

b) There are infinitely many bended orange forms, where each form has finitely many bends, such that each bend is distinguished from the other bends, because between any pair of bends there is a non-bended form, such that one bend of the pair is A, the other bend of the pair is B, and the non-bended form is equivalent to ≠ between A and B, which is expressed as A≠B.

c) In order to get an orange form with infinitely many bends, the form has to be totally bended, such that there is no non-bended form between any arbitrary [A,B], but it is impossible, because the non-bended form is equivalent to ≠ between A and B, which enables the distinction of A or B bends.

d) In that case we have no choice but to conclude that a totally bended form is exactly a single point, and there is no such a thing like totally bended form that its length > 0.

e) According to (a) to (d) any arbitrary bended form has length > 0 only if it has finitely many bends (it is not totally bended).

f) Any transition from non-totally bended form (has length > 0) to totally bended form (has length = 0) has no intermediate degrees.
Click to expand...

Ah, I see today’s menu is just a cornucopia of the word salads you’ve tossed over the years.
 
Originally Posted by epix
It's been proven that Emptiness -- the way you stuffed it into your axioms --doesn't exist and therefore is not comparable to any existing thing.

doronshadmi said:
No, it's been proven that you are not able to grasp that Emptiness (that has no predecessor) is the immediate predecessor of a point.
Click to expand...
That only confirms that Emptiness doesn't exist. If point is a 0-dimensional object, and Emptiness is the immediate predecessor of point, then Emptiness must be -1-dimensional object. But n-dimensional objects where n<0 don't exist.

Get a shovel, exhume Hausdorff's remains and tell him about your dimensional adventures. Maybe it would bring him back to life. If it does, then your negative dimensionality is based on a sound concept.

Negative space dimension? Genius!!! That never crossed my mind!
 
doronshadmi said:
It also can't get the following facts about the following diagram:

...

a) All bended orange forms have the same length > 0.

b) There are infinitely many bended orange forms, where each form has finitely many bends, such that each bend is distinguished from the other bends, because between any pair of bends there is a non-bended form, such that one bend of the pair is A, the other bend of the pair is B, and the non-bended form is equivalent to ≠ between A and B, which is expressed as A≠B.

...
Click to expand...

Well Doron, now that we're circling back to your inability to understand infinite processes, maybe you can clear up the following issues:

1) If 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ... is less than 1 as you claim, then how come no matter what number a < 1 I choose, I can find a partial sum Sn such that 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ... + 1/2^n > a?

2) If there are gaps in the real number line, then how come no matter what arbitrary curve I draw across the x-axis, it is always the case that there is a point A such that the curve and the x-axis intersect, as guaranteed by the Intermediate Value Theorem?

3) And let's never forget your complete failure where you claimed that two equivalent logical statements were different (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6611705) only to be rigorously disproven (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6612258) that you've never owned up to.
 
epix said:
If point is a 0-dimensional object, and Emptiness is the immediate predecessor of point, then Emptiness must be -1-dimensional object. But n-dimensional objects where n<0 don't exist.[/url]
Click to expand...
Negative dimensional space like -1-dimensional space is an existing mirror image of the existing 1-dimensional space.

0-dimensional space is an existing thing that does not have a mirror image.

All these existing things (whether they have a mirror image or not) have a predecessor called Emptiness, where only Emptiness is defined as "that has no predecessor".

Let's research the core of Mathematics as an expressed language, as follows:

(X=X) is expressed as "X exists at least as a place holder of some id" notated as Xid.

(X=X) = Xid = "That has a predecessor" = Something

(X≠X) is expressed as "X does not exist at least as a place holder of some id" notated as ~Xid.

(X≠X) = ~Xid = "" = Nothing

"" ≠ "that has no predecessor" exactly as silence ≠ "silence", because silence is the actual state and "silence" is a non-silent expression of the actual silence.

In other words, "that has no predecessor" is a non-silent expression of silent "".

The language of Mathematics (and actually, any language) has to distinguish between the non-silent (Something) and the silent (Nothing) as a fundamental term of understanding.

A definition is always non-silent (Something, or some expression) and therefore it is not equivalent to silent (Nothing, or no expression).

In general a definition is not necessarily equivalent to the defined even in the abstract sense.

EDIT:

---------

Pay attention to the following simple fact:

In all the expressed cases above ≠ is used in order to distinguish between different concepts, and it is possible only if ≠ is a cross-context between the concepts (it is not closed under any of the distinguished concepts).

Furthermore, without = as a cross-context among X to itself, Xid is unknown.

So any fundamental expressible language has at least Nothing (silence) and Something (sound) where Something is at least context-dependent (locals) and cross-context (non-local) building-blocks.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom