Deeper than primes

[epix]

epix please show me Pi (circumference/radius) when radius=0.

If you can't show that Pi=circumference/0, then you have no choice but to conclude that your collection of red circles is incomplete, exactly because Pi≠circumference/0 (the convergences of circles is incomplete as long as there are circles, where each circle has a measurable Pi=circumference/radius).

"Can you be more specific? What exactly is that 'doron?' "

 

[epix]

You are so right, let us correct it:

radius=°

Just take it easy, Doron. We all make mistakes once a while. But you seem to take your oopses too hard, get too excited and forget to include the value.

radius=20°

 

[epix]

epix please show me Pi (circumference/radius) when radius=0.

If you can't show that Pi=circumference/0, then you have no choice but to conclude that your collection of red circles is incomplete, exactly because Pi≠circumference/0 (the convergences of circles is incomplete as long as there are circles, where each circle has a measurable Pi=circumference/radius).

It's not about that; it's about shapes. The series of circles whose diameters is getting restricted by the sides of the triangle cannot end until there is an intersection point created by the circumference and the vertex of the triangle. This is not possible, coz the difference between the circle and the shape of the figure that would make the last "circle" possible.

 

[doronshadmi]

It's not about that; it's about shapes. The series of circles whose diameters is getting restricted by the sides of the triangle cannot end until there is an intersection point created by the circumference and the vertex of the triangle. This is not possible, coz the difference between the circle and the shape of the figure that would make the last "circle" possible.

[qimg]http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/8599/spikew.png[/qimg]

It is about the concept of Limit (completely bounded framework).

By understanding that Pi=circumference/0 (where 0 = the limit point) is not a part of the collection of converges actual circles (where Pi=circumference/radius>0) we simply know that such a collection can't reach the limit point exactly because given any collection of distinct objects that are translatable to <0,1> forms, by using the diagonal method on that collection there is always an inverse of that diagonal, which is not in the range of the given collection, and it does not change if the given collection is finite, infinite, diverges or convergence.

The permanent existence of distinct object that is not in the range of any given collection (finite or not) that is translatable to <0,1> forms, essentially determines the incompleteness of such collection, or its openness, if you will.

This fact gives us the clue that complete deduction (such that a set of considered collection of axioms really determines a complete framework, within its bounds) is impossible, exactly because any given collection (whether it is a collection of axioms, or not) exists upon a higher level, which is non-local by nature, exactly because it is a form of existence that does not depend for its own existence on any form of existence of many distinct ids.

The abstract and the non-abstract realm are not less than Whole\Parts Relation, where no collection of parts (finite or not) is the Whole.

This is a paradigm-shift of the Mathematical Science for the past 3,500, which is based on the wrong notion that the Whole is the sum of a given collection of distinct ids.

The inverse of the diagonal of any distinct collection of <0,1> forms (finite or not), which is not in the range of the given collection, actually inherently and essentially demonstrates that the Whole is not the sum of parts and also that complete deduction is impossible (there is no such a thing like a complete bounded framework).

 

[The Man]

No The Man, being mutually exclusive is not less than being disjoint (or exclude each other) at the same level AND being connected (mutual) at a higher level. There is no contradiction here because at least two different levels are involved.

No Doron being mutually exclusive does not require or even infer being “disjoint” (not connected). Your “X” and “beyond X” are both mutually exclusive and mutually dependent. The “contradiction here” is once again just yours in pretending that they are “being disjoint (or exclude each other) at the same level AND being connected (mutual) at a higher level”. Your “X” and “beyond X” are both mutually exclusive and mutually dependent regardless of what “level” you simply want to claim.

This is a simple fact that your one-level flat reasoning can't comprehend, The Man.

Again stop simply trying to posit aspects of your own failed reasoning and your own deliberate “contradiction” on to others.

The fact is that you perceive the phrase ‘mutually exclusive’ as a contradiction (an unconnected or “disjoint” connection) that requires your different “levels” to rectify. The fact remains, as usual, that you have simply misunderstood the meaning of the phrase and as opposed to correcting that misunderstanding you have simply tried to invent different “levels” to compensate for your own misunderstanding. As this misunderstanding has been explained to you multiple times before (mutually exclusive simply means they share that exclusion just as mutually dependent simply means they share that dependence and the only thing “disjoint” or not connected is your understanding) yet you still persist with it, which means that your misunderstanding must be entirely deliberate.

This is my answer about your "simultaneous process" proposition.

In this case at least parallel (simultaneity) AND serial step-by-step (process) reasoning is involved,

I did not ask if both were involved “In this case” in fact that was entirely the point that both can be involved. Here is the question that was asked again…

So now your previous assertion…

Simultaneity means that no step-by-step observation is involved.

And this one..

Because there is only sameness about the concept of Time, and therefore no process. It is called parallel observation.

Are simply false as I have pointed out?

Your assertions quoted again above claim that “Simultaneity” precludes “step-by-step observation”. Which is contradicted by your subsequent assertion “In this case at least parallel (simultaneity) AND serial step-by-step (process) reasoning is involved”.

As these are your assertions Doron it is up to you to tell us which one(s) you now think are false.

As always Doron the contradiction remains simply between you and yourself.

…but also in the case your flat reasoning can't comprehend it The Man.

Again stop simply trying to posit aspects of your own failed reasoning, your own deliberate contradictions and the questions you want to answer as opposed to what was asked on to others.

 

[epix]

Wow! Doron, I thought that you called for taxi and went back home. It was on the news.

The inverse of the diagonal of any distinct collection of <0,1> forms (finite or not), which is not in the range of the given collection, actually inherently and essentially demonstrates that the Whole is not the sum of parts and also that complete deduction is impossible (there is no such a thing like a complete bounded framework).

Of course. How could the whole be the sum of it's parts? Take for example the receipt from the market.

The idea that the total amount is the sum of the prices charged for each item in your basket is just deceptively sound, but when exposed to your ground-breaking discovery of <0,1> correspondence, it's proven to lack any coherency and practical purpose. You should convince those folks who run the nearest store where you shop about that.

When do you think the incomplete decimal system is completed? The number Pi has been computed to billions of digits, but still no digits apart from 0123456789 have been discovered. Any idea when the incompleteness becomes apparent?

 

[epix]

Again stop simply trying to posit aspects of your own failed reasoning, your own deliberate contradictions and the questions you want to answer as opposed to what was asked on to others.

Doron is mopping with us, or what is left, in such a profound way that it can induce a catatonic stupor of awe. LOL. He vehemently defends his right to play with a toy that he found in a medieval torture chamber and he won't give it up no matter what the contra-arguments might be. He is using battery of tactics that would make all noted thinkers of Dark Ages blush with embarrassment. He will emerge victorious, stronger than ever and make us carry him to the Temple of Irreversible Mathematical Truth where he proclaims himself God of SuperComplete Incompleteness.

 

[epix]

epix, the mathematical science of the past 3,500 years works exactly because it is based on the essential incompleteness of any given collection.

As if you didn't mention the words "mathematical science." That makes a huge difference, coz science allows for actual experiments, and I failed to take that into account. It was the experiment that proved you right, after all.

I wrote the digits 1 2 3 4 5 on separate pieces of paper and left them in one of the guest rooms. After an hour or so, I came back and guess what. The incompleteness materialized while I was gone: the paper #4 was missing from the line up.

1 2 3 5

After gathering myself, I asked this question: Why is it so that 4 is missing? Why not 1 or 2 or any other number?

As I was thinking hard, I started semi-automatically massage my forehead -- and the clue kicked in when I look at my hand featuring 5 digits. But if there was an association with the number of digits of the human hand why the incompleteness manifested itself by number 4 disappearing?

So I reached deep into my memory repeating two words -- incomplete and hand -- waiting for some response in my head. And then... bingo!

An incomplete pass is a term in American football which means that a legal forward pass hits the ground before a player on either team gains possession.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incomplete_pass

I looked back to see the numbers, but some paranormal activity was going on, coz the numbers had rearranged themselves while I was doing the thinking. They regrouped from

1 2 3 5

to

25 31

That was just enough. I didn't waste much time and called my bookie in Las Vegas.

Praise the Lord and Doron and Their omniscience!

 

[doronshadmi]

No Doron being mutually exclusive does not require or even infer being “disjoint” (not connected).

Wrong,

Formally, two sets A and B are disjoint if their intersection is the empty set

( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disjoint_sets )

(two sets are said to be disjoint if they have no objects in common and therefore they exclude each other by their unique collection of objects).

But this is only one aspect of being mutually exclusive.

The other aspect of being mutually exclusive, is mutuality, which is the ability to observe disjoint collections from a deeper (or higher) level, where at this level there is a common base ground for both collections.

The realm of being mutually exclusive is not totally mutual and not totally exclusive, and its consistency is known only if at least two levels of existence are shared by Whole\Parts Relations, where the Whole is Non-local w.r.t to the parts, and the Parts are Local w.r.t to the Whole.

Your “X” and “beyond X” are both mutually exclusive and mutually dependent. The “contradiction here” is once again just yours in pretending that they are “being disjoint (or exclude each other) at the same level AND being connected (mutual) at a higher level”. Your “X” and “beyond X” are both mutually exclusive and mutually dependent regardless of what “level” you simply want to claim.

Again, the realm of being mutually exclusive is not totally mutual and not totally exclusive, and this is exactly the Organic realm, which is not less than the simultaneous existence of both Mutuality AND Exclusivity.

The Organic realm can't be known if reduced into a one level of existence, and this is exactly what you are doing all along this thread, The Man, and the contradiction, in this case, is a direct result of your own reduction.

Again stop simply trying to posit aspects of your own failed reasoning and your own deliberate “contradiction” on to others.

You do not need me in order to get this contradiction, actually it is the result of your one level self-made reduction.

(mutually exclusive simply means they share that exclusion just as mutually dependent simply means they share that dependence and the only thing “disjoint” or not connected is your understanding)

Again, two sets are said to be disjoint if they have no objects in common, or in other words they are excluded w.r.t each other at their own level of existence. But this is not the end of the story, because (exactly as you wrote) they are shared at a deeper (or higher) level of existence, and those two levels define the Organic realm of Whole\Parts Relations, where the Whole is Non-local w.r.t to the parts, and the Parts are Local w.r.t to the Whole, such that no collection of parts have the Non-local property of the whole.

----------------------

Once again:

The permanent existence of distinct object that is not in the range of any given collection (finite or not) that is translatable to <0,1> forms, essentially determines the incompleteness of such collection, or its openness, if you will.

This fact gives us the clue that complete deduction (such that a set of considered collection of axioms really determines a complete framework, within its bounds) is impossible, exactly because any given collection (whether it is a collection of axioms, or not) exists upon a higher level, which is non-local by nature, exactly because it is a form of existence that does not depend for its own existence on any form of existence of many distinct ids.

The abstract and the non-abstract realm are not less than Whole\Parts Relation, where no collection of parts (finite or not) is the Whole.

This is a paradigm-shift of the Mathematical Science for the past 3,500, which is based on the wrong notion that the Whole is the sum of a given collection of distinct ids.

The inverse of the diagonal of any distinct collection of <0,1> forms (finite or not), which is not in the range of the given collection, actually inherently and essentially demonstrates that the Whole is not the sum of parts and also that complete deduction is impossible (there is no such a thing like a complete bounded framework).

 

[doronshadmi]

So now your previous assertion…

Simultaneity means that no step-by-step observation is involved.

And this one..

Because there is only sameness about the concept of Time, and therefore no process. It is called parallel observation.

Are simply false as I have pointed out?

Your assertions quoted again above claim that “Simultaneity” precludes “step-by-step observation”. Which is contradicted by your subsequent assertion “In this case at least parallel (simultaneity) AND serial step-by-step (process) reasoning is involved”.

As these are your assertions Doron it is up to you to tell us which one(s) you now think are false.

As always Doron the contradiction remains simply between you and yourself.

Actually it just means ‘at the same time’ it makes no assertions about “step-by-step observation” or what may or may not happen or what has or has not happened at other times.

Because there is only sameness about the concept of Time, and therefore no process. It is called parallel observation.

No, again it just means ‘at the same time’ it makes no assertions about any “process” lacking or otherwise regardless of what you want to call it. You do understand that processes can happen, well, simultaneously, don’t you?

Let us take an example from QM. It is shown by several experiments ( http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v88/i1/e017903 , http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0512/0512168v1.pdf , http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0808/0808.3316v1.pdf and more ) that two different particles are also connected, such that even if each particle is manipulated by serial steps in a particular space\time location , still there is a measurable correlation between the manipulations, which is observed as simultaneous impact on both particles independently of the distance between them.

After all, the whole idea of the existence of, so called, laws of nature, is impossible if each space\time location has only local properties.

So, in terms of Whole\Parts Relation, a complex realm, as observed in our Universe, is not less than Non-local (parallel)\Local (serial) realm, where no collection of local (partial) realms is the non-local (whole) realm.

“X” and “beyond X” are simply not parts of each other.

Nor do they share any “parts” in common and in fact they specifically exclude each other, which again is why they are mutually exclusive.

The Man, it is clearly seen by the reply above that you understand "mutually exclusive" only in terms of exclusion, by ignoring mutuality.

Furthermore, you get "mutually exclusive" only in at the level of partial (local) observations ( as analyzed by <0,1> forms in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6850087&postcount=14229 ).

This is probably the reason why you do not understand the full meaning of the term "mutually exclusive", which is also essentially related to your inability to actually get the source of any observation, which is not itself an observation (exactly as the Whole is not the sum of parts, simply because parts are no more than partial expressions of the Whole).

Moreover, your inability to get the Whole\Parts Relation actually prevents from you to get the Naturally Undefined, which is beyond any attempt to define it and can be experienced only at the level of the simplest state of awareness, which is the silent source of any possible expression, abstract or non-abstract.

 

[doronshadmi]

When do you think the incomplete decimal system is completed?

It does not have to. At the level of expression, things are naturally partial, and there is no problem with any natural partial realm.

Your continuous attempt to force completeness on naturally partial realm, is un-natural.

 

[epix]

It does not have to. At the level of expression, things are naturally partial, and there is no problem with any natural partial realm.

Your continuous attempt to force completeness on naturally partial realm, is un-natural.

Your continuous attempt to force incompleteness on naturally finite collections far exceeds any dogma invented by the Vicars of Jesus and the likes. Your new adventure in terminology -- "naturally partial realm" -- put you in the pulpit well above the pews, but nowhere near a simple equation. You shall hold a sermon and speak of goats to eleanor rigby and of the attainable field of cabbage.

 

[The Man]

Doron is mopping with us, or what is left, in such a profound way that it can induce a catatonic stupor of awe. LOL. He vehemently defends his right to play with a toy that he found in a medieval torture chamber and he won't give it up no matter what the contra-arguments might be. He is using battery of tactics that would make all noted thinkers of Dark Ages blush with embarrassment. He will emerge victorious, stronger than ever and make us carry him to the Temple of Irreversible Mathematical Truth where he proclaims himself God of SuperComplete Incompleteness.

But it is only himself that he is torturing, as if anyone of us is going to forget what we have said and simply accept in its stead Doron’s preferred and rather bizarre interpretation that, more often then not, directly contradicts what was asserted (even by himself).

 

[The Man]

No Doron being mutually exclusive does not require or even infer being “disjoint” (not connected).

Wrong,

Realy? So you are claiming that your use of “disjoint” to mean “(not connected)” as specifically referenced in what you just quoted is wrong? If that is the case then I couldn’t agree more.

Formally, two sets A and B are disjoint if their intersection is the empty set ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disjoint_sets )

(two sets are said to be disjoint if they have no objects in common and therefore they exclude each other by their unique collection of objects).

As I have been trying to point out to you for some time now.

But this is only one aspect of being mutually exclusive.

The other aspect of being mutually exclusive, is mutuality, which is the ability to observe disjoint collections from a deeper (or higher) level, where at this level there is a common base ground for both collections.

No Doron, once again it is specifically the exclusion that is mutual or shared thus it is still the same “aspect” of them excluding each other. Your “deeper (or higher) level” is still just superfluous nonsense you added because you evidently still don’t understand the meaning of the phrase mutually exclusive

Again, the realm of being mutually exclusive is not totally mutual and not totally exclusive, and this is exactly the Organic realm, which is not less than the simultaneous existence of both Mutuality AND Exclusivity.

Realy? So they don’t totally exclude each other? In that case what elements do they share? So that exclusion is not totally mutual? In that case what element of one is only an element of the other? You keep just making up your “Organic realm” nonsense and pretending it has some meaning.

The Organic realm can't be known if reduced into a one level of existence, and this is exactly what you are doing all along this thread, The Man, and the contradiction, in this case, is a direct result of your own reduction.

I claimed no contradiction in mutual exclusivity, you did, so that contradiction as well as your “own reduction” are just pure fantasy on your part and remain entirely yours.

You do not need me in order to get this contradiction, actually it is the result of your one level self-made reduction.

What contradiction? The perception of a contradiction remains simply yours as is this “one level self-made reduction” of yours. Stop simply trying to pawn it off onto others.

Again, two sets are said to be disjoint if they have no objects in common, or in other words they are excluded w.r.t each other at their own level of existence. But this is not the end of the story, because (exactly as you wrote) they are shared at a deeper (or higher) level of existence, and those two levels define the Organic realm of Whole\Parts Relations, where the Whole is Non-local w.r.t to the parts, and the Parts are Local w.r.t to the Whole, such that no collection of parts have the Non-local property of the whole.

Again none of your nonsense changes the fact that they still exclude each other even at your so called “deeper (or higher) level of existence” or are you now claiming that they do share some elements at your so called “deeper (or higher) level of existence”. If so then define those elements, if not then stop pretending your so called “deeper (or higher) level of existence” makes any difference to them being mutually exclusive.

Once again:

The permanent existence of distinct object that is not in the range of any given collection (finite or not) that is translatable to <0,1> forms, essentially determines the incompleteness of such collection, or its openness, if you will.

This fact gives us the clue that complete deduction (such that a set of considered collection of axioms really determines a complete framework, within its bounds) is impossible, exactly because any given collection (whether it is a collection of axioms, or not) exists upon a higher level, which is non-local by nature, exactly because it is a form of existence that does not depend for its own existence on any form of existence of many distinct ids.

The abstract and the non-abstract realm are not less than Whole\Parts Relation, where no collection of parts (finite or not) is the Whole.

This is a paradigm-shift of the Mathematical Science for the past 3,500, which is based on the wrong notion that the Whole is the sum of a given collection of distinct ids.

The inverse of the diagonal of any distinct collection of <0,1> forms (finite or not), which is not in the range of the given collection, actually inherently and essentially demonstrates that the Whole is not the sum of parts and also that complete deduction is impossible (there is no such a thing like a complete bounded framework).

“Once again” simply nonsense.

 

[The Man]

So now your previous assertion…

Simultaneity means that no step-by-step observation is involved.

And this one..

Because there is only sameness about the concept of Time, and therefore no process. It is called parallel observation.

Are simply false as I have pointed out?

Your assertions quoted again above claim that “Simultaneity” precludes “step-by-step observation”. Which is contradicted by your subsequent assertion “In this case at least parallel (simultaneity) AND serial step-by-step (process) reasoning is involved”.

As these are your assertions Doron it is up to you to tell us which one(s) you now think are false.

As always Doron the contradiction remains simply between you and yourself.

So you’re just going to quote instead of actually addressing which of your assertions about “Simultaneity” you now consider to be false, how unsurprising.

Let us take an example from QM. It is shown by several experiments ( http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v88/i1/e017903 , http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0512/0512168v1.pdf , http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0808/0808.3316v1.pdf and more ) that two different particles are also connected, such that even if each particle is manipulated by serial steps in a particular space\time location , still there is a measurable correlation between the manipulations, which is observed as simultaneous impact on both particles independently of the distance between them.

I’m quite familiar with the correlation of entangled particles, I would suggest you familiarize yourself with it more.

After all, the whole idea of the existence of, so called, laws of nature, is impossible if each space\time location has only local properties.

Says who, you? Go figure.

So, in terms of Whole\Parts Relation, a complex realm, as observed in our Universe, is not less than Non-local (parallel)\Local (serial) realm, where no collection of local (partial) realms is the non-local (whole) realm.

Still just your same superfluous and undefined nonsense.

The Man, it is clearly seen by the reply above that you understand "mutually exclusive" only in terms of exclusion, by ignoring mutuality.

No Doron, once again that exclusion is shared which is why it is mutual. If not please show what element of one is not excluded by the other.

Furthermore, you get "mutually exclusive" only in at the level of partial (local) observations ( as analyzed by <0,1> forms in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6850087&postcount=14229 ).

Well it’s your imaginary “level of partial (local) observations ( as analyzed by <0,1> forms in” so don’t try to posit it on anyone but yourself or blame anyone but you for however you perceive it to and made it fail.

This is probably the reason why you do not understand the full meaning of the term "mutually exclusive", which is also essentially related to your inability to actually get the source of any observation, which is not itself an observation (exactly as the Whole is not the sum of parts, simply because parts are no more than partial expressions of the Whole).

So your “source of any observation” isn’t something you were able to observe and you just pulled it out of your rear end, color me unsuprised agian

Moreover, your inability to get the Whole\Parts Relation actually prevents from you to get the Naturally Undefined, which is beyond any attempt to define it and can be experienced only at the level of the simplest state of awareness, which is the silent source of any possible expression, abstract or non-abstract.

Oh so it is not just your inability or the scatterbrained and self contradictory aspects of your notions that keeps you from defining them in any consistent way but that they are simply “Naturally Undefined”, once again color me unsurprised. If you do actually believe this then your notions can not be formalized as they are “Naturally Undefined” and you have simply wasted decades trying to define what you claim is “Naturally Undefined”.

So which is it Doron, you believe your own “Naturally Undefined” assertion above and have been wasting decades of your time or this is just another of your self-contradictory nonsense assertions and you have been wasting decades of your time?

 

[doronshadmi]

The Man, it is clearly seen by the reply above that you understand "mutually exclusive" only in terms of exclusion, by ignoring mutuality.

No Doron, once again that exclusion is shared which is why it is mutual. If not please show what element of one is not excluded by the other.

Well, once again you demonstrate that you do not understand own words.

"exclusion is shared" is not less than disjoint objects at one level that are shared at a deeper (or higher) level.

For example: the cells of the finger and the cells of the eye of some living body are disjoint, yet they share the same body, which is not reducible to the exclusion of these cells, exactly because the whole is more than the sum of excluded parts.

The Man, the body as a whole is exactly the element that is not excluded by the finger and by the eye, but your flat reasoning can't get it because all you get is the level of excluded parts.

After all, the whole idea of the existence of, so called, laws of nature, is impossible if each space\time location has only local properties.

Says who, you? Go figure.

You are amazingly flat, The Man.

If any given arbitrary space\time location has only its own laws, then you essentially rejects the possibility of any framework that is not limited to this given arbitrary space\time location.

In that case please say bye bye to Natural science ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_science ).

The Man, your hard reductionism reasoning is a dead meat for the past 50 years, yet the main stream of Natural scientists still uses this obsolete reasoning, and like any dead meat, they get off stage.

you have simply wasted decades trying to define what you claim is “Naturally Undefined”.

Since you are a hard reductionist that gets only the level of partial expressions, you are unable to be aware of the simplest state of awareness, which is the silent state of any possible expression, abstract or non-abstract.

It is Naturally Undefined, because any definition is some partial expression of it.

The Man, you are wasting your space\time as long as you are not aware of the Naturally Undefined.

simply nonsense.

I agree with you, this is indeed the best of what a hard reductionist like you can get about a paradigm-shift of the Mathematical Science.

 

[The Man]

Well, once again you demonstrate that you do not understand own words.

Who’s “own words”

"exclusion is shared" is not less than disjoint objects at one level that are shared at a deeper (or higher) level.

Once again Doron you demonstrate that you just don’t understand that they are still disjoint at any of your so called “levels”. Unless you are going to claim that they somehow share some elements at your so called “deeper (or higher) level”. If so then define those shared elements at your so called “deeper (or higher) level”.

For example: the cells of the finger and the cells of the eye of some living body are disjoint, yet they share the same body, which is not reducible to the exclusion of these cells, exactly because the whole is more than the sum of excluded parts.

“reducible to the exclusion of these cells”? What the heck are you talking about?

“the sum of excluded parts”? So you're adding parts you are excluding?

The Man, the body as a whole is exactly the element that is not excluded by the finger and by the eye, but your flat reasoning can't get it because all you get is the level of excluded parts.

Now the body is an “element that is not excluded by the finger and by the eye”? Please show us how you body is an element of your finger and your eye? You really still don’t know what an excluded element is, do you?

In case you have forgotten the finger (or eye) excludes the body (or at least just most of it in most cases) but the body does not exclude the finger (or eye) (again in most cases) so they are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Once again your analogy fails for exactly the same reason as before.

You are amazingly flat, The Man.

You continue to be unsurprisingly nonsensical, Doron.

If any given arbitrary space\time location has only its own laws, then you essentially rejects the possibility of any framework that is not limited to this given arbitrary space\time location.

“If any given arbitrary space\time location has only its own laws” then those “laws" are simply not consistent through space time and probably won’t be invariant under different coordinate systems. Good thing that physics is invariant under different coordinate systems. Oh and in case you have forgot ‘local’ has a very specific definition in physics (referring to timelike separations) and does not include any of your self contradictory nonsense.

In that case please say bye bye to Natural science ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_science ).

bye bye? It would seem that the two of you have never even been introduced in the first place.

The Man, your hard reductionism reasoning is a dead meat for the past 50 years, yet the main stream of Natural scientists still uses this obsolete reasoning, and like any dead meat, they get off stage.

Funny, our “dead meat”, as you put it, actually works and permits us to converse as we are over these vast distances. What was it again that your “OM” has done?

Since you are a hard reductionist that gets only the level of partial expressions, you are unable to be aware of the simplest state of awareness, which is the silent state of any possible expression, abstract or non-abstract.

Again with the labels and simply ascribing part of your own failed reasoning to others. Does anyone actually fall for that shtick of yours?

It is Naturally Undefined, because any definition is some partial expression of it.

So you know you have been wasting these past decades to “get it” at “only the level of partial expressions” ?

The Man, you are wasting your space\time as long as you are not aware of the Naturally Undefined.

As I’ve said before I’ve got time to waste and I’m quite certain that everyone here has been aware of the fact that you can’t define anything consistently about your notions for sometime now. Additionally I’m also certain that this latest “Naturally Undefined” claim of yours is fooling no one but you, as it has apparently done for decades.

I agree with you, this is indeed the best of what a hard reductionist like you can get.

Based on your own “Naturally Undefined” assertion it is what you claim is the best you can offer. So stop wasting more decades of your time and work on something you can define in at least a self-consistent manor.

 

[epix]

“the sum of excluded parts”? So you're adding parts you are excluding?

It's just one of those trendy developments in mathematical science. To keep up with all the progressive concepts, epix subtracted religion from science.

 

[doronshadmi]

Funny, our “dead meat”, as you put it, actually works and permits us to converse as we are over these vast distances. What was it again that your “OM” has done?

The Man, hard reductionism was, is and never will be a fruitful method for real scientific development, because by hard reductionism the invariance "under different coordinate systems" is impossible.

By understanding the fact of invariance "under different coordinate systems", one can't avoid the fact that space\time expressions are partial cases of this invariance, where this invariance is non-local (not limited) to any collection of its partial expressions.

This is exactly the reason that enables one to execute some scientific experiment, no matter what space\time zone is considered.

The same non-local principle holds in the case of a given organism, which is non-local w.r.t any collection of cells that excludes each other (for example: the collection of cells of a given finger of that organism, and the collection of cells of a given eye of that organism).

By generalize the examples above, one enables to understand that any defined expression is a partial case of the Naturally Undefined.

In other words, Whole\Parts Relation is essential to any given abstract or non-abstract realm, where by this relation the Whole is the non-local aspect of the considered realm, and the Parts are the local aspects of the considered realm.

The generalisation of Whole\Parts Relation can’t be comprehended by hard reductionism, and the needs of the near and far future soon will air their views about the need of the direct awareness of the silent presence of the Naturally Undefined, in every aspect of our life as persons and as a civilization.

No wonder that you can't get even the last part of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6850087&postcount=14229 .

 

[doronshadmi]

Once again Doron you demonstrate that you just don’t understand that they are still disjoint at any of your so called “levels”.

The Man, "levels" (a notation that is used by a person that uses only one level) are not the same as levels.

Take for example an ocean with waves. At the level of waves, each distinct wave is disjoint from any other wave, unless there are no distinct waves.

But even if there are waves that exclude each other at the expressed surface level of the ocean still they are partial expressions on a one ocean, which is non-local w.r.t the the partial expressions of the waves that exclude each other at the surface level of the ocean.

Your reasoning is like balloon that is full of air, that gets only the surface level of the ocean, and as a result can't observe its expressed surface from the calm level of this ocean.

The calm level of this ocean is exactly the silent state of your awareness, which is the source of any partial expression at the surface level, where each partial expression is some definition of the Naturally Undefined level (the calmness) of the ocean.