Belz...
Fiend God
Things can only be shown to be true by certain methods anyway, so it's not worth adding that bit.
I challenge you: your best alternate to materialism
- Thread starter Darat
- Start date
Things can only be shown to be true by certain methods anyway, so it's not worth adding that bit.
Belz...
Fiend God
Easy: if minds are not material, they cannot interact with the material world. If they DO interact, they are either material, or logic is wrong.
Belz...
Fiend God
Ok. You describe something non-material i.e. that cannot by definition interact with the material world. Therefore you are describing magic.
Nonpareil
The Terrible Trivium
Except that it's word salad.
Which was my point.
I never said it did. I said you did. In fact, you do; you continually make this error, among other, equally basic ones in the "Deeper Than Primes" thread.
My point was not that you were committing that specific error, but rather that you are known to repeatedly, continuously and inarguably fail to grasp the concepts of mathematics that you claim support your arguments. You also mix those concrete errors with a general failure to actually express any sort of coherent idea; see Dessi's posts regarding "surveying the real line from the perspective of |R|", or whatever it was. You repeatedly venture beyond the event horizon of the formless and try to mix it with math.
The end result is, as I have said, word salad. But it doesn't matter anyway, since the pseudomath in your alternative is only relevant once some evidence has been supplied to support your premises.
And it hasn't.
I think I'm clear on what it is you intend.
Organic Mathematics is supposed to be a language of science that doesn't exclude the personal element. The traditional Scientific Method entails an objectivity that excludes individual, subjective, anecdotal experience. Often this is said to exclude humanity as a factor in science.
So your aim, as you have stated many times is to use your Organic Mathematics as a means to show mathematical results are dependent upon the person doing the mathematics.
Your prime examples of this always amount to using Organic Mathematics one comes to different results when using infinities. For example, Organic mathematics allows a different result in regard to .9999999...
It doesn't necessarily equal 1, if the mathematician is using Organic Mathematics which allows him or her to obtain a different result.
But this only at best illustrates the freedom that already exists in Mathematics to create new systems and logics.
You are far from producing something that entails techniques of actual transformation of behavior and character.
As before, I think you will fall back on the supposed efficacy of Transcendental Meditation. I meditate myself and feel it is helpful for my spiritual development.
However Organic Mathematics does not equal Transcendental Meditation.
I'd wager the the greater majority of people in the trademark TM movement would be unable to see how Organic Mathematics represents Unity Consciousness. In a very general sort of way, they'd relate to unity of opposites, but not in a context of confusing verbiage but simply in Silence.
Your language is an attempt to express your values, but you have yet show how it actually serves them.
Your responses to this "please show us how" line of question have consistently shown that you don't understand the question and the disconnect that leads us to ask it.
It's very much like clinging to a religious belief in spite of its actually utility in life, just because it asserts ones values.
But we must ask does it work. Does it deliver? Does it correspond to the way things are?
Does it help you see others in the light of their own being, or does it obscure them in a cloud of vague metaphysics?
Actually I think that when comes to family and the ones you love, and even some you don't, you operate the same human way we all do, just as decent people do in spite of Materialism, Idealism, Neutral Monism, or whatever.
There's something in you that transcends Organic Mathematics and can't be captured within it.
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
Wrong, I describe multiplicity an expression of Unity but not vise versa.
No magic is involved here.
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
Word salad can't by used, by definition, to conclude anything, so you have no point what so ever.
Wrong, this is exactly the nonsense that you said about my theorem:
And once again, it is a concrete example of the "value" of your conclusions about my theorem.
In other words, you have no clue what my theorem is.
Unity as the foundation of multiplicity is used by modern science.
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
Organic Mathematics is supposed to be a framework of science that doesn't exclude the personal and the non-personal aspects of consciousness.
It is called Unity consciousness among the persona\non-personal (which are aspects of multiplicity).
Last edited:
Belz...
Fiend God
I have already explained to you why it's magic. Read carefully:
If something interacts with the material, it IS material. If something is not material, it CANNOT interact with the material. The only way to get through this is to do something entirely illogical i.e. magic.
That you do not accept this logical fact is not my problem.
Of course it can. Watch: The formless spirits of the beyond watch over us and decide based on our celestial merits what events will occus in our next lives. Therefore we should be good people.
That the first sentence is word salad doesn't prevent me from concluding stuff from it.
Last edited:
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
Multiplicity is an expression of Unity, where one of the aspects of multiplicity is known as material, which is naturally derived from Unity, exactly as the mantel aspect of multiplicity is naturally derived from Unity.
As long as you get reality only in terms of some multiplicity aspect (the material aspect, in your case), there is no wonder that your reasoning (which is only at the level of multiplicity) gets Unity as magic.
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
This is not a word salad, it is simply a point of view that you don't agree with, that's all.
Here is a concrete example of word salad: The formless frogs of the beyond watch over us and jump based on our celestial merits what mud will occurs in our next flower.
Last edited:
You're right. I should have said, "... a certain specific method." The way I wrote it, it doesn't sound as exclusive as it was meant to.
What is the prohibition of the immaterial interacting with the material world? Is it because we are going to count any instance of interaction as also material?
For example, if everything material were embedded in space, do we have to count space as a material thing because it imposes constraints on the material world? What about time, should that be counted as material as well?
I have been trying to point out how the category "material" expands as we discover new entities.
Last edited:
Nonpareil
The Terrible Trivium
You appear to be making up definitions now. Not that I'm surprised, but it doesn't really make your case look any stronger.
Despite your word games, the point stands. Your post is largely gibberish, and what parts of it border on the lucid have no actual supporting evidence.
So it's still not a good alternative.
Pro tip: never, ever try to tell me what I'm arguing. To do that, you need to have some basic grasp of what's been said, and you - as evidenced by your inability to differentiate between a comment very clearly directed at your practices in general and not this specific instance - don't have that.
What I actually said about your "theorem", if a handful of undefined terms smashed together to form unsupported and contradictory assertions can be called that, is that it doesn't have any evidence to make it at all worth considering. And this:
...is not evidence.
Belz...
Fiend God
It's interesting that the only defense you have against inescapable logic is word salad.
You are wrong by definition.
No, it is word salad: it doesn't mean anything.
Belz...
Fiend God
Exactly. That's the point. Duality is inconsistent with logic.
Does that mean things like Gods and magic come in, since their effects are material effects?
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
You appear to not understand what word salad is, which is simply an aggregation of words that have no meaning what so ever, and therefore one can't conclude anything about them.
On the contrary, if a given information can be accepted, rejected or partially accepted or rejected, it is definitely not in the category of word salad, that by definition has no meaning what so ever.
The problem is that you have no basis to what you say, because, by your own evidence
you have no clue what are you talking about, and your failure to provide some example of my mistakes, clearly shows that you have no clue what my theorem is, generally or particularly.
You actually did not say anything about my theorem, because, by your own evidence, you don't have the needed skills to understand it, and therefore you are using other persons to say something about my theorem, without first clearly show that you actually understand it. Using other persons to support something that you don't understand in the first place, by your own evidence, is no more than a concrete example of how the ignorance of the mob is flourishing.
Yes, I know, anything that does not fit to your material-only theorm, is unconditionally excluded.
Last edited:
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
No, it is some reasoning that is limited only to multiplicity, and by using this limitation as your comprehensive view, you simply can't conclude anything about http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=27823.
Last edited: