Deeper than primes

[doronshadmi]

Let us learn how to get Unity as the source of all expressions, which is itself beyond expression, by understanding the following diagram:

By this diagram Unity is represented by a 1-dim element, which stays 1-dim element, whether it is curved upon infinitely many frequencies or it has 0 frequency as a straight element.

The ups and downs of the 1-dim element represent the principle of dichotomy, which appears upon infinitely many frequencies and expresses the observed complexity.

The easiest way to be aware of Unity is to get the 1-dim element at its simplest state, which is straight.

By being aware of the simplest state, one enables to be aware of any possible complexity without losing the awareness of Unity (which is -by the provided analogy- the awareness of the 1-dim element that is not changed under the infinitely many possible complex expressions of it).

 

[epix]

By the organic approach both the duality of day/night AND their common ground, are considered (you get only the duality of day/night).

Day/night is not about duality but periodicity. Duality is not that easy to define.

In mathematical contexts, duality has numerous meanings, and although it is “a very pervasive and important concept in (modern) mathematics” and “an important general theme that has manifestations in almost every area of mathematics”, there is no single universally agreed definition that unifies all concepts of duality.

But since your discourse concerns anything but the philosophy of mathematics, you can use Merriam Webster.

formal : the quality or state of having two parts

According to this definition, day/night may be considered a dual distribution of 24 hours. The often-used symbol of duality is

But duality is not just about opposites, coz being composed of two parts doesn't necessarily imply that both parts are distinct opposites.

Your notion of "common ground" in duality comes from "fat" and "lean." When these meat qualities are combined in here

you get ground beef.

(How did you manage to fall in, Doron?)

 

[epix]

Let us learn how to get Unity as the source of all expressions, which is itself beyond expression, by understanding the following diagram:

[qimg]http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3296/5721561558_c5b78c3152_b.jpg[/qimg]

Can we learn in 3D?

 

[doronshadmi]

But duality is not just about opposites, coz being composed of two parts doesn't necessarily imply that both parts are distinct opposites.

Exactly as ups and downs are not just their opposite states.

 

[doronshadmi]

Your notion of "common ground" in duality comes from "fat" and "lean."

You mix between Ground as noun (my interpretation) and Ground as adjective (your interpretation).

So after you finish to show how "funny" you are, please use the noun.

 

[doronshadmi]

Can we learn in 3D?

[qimg]http://archiv.radio.cz/pictures/vanoce/vanocka1.jpg[/qimg]

First show that you get it at 1-dim.

 

[epix]

You mix between Ground as noun (my interpretation) and Ground as adjective (your interpretation).

So after you finish to show how "funny" you are, please use the noun.

the adjective can't catch the noun
as 'funny' never catches 'clown'
before, after; lost and found
fat and lean is all around

beef is ground and pork is not
when it's cold than it's not hot
we all became excited
when Manchester got United.

 

[The Man]

A point is the minimal expression of locality under non-locality\locality co-existence, where a line segment is the minimal expression of non-locality under co-existence.

That still does not constrict a location to only a point. Are you claiming your “line segment” has no location(s), either singular or multiple. Remember that your “non-locality” is in more than one location is a defining feature you have ascribed. It seems that you are considering the singular aspect of your “locality” to be a hidden assumption and in fact your negation is applied to that singular aspect and not the negation of location (since you define your “non-locality” as being in more then one location). So to be more precise it would be ‘non-singular locality\singular locality co-existence’. Of course that would make your “line segment” devisable into at least more than one location. So which is it Doron, your line segment is indivisible having no location or at most one location or is it at least more than one location thus divisible into those locations?

Yet there are non-minimal expressions of non-locality\locality co-existence among smaller (localities under co-existence) and bigger (non-localities under co-existence) dimensions.

“among smaller (localities”? You just said “A point is the minimal expression of locality”. What “smaller (localities” do you have now?

The smallest dimension (notated by 0) is the immediate (and under non-locality\locality co-existence) successor of Nothing (which is non-existence and does not have notation) and bigger dimensions are non-immediate (notated by x (such that 0 < x ≤ ∞) and under non-locality\locality co-existence) predecessors of Fullness (notated by ∞ and beyond co-existence and non-existence).

The lack of any dimension isn’t “The smallest dimension” because that would make it a dimension and thus not lacking in what it, by definition, lacks. That you indulge in and evidently thrive upon self-contradictory nonsense in no way imbues every notion with such a propensity.

Have you got that definition of your “successor” without ordering yet?

Please define your “predecessors” without ordering while you’re at it.

Just to give you a hint: “x (such that 0 < x ≤ ∞” is an expression of ordering.

“non-existence” “does not have notation”? How unfortunate for you that you just noted it, as usual simply proving yourself wrong.

So are you claiming there is “Nothing” “beyond” your “Fullness”?

Beyond Nothing, Locality\Non-locality co-existence and Fullness there is the realm of Unity, where no degrees of any kind are expressible.

Are you claiming there is “Nothing” “beyond” your “Unity”?

“Unity, where no degrees of any kind are expressible”? So there is no degree of “Unity” in your, well, “Unity”?

If Complexity is considered, then in both cases, there must be co-existence of more than one thing, such that the co-exiting things save their ids under the co-existence, and therefore they are considered as the building-blocks, which are used as the agents of Unity that enable Complexity.

Here you claim your “co-exiting things” to be your “agents of Unity that enable Complexity”. So does your “Unity” succeed or proceed your “Complexity” (perhaps both, and your “OM” ‘reasoning’ is just circular)?

 

[doronshadmi]

“2 and 3” are not between to “2 and 3” so the interval specifically excludes anything between them. It could just as well be A and B in the alphabet, there is nothing between A and B. They are distinct because they are, well, different, that difference does not depend on any intervening (or between) “interval”.

( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7115044&postcount=15223 )

According to The Man's reasoning "there is nothing between A and B" is equivalent to "there is difference between A and B"

His "reasoning" speaks for itself.

 

[doronshadmi]

That still does not constrict a location to only a point.

Yes it does. Only a point has the minimal needed term (exactly one location), which defines its exact position.

A line segment is non-local exactly because more than one location is used in order to define it.

X="local"

Furthermore, not-X is not necessarily the negation of X, not-X is "anything but X" where some of the possible cases is "the negation of X".

Your limited understanding of negation, is one of the reasons the you don't get an expression like "non-local".

“among smaller (localities”? You just said “A point is the minimal expression of locality”. What “smaller (localities” do you have now?

It is not about points, but about smaller dimensions > 0 and bigger dimensions > 0, for example : 1-dim is local w.r.t 2-dim and 2-dim is non-local w.r.t 1-dim (and also w.r.t 0-dim).

0-dim is the smallest dim and it is local w.r.t to any other dim.

The lack of any dimension isn’t “The smallest dimension”

In other words, you do not distinguish between 0-dim and nothing.
This distinction is clearly seen in what I wrote here:

The smallest dimension (notated by 0) is the immediate (and under non-locality\locality co-existence) successor of Nothing

Have you got that definition of your “successor” without ordering yet?

Things that exist at the same level existence (for example distinct points) are not necessarily ordered by some common rule.

This is not the case between different levels of existence, which are necessarily ordered between two extremes, which are nothing (anything but a thing) and fullness (total thing).

Please define your “predecessors” without ordering while you’re at it.

Just to give you a hint: “x (such that 0 < x ≤ ∞” is an expression of ordering.

As I said. In term of existence, things of the same level of existence are not necessarily ordered, and this is not the case about " < 0 < x ≤ ∞ < ∞"

“non-existence” “does not have notation”? How unfortunate for you that you just noted it, as usual simply proving yourself wrong.

Try to get " < 0 < x ≤ ∞ < ∞"

So are you claiming there is “Nothing” “beyond” your “Fullness”?

No, there is Unity beyond " < 0 < x ≤ ∞ < ∞"

Are you claiming there is “Nothing” “beyond” your “Unity”?

No, there is Unity beyond " < 0 < x ≤ ∞ < ∞"

“Unity, where no degrees of any kind are expressible”? So there is no degree of “Unity” in your, well, “Unity”?

You still do not comprehend Unity beyond " < 0 < x ≤ ∞ < ∞" expression.

Here you claim your “co-exiting things” to be your “agents of Unity that enable Complexity”. So does your “Unity” succeed or proceed your “Complexity” (perhaps both, and your “OM” ‘reasoning’ is just circular)?

Unity is beyond complexity, where the complexity is expressed by at least two opposites, or any other form of interaction among distinct concepts (abstract or not).

 

[punshhh]

Only if you are at the level of expression, where Duality is the name of the game (you don't get Unity).

In that case please try http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDuG9lmHb4U&feature=player_embedded .

Are you Bert?

 

[doronshadmi]

Are you Bert?

No.

 

[punshhh]

No.

I like his explanation, existence is so very simple

 

[doronshadmi]

I like his explanation, existence is so very simple

It is simple as http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7184678&postcount=15421 .

 

[epix]

Let us learn how to get Unity as the source of all expressions, which is itself beyond expression, by understanding the following diagram:

By this diagram Unity is represented by a 1-dim element, which stays 1-dim element, whether it is curved upon infinitely many frequencies or it has 0 frequency as a straight element.

The ups and downs of the 1-dim element represent the principle of dichotomy, which appears upon infinitely many frequencies and expresses the observed complexity.

The easiest way to be aware of Unity is to get the 1-dim element at its simplest state, which is straight.

By being aware of the simplest state, one enables to be aware of any possible complexity without losing the awareness of Unity (which is -by the provided analogy- the awareness of the 1-dim element that is not changed under the infinitely many possible complex expressions of it).

You are a dreamscape mystic, Doron. What complexity are you talking about? Let me "uncomplex" it very quickly for you . . .

The source of your phantasmagorical discourse is a collection of joint semicircles -- it is a variation on Cantor set. There is nothing going on in there. The limit of the combined length of the spiralling semicircles whose number approaches infinity is

∞
∑ pi/2^i-1 = 2pi
i=1

and the cumulative function that draws the curve that approaches the limit is

f(x) = pi (2^x-1)/2^x-1

That's about it. It's trivial anyway. That's why only a hemispheric mystic like you can raise it from the Abyss of Continuous Abandonment, turn it into the Seed of Incremental Knowledge and plant the Tree of Complex Unity, which no squirrel can ever climb.

 

[doronshadmi]

The source of your phantasmagorical discourse is a collection of joint semicircles

1) epix gets only the analogy (he does not understand that 1-dim element is not Unity).

2) Even by analogy epix can't get 1-dim element (he get's the 1-dim as a collection of semi-circles, or in other words, he does not understand the word "element") as a representation of Unity , which is unchanged by the different frequencies of it.

Here is epix's model of "There is nothing going on in there":

The limit of the combined length of the spiralling semicircles whose number approaches infinity is


∞
∑ pi/2^i-1 = 2pi
i=1

and the cumulative function that draws the curve that approaches the limit is

f(x) = pi (2^x-1)/2^x-1

Very "profound", isn't it?

It's trivial anyway.

Indeed What You See Is What You Get, which is indeed trivial (you are unable to grasp the simple, and the difference between the trivial and the simple).

which no squirrel can ever climb.

Indeed the name of the squirrel is epix, which wastes his energy on trivial jokes.

 

[epix]

Indeed the name of the squirrel is epix, which wastes his energy on trivial jokes.

mc² is a waste of honey
the squirrel squirms when jokes are bunny

 

[doronshadmi]

[qimg]http://img852.imageshack.us/img852/2760/verybunny.png[/qimg]

mc² is a waste of honey
the squirrel squirms when jokes are bunny

Again, not funny.

 

[punshhh]

1) epix gets only the analogy (he does not understand that 1-dim element is not Unity).

2) Even by analogy epix can't get 1-dim element (he get's the 1-dim as a collection of semi-circles, or in other words, he does not understand the word "element") as a representation of Unity , which is unchanged by the different frequencies of it.

Here is epix's model of "There is nothing going on in there":


Very "profound", isn't it?

Indeed What You See Is What You Get, which is indeed trivial (you are unable to grasp the simple, and the difference between the trivial and the simple).

Indeed the name of the squirrel is epix, which wastes his energy on trivial jokes.

I think Playboy Bunny rather than Squirrel. I don't want to think what the Porn library in the Vatican looks like!

 

[epix]

I think Playboy Bunny rather than Squirrel. I don't want to think what the Porn library in the Vatican looks like!

Take a tour . . .

no one cares of what you think
coz energy is always pink
the favorite color of sigmund freud
can't tell apart pink from the floyd