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

Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
doronshadmi said:
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 .
Click to expand...

Awful lot of gibberish, Doron. Could have just said "NOTHING" and get the same result.
 
doronshadmi said:
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.
Click to expand...

Doron “hard reductionism” has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that physics is specifically formulated to be invariant under different coordinate systems. So it neither makes it possible nor impossible as you claim.

doronshadmi said:
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.
Click to expand...

Evidently you just don’t understand “the fact of invariance” or evidently just the meaning of invariance.

So are you claiming that your “space\time expressions are” only partially invariant? Well that would just make them, well, variant. I would suggest that you get some better and invariant “space\time expressions” (what ever you think that means).


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

No Doron once again it is simply the fact that physics can be and in fact is formulated in an invariant fashion. I seriously doubt that you have executed any kind of scientific experiment, ever.


doronshadmi said:
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).
Click to expand...

What “non-local principle”? You have defined no “non-local principle”. You have simply made some vague and demonstrably wrong associations that simply demonstrate that you don’t know what you're talking about nor evidently do you care to find out.


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

What “examples above”? The finger? The Eye? That those examples can be well defined in no way infers anything is “Naturally Undefined”. Again this “Naturally Undefined” claim of yours is just an excuse for your inability to define anything about your notions even just self-consistently. Again if you actually believe this “Naturally Undefined” claim of yours then you know you are just wasting your time trying to formalize what you claim you can’t define. If you do not believe this “Naturally Undefined” claim of your then you know it is just meaningless nonsense. Either way you are still knowingly just wasting your time.

doronshadmi said:
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.
Click to expand...

What, so you never consider a whole part but just part of a part? You may like to pretend this simple stringing together of words results in some profound and meaningful claim but again that is because (and again by your own assertions) you never really think about what you are saying. You still don’t have a clue what you are talking about even when it is just about your own notions and apparently that is simply deliberate.

doronshadmi said:
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.
Click to expand...

No Doron, no one needs or will need your “Naturally Undefined” nonsense. Nor would you if you could realize that what you can’t, won’t and evidently just don’t want to define has no meaningful value specifically because of its lack of definition.

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

No wonder that you can’t get that “ the last part of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6850087&postcount=14229” is still just your, apparently deliberately, indefinable nonsense.
 
The Man said:
Doron “hard reductionism” has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that physics is specifically formulated to be invariant under different coordinate systems.
Click to expand...
It is the relations among the variant and the invariant. Once again your one level reasoning airs its limited view.

The Man said:
Evidently you just don’t understand “the fact of invariance” or evidently just the meaning of invariance.
Click to expand...
Evidently you are living in your limited flat land.

The Man said:
So are you claiming that your “space\time expressions are” only partially invariant? Well that would just make them, well, variant. I would suggest that you get some better and invariant “space\time expressions” (what ever you think that means).
Click to expand...
I would suggest that you get out of your limited one level flat land.


The Man said:
No Doron once again it is simply the fact that physics can be and in fact is formulated in an invariant fashion. I seriously doubt that you have executed any kind of scientific experiment, ever.
Click to expand...
No, it is the non-trivial relations between the variant and the invariant, Mr. flat land.

The Man said:
What “non-local principle”? You have defined no “non-local principle”. You have simply made some vague and demonstrably wrong associations that simply demonstrate that you don’t know what you're talking about nor evidently do you care to find out.
Click to expand...
It is beyond the abilities of flat land reasoning, which is your one level realm, The Man.

The Man said:
What “examples above”? The finger? The Eye? That those examples can be well defined in no way infers anything is “Naturally Undefined”.
Click to expand...
Any definition is a partial expression of the Naturally Undefined, but your one level flat mind can't get it.


The Man said:
Again this “Naturally Undefined” claim of yours is just an excuse for your inability to define anything about your notions even just self-consistently. Again if you actually believe this “Naturally Undefined” claim of yours then you know you are just wasting your time trying to formalize what you claim you can’t define. If you do not believe this “Naturally Undefined” claim of your then you know it is just meaningless nonsense. Either way you are still knowingly just wasting your time.
Click to expand...
There is no excuse for your inability to get the Naturally Undefined.


The Man said:
What, so you never consider a whole part but just part of a part?
Click to expand...
More flat land "wisdom".

The Man said:
No Doron, no one needs or will need your “Naturally Undefined” nonsense. Nor would you if you could realize that what you can’t, won’t and evidently just don’t want to define has no meaningful value specifically because of its lack of definition.
Click to expand...
The Naturally Undefined is the calm presence of your mind, whether you are aware of it, or not.


The Man said:
No wonder that you can’t get that “ the last part of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6850087&postcount=14229” is still just your, apparently deliberately, indefinable nonsense.
Click to expand...
No wonder that you are enable to really understand the diagonal method among <0,1> forms, because your flat reasoning is like a balloon that is full of air, exactly as described in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6853830&postcount=14240 .
 
zooterkin said:
Still waiting for a single example of what you can do with OM...
Click to expand...
According to Doron's theory of incompleteness, or the "Ellipses Theory"

(OM... = OMicron) XOR (OM... = OMega)

Only a mind packing IQ>1225.74 can make the logical choice. That means it's up to Doron and only Doron to make the choice. Too bad we would never be able to comprehend the criteria entering the process of separation.
 
doronshadmi said:
It is the relations among the variant and the invariant. Once again your one level reasoning airs its limited view.
Click to expand...

You just can’t get enough of your dichotomist expressions, can you?

doronshadmi said:
Evidently you are living in your limited flat land.
Click to expand...

So even though this labeling and trying to impose failed aspects of your own perspective onto others has never actually worked for you, you’re still sticking with the same old useless shtick?

doronshadmi said:
I would suggest that you get out of your limited one level flat land.
Click to expand...

Sorry but it is your “flat land” so only you can get out of it yourself. Or can you? That would mean you would then have to address people by what they assert and not by what you simply want to label them or what part of your own failed reasoning you want to ascribe to them. I seriously doubt you can do that Doron.


doronshadmi said:
No, it is the non-trivial relations between the variant and the invariant, Mr. flat land.
Click to expand...

Ah, so now combining your dichotomist expression with your useless label, so is that all your “OM” can do?

doronshadmi said:
It is beyond the abilities of flat land reasoning, which is your one level realm, The Man.
Click to expand...

Once again Doron the “one level realm” is simply your own fantasy, stop trying to pawn it off onto others. Or is that simply beyond your abilities?

doronshadmi said:
Any definition is a partial expression of the Naturally Undefined, but your one level flat mind can't get it.
Click to expand...

So what part of a definition is undefined?

It’s OK you can say it.

The meaningless part.


doronshadmi said:
There is no excuse for your inability to get the Naturally Undefined.
Click to expand...

There is no excuse for you not being able to define your notions in a least a self-consistent fashion. Well other than the fact that they are simply meaningless. Which unfortunately cause you to presume you can ascribe any meaning you want to them any time you want, of course thereby simply demonstrating that they are in fact meaningless.


doronshadmi said:
More flat land "wisdom".
Click to expand...

Its just your “flat land” Doron so what you consider "wisdom" in it is simply up to you.

doronshadmi said:
The Naturally Undefined is the calm presence of your mind, whether you are aware of it, or not.
Click to expand...

Doron the “Naturally Undefined” is just, well, Naturally Undefined. Which apparently you’re not aware of even with your so called “calm presence of your mind” as you still keep trying to simply impose your own (must be un-natural) definition on what you claim is “Naturally Undefined”. Once again you remain the staunchest opponent of your own notions.


doronshadmi said:
No wonder that you are enable to really understand the diagonal method among <0,1> forms, because your flat reasoning is like a balloon that is full of air, exactly as described in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6853830&postcount=14240 .
Click to expand...


No wonder you keep just repeating the same “Naturally Undefined” nonsense and the same useless shtick.
 
doronshadmi said:
No wonder that you are enable to really understand the diagonal method among <0,1> forms, because your flat reasoning is like a balloon that is full of air, exactly as described in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6853830&postcount=14240 .
Click to expand...
Doron, you are making eye-blinding contradictory comparisons again. A balloon which is full of air is an inflated balloon, not a deflated balloon laying flat on the ground. When you drive to Las Vegas and get a flat tire at 190MPH, that tire is no longer full of air and your body possibly not full of life. So you messed up the "flat reasoning" comparative. But your English seems to have gotten better over the year or so.
 
Last edited:
epix said:
Doron, you are making eye-blinding contradictory comparisons again. A balloon which is full of air is an inflated balloon, not a deflated balloon laying flat on the ground. When you drive to Las Vegas and get a flat tire at 190MPH, that tire is no longer full of air and your body possibly not full of life. So you messed up the "flat reasoning" comparative. But your English seems to have gotten better over the year or so.
Click to expand...
epix, like The Man your mind is like a balloon full of air that is floating upon the wavy surface of the ocean, and as a result it can't get the calm level of that ocean, which is the simplest state of your awareness that stands at the basis of any possible mental or physical expression.

The Man and you can't get the beauty of the complementarity of the invariat and the variant under a one framework.

For example: If you change the order of some distinct collection of <0,1> forms, you get different <0,1> inverse form of the diagonal of that collection, which is not in the range of that given collection.

Yet, not being in the range is invariant w.r.t any ordered case of collections of <0,1> forms.

Actually given any defined formula, it is invariant w.r.t any particular solution of it.

By going deeper (or higher) with the notion of Invariant\Variant Relations, the Naturally Undefined is the Invariance of any given definition, which is variant w.r.t the Naturally Undefined.

If you are not flat minded you can get the Invariant\Variant Relations right from your own simplest state of awareness, and by doing that you actually starting to fulfill OM as a practical method of the Technology of consciousness' development.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
epix, like The Man your mind is like a balloon full of air that is floating upon the wavy surface of the ocean, and as a result it can't get the calm level of that ocean,...
Click to expand...
I thought that when a ballon is full of hot air, it's very unlikely to "float upon the wavy surface of the ocean."

1222863191N12XfB.jpg


Maybe you refer to a balloon whose hot air volume to gravitational pull ratio was computed using the OM methods of computation.
 
doronshadmi said:
The Man said:
You just can’t get enough of your dichotomist expressions, can you?
Click to expand...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6857531&postcount=14257
Click to expand...

So you’ve just added another of your dichotomist expressions. Guess you just can’t get enough.

Let’s see we have (just off the top of my head)

Local/Non-local
Serial (sometimes ‘step by step‘)/Parallel
Element/Relation
Parts/Whole

And now…

headlining this month….


Variant/Invariant


Some suggestions for future dichotomist expressions as you never seem to get your fill.

Left/Right
Up/Down
Heads/Tails
Start/Stop
On/Off
Asleep/Awake
Employer/Employee
Eating/Fasting
Weak/Strong
Fat/Thin
Consolable/Inconsolable
Drunk/Sober
Sick/Healthy
Continent/Incontinent
Flatulent/Non-flatulent




I’m sure you can come up with all sorts of self-contradictory nonsense that you can simply associate to the above expressions. More than enough to keep you wasting your time for decades to come.


Conversely you could simply stop all of your foolishness learn some actual math, science, even philosophy, whatever suits your fancy and who knows perhaps even come up with some new developments.


Unfortunately the former seems more likely than the latter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom