• 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:
Please support your claim by providing some details about, for example:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7617572&postcount=16472

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7666664&postcount=16568

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7662986&postcount=16559

http://www.scribd.com/doc/16547236/EEM

http://www.scribd.com/doc/16669828/EtikaE

http://ijpam.eu/contents/2008-49-3/5/5.pdf
Click to expand...

Show me one practical or theoretical discovery from your ramblings that serves any purpose whatsoever in either aiding mankind or advancing the theory of mathematics, and i'll bite. Until then, you're just throwing a big dollop of word pasta at the wall and claiming to be the only one who can read the pattern it has made.
 
stokes234 said:
Show me one practical or theoretical discovery from your ramblings that serves any purpose whatsoever in either aiding mankind or advancing the theory of mathematics, and i'll bite. Until then, you're just throwing a big dollop of word pasta at the wall and claiming to be the only one who can read the pattern it has made.
Click to expand...

Here it is:

In my opinion an anthropologist researches a given subject from within (by being involved with the researched subject) and from an external point of view (by not being involved with the researched subject), in order to get valuable and useful results.

I also think that we have to be aware of our verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial brain's skills if we wish to understand a given subject.

For example, by "Traditional" Mathematics (which is mostly expressed by verbal_symbolic skills) 0.111...2 = 0.999...10 = 1 where 1 is the considered mathematical object (the number itself) and 0.111...2 or 0.999...10 are some numerals (out of many representations) that represent number 1.

By using verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills as follows:

[qimg]http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6142/5962015728_d2fe37cc5f_z.jpg[/qimg]

one may understand that no branch of that tree actually reaches any other branch of that tree "downward" , no matter how many levels that tree has (in other words, there is no homeomorphism between 0 dimensional space (notated by "0";"1" symbols) and 1 dimensional space (notated by "_____" spatial non-composed object)).

According to this framework 0.111...2 is a number of its own < number 1 by 0.000...12 where the "...1" part of that number is the irreducibility of ___ 1 dimensional space into 0 dimensional space (known as a point).

By using verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills one enables to distinguish between non-local numbers like 0.111...2 or 0.000...12, and local numbers like 1 or 0.

Furthermore, no collection of, for example, 0 dimensional spaces or segments on 1 dimensional space has the power of the continuum of 1 dimensional space.

By understanding the power of the continuum in terms of spatial skills, one may understand that no collection of sub-objects of a given space (mathematical or physical) has the power of the continuum of that space, or in other words, any given collection of "hosted" sub-objects is incomplete with respect to the "host" space.

The terms "host"\"hosted" are used here in order to clarify that the the "host" and the "hosted" are defined but not made of each other.

The non-locality of 0.111...2 or 0.000...12 is "naturally vague" in terms of location, and one actually discovers/invents that the Real-line has a non-empty collection of non-local numbers between 0 dimensional space and 1 dimensional space.

By generalization, given a "host" space, no collection of "hosted" spaces has the power of the "host" space.

Let us do a further step and look at the Mathematical Science by using the "host"\"hosted" view.

From this view, any mathematical theory is (hopefully) a consistent framework of unproved collection of decelerations.

Also form this view, the mathematical science is generally a collection of isolated (context-dependent) frameworks, where each framework has its own consistency.

From time to time it is discovered\invented that there are deeper connections between some context-dependent frameworks, but these discovered\invented connections are based on sporadic\random approach of these cross-contexts linkages.

It has to be stressed that the use of the word "branches" for these context-dependent frameworks is misleading, if there is no comprehensive framework of these context-dependent frameworks, which rigorously demonstrates the linkage between them, such that they can be considered as "branches of a one tree" or as "organs of a one organism".

By the current paradigm, which is generally based on isolated and context-dependent frameworks, any given professional mathematician (or group of professional mathematicians) is asked to invent\discover his\their context-dependent framework by avoiding any changes of already agreed context-dependent frameworks.

This current paradigm of the Mathematical science of isolated and context-dependent developments, can't agree with a paradigm of cross-contexts framework of this science.

In my opinion, the notion of Non-locality (the "host" aspect of "host"\"hosted" framework) is essential to cross-contexts approach and essentially forbidden by the paradigm of context-dependent approach.

The current community of mathematicians is mostly based on the paradigm of the context-dependent frameworks, and according to this paradigm any paradigm of cross-contexts framework, is automatically considered as non-mathematical.

The evolutionary approach of the mathematical science (which is cross-contexts AND context-dependent framework) changes this paradigm ( for more details, please look at http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7667692&postcount=16571 ).

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

By using Non-local AND Local points of view ("host"\"hosted" framework) we get a "naturally open" framework that may help us to understand Entropy in a new light.

For example:

Today we know that there were tiny irregularities in the Big-Bang’s space/time fabric, where these irregularities are maybe the fundamental conditions which allowed the existence of galaxies and clusters of galaxies, which has a foam-like shape when observed from a great distance. This foam-like shape is the result of opposite tendencies of Energy/Matter integration/differentiation fluctuations. These fluctuations and their results can be found in any observed scale of our universe.

From the second law of Thermodynamics we know that there is a global tendency in the observed universe, which actually eliminates the difference between integration and differentiation at the macro level, until these fluctuations do not express clear and ordered Energy/Matter phenomena.

We can ask: "How did the original fluctuation, which its thermodynamics "death" we observe, came into existence?" Another question is: "Do we interpret correctly the Energy/Matter integration/differentiation fluctuations in the observed universe?" Let us examine a different model of these observed fluctuations.

By using the Inflationary theory (as suggested by Alan Guth) of the Big-Bang, we may say that the first fluctuation had a strong correlation, which allowed the very early universe to “speak” in the same fundamental “language” called by us "the laws of nature".

Let us examine this correlation.

1) It stands at the basis of the observed tendency to eliminate the difference between integration and differentiation at the macro level.

2) It holds an elastic-like "memory" of several and different degrees of space/time curvatures which approach to the singular state (before the inflation) from different "points of view". These different "points of view" of different degrees of space/time curvatures, actually prevent a smooth return (in terms of Gravity) to the singular state. Maybe the result of this non-smooth return is the diversity of different degrees of complexity that exist in the observed universe.

By this model there is a direct proportion between the smoothness of a given return, and the complexity of the information structure that is based on this return. Also there is a direct proportion between a given return and self-aware states that can be found in non-trivial complex systems like living creatures. At this stage most of the observed universe has the tendency to become "flat" at the macro level (which is recognized as increased entropy) but by this model there is the possibility that in the very long term, there will be more structures that are based on "smooth" return, and life phenomena, which we are a part of, will be the main principle that shapes the observed universe.

Please be aware that this model does not avoid The Copernican Principle because it gets Life phenomena in terms of cosmological
evolutionary scale (which is not focused only on life phenomena as exist on planet Earth).

More about this subject in terms of cosmological evolutionary scale, can be found in http://www.scribd.com/doc/16547236/EEM and http://www.scribd.com/doc/16669828/EtikaE.

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

Unity awareness

Awareness' development is first of all self awareness of finer levels of one's thinking process (no matter what meaning is given to thoughts) until one is aware of the finest state of awareness, which is naturally free of any thinking process (it is not a thought or collection of thoughts).

The development of one's awareness is the self ability to be aware of the finest level without losing it during the thinking process, such that both calmness and activity are present in one's mind without prevent each other.

By developing such state of mind, one is at the optimal expressions' abilities , which is naturally free of contradiction w.r.t other expressions, exactly because one's mind expresses itself right from the source of all possible expressions.

Organic Mathematics is first of all a systematic method that uses mathematical insights in order to open one's mind to the Unity of simplicity (calmness) and activity (complex expressions).

Here is some analogy using 1-dimensional space as the Unity of both straight-line (calmness) and curved-lines (complex expressions), as shown by the following diagram:

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

By gently meditate on the following diagram one is opened to the non-subjective level of awareness (illustrated by the straight line), at least at the level of the analogy (which is not the actual non-subjective state of mind).

By this analogy the 1 dimensional space is the Unity of any possible form, such that being straight or not is not known in terms of dichotomy.

Please look also at http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7654162&postcount=16539 which is ended by this line:

doronshadmi said:
Unity is the symmetry that prevents the distinction between Emptiness, Fullness, and everything between them.
Click to expand...

This symmetry actually prevents the distinction (in terms of clear cut separation) between Emptiness, Fullness, and everything between them, such that they are directly known as "organs of a one realm".

Persons that are not able to be aware of their non-subjective level, can't get the awareness of Unity, which is not a thought about Unity (or, by analogy, the name of a given concept is not the concept itself, for example: talking about silence is not silence itself).
 
Last edited:
I waded through that, and I didn't see any references to any useful discoveries you had made, only a vague claim that your previous posts "could help us better understand entropy".

In 20 words or less, what useful application does any of this have? If you are showing that you have made a contribution to the real world, all you have to do is show a picture of what it is, but if you're going to claim to have made an advance in theoretical mathematics, you'll have to cite some academia that references or at least acknowledges you or uses your work in some way, as i'm sure you can understand that anyone could string a bunch of words, numbers, pictures and equations together and claim that they had made some kind of useful discovery.
 
stokes234 said:
I waded through that, and I didn't see any references to any useful discoveries you had made
Click to expand...
So go through that again and ask detailed questions, if your really wish to get some answers.

For one thing I am sure. You did not get (yet) that my work is a paradigm-shift of the mathematical science, so no academia references can be found about it.

This time really read at least http://ijpam.eu/contents/2008-49-3/5/5.pdf instead of wading through it and ask your detailed questions.

I have no time for lazy readers.

stokes234 said:
In 20 words or less, what useful application does any of this have?
Click to expand...
The development of the technology of the consciousness.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
The development of the technology of the consciousness.
Click to expand...

Like brain machine thingies? The power to levitate? Or the power to create stuff out of thin air? Kiddie questions aside, I'm guessing this is why you have this post in the religious section?

doronshadmi said:
How can you see in the darkness?
Click to expand...

Can't, can only feel it, which is what I originally said, "I feel the darkness within. “
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Start by avoiding self destruction by the current technology.

More about this subject in terms of cosmological evolutionary scale, can be found in http://www.scribd.com/doc/16547236/EEM and http://www.scribd.com/doc/16669828/EtikaE.
Click to expand...

Well I certainly won't knock your creativity; if this is your outlet have fun. I was just curious as to why this thread was so long. Looks like you have a lot to discuss here. I am not the mathematic type as you can see from my quote. Have fun now :).
 
L.Y.S. said:
Well I certainly won't knock your creativity; if this is your outlet have fun. I was just curious as to why this thread was so long. Looks like you have a lot to discuss here. I am not the mathematic type as you can see from my quote. Have fun now :).
Click to expand...


It's ok. Doron is not the mathematical type, either. Proven time and again.
 
L.Y.S. said:
I am not the mathematic type
Click to expand...
In that case you are in a better state of mind (w.r.t most of the professional mathematicians) to get my non-standard approach of the mathematical science, where according to it there is no dichotomy between Ethics (in terms of evolutionary scale) and formal Logic.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
The development of the technology of the consciousness.
Click to expand...

No, you need to be specific. For example, if I wrote 30 pages of a completely random combination of numbers and letters, and someone asked me to demonstrate the value of it, I couldn't answer "making stuff happen better in science", I would have to answer something like "Here is a picture of a battery that can store 10% more electricity based on technology that follows from my work in mathematics, as referenced here: x", or perhaps "here is a link to an academic paper that uses my equations to solve x problem in quantum mechanics, which potentially has applications in computing", etc etc.

If you can't show something tangible as I describe, then there is no real way to distinguish your posts from a very large number of monkeys let loose on a similarly large collection of typewriters.
 
stokes234 said:
So, to cut a long story short, you have literally no way of showing that your work has any merit. Righty-o, i'm out.
Click to expand...
You never was in because you can't ask detailed questions.

Wading through X and let others to feed your mind is not enough.

Actually this is a practical example of the development of the technology of the consciousness, which is something that persons who let others to feed their mind, have to learn.
 
Last edited:
I'm sorry, but I absolutely have to comment at this point.

(Been following this thread for months).

Saying "you can't get XYZ" or "learn it yourself, I can't be bothered to explain it to you" (aka I can't explain it to you), combined with the inability to show a concrete real-world example of the benefits of a theory, means that the theory is absolutely worthless. Worse than worthless, actually. Even worthless theories are sometimes studied in order to see where previous researchers have gone wrong, to learn something about the way things have been (unsuccessfully) attempted in the past.

This theory is worse than that, because not only have people's requests for concrete, real-world benefits been denied, the theory isn't explained in sufficient clarity for people to be able to learn a lesson from it.

It just fails in every measure.

But, no doubt, this is because I don't "get" it. Since when was it always the audiences fault if they don't "get" the lecture? When does the teacher have to take some of the responsibility? I know that when I teach (chemistry), I take an awful lot of responsibility for my students understanding. How easy it would be to simply say my students don't "get" it!
 
Last edited:
PiedPiper said:
I know that when I teach (chemistry), I take an awful lot of responsibility for my students understanding. How easy it would be to simply say my students don't "get" it!
Click to expand...
Then take some responsibility and ask some question about http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7672352&postcount=16583 or http://ijpam.eu/contents/2008-49-3/5/5.pdf, there have to be at least two for tango , and without questions and answers that are related to the dance there is no dance and no real understanding of the dance for both the teacher and the student.

PiedPiper said:
This theory is worse than that, because not only have people's requests for concrete, real-world benefits been denied, the theory isn't explained in sufficient clarity for people to be able to learn a lesson from it.
Click to expand...

You can start with http://www.scribd.com/doc/16547236/EEM or http://www.scribd.com/doc/16669828/EtikaE in order to support your claims above.

PiedPiper said:
(Been following this thread for months).
Click to expand...
Why?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom