Deeper than primes - Continuation

Status
Not open for further replies.
doronshadmi said:
Platonic existence, as I define it, is....
Click to expand...

Yes. As you define it.... Others are interested in your definition, so I'll let them continue with this thought.

...
Traditional Mathematics does not deal with tautological existence, and as a result ∃x (where in the case of ZFC, x is the notion of set) is not a valid expression of its domain of discourse.
Click to expand...

I'm almost speechless. I think we have a break-through here.
 
doronshadmi said:
So by this finer resolution about existence, set x tautological existence (notated by the outer "{" and "}") is inaccessible to any form of existence that is not tautological existence (where this form of existence, that is also defined as no existence at all) is between the outer "{" and "}".
Click to expand...

Ok. Cool. Groovy. Now what?

EDIT: Are we on track with the direct perception again? Because honestly, I could not give a hootenanny about what you call it, I am, after more than 7 years, still waiting for the inkling of the beginning of the start of a result.
 
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
Yes. As you define it....
Click to expand...
The basic notion about tautological existence is its independence of any domain of discourse (it is logically unconditional existence, whether it is discovered or not, or whether it is addressed according to the invented rules of a given domain of discourse, or not).

Yet this discovered tautological existence is the basis of the invented rules of any domain of discourse that are used to define identities, properties, relations etc., which can't deduced without the independent platonic existence (which is independent of the moment of discovery, unlike the existence of the invented rules of a given domain of discourse, which depends on the moment of invention).

Two examples of such domains of discourse, are the rules of ZFC or the rules of WFF, where in both cases the invention of these rules are deduced from the discovered tautological existence, but not vice versa.

In case of ZFC, the signature of the discovered tautological existence is called set.

In case of WFF, the signature of the discovered tautological existence is called term.

It has to be stressed that that if invented rules of any given domain of discourse are related to the discovered tautological existence, the result is always invented things that do not have tautological existence.

Some example:

The square root of 9 is an invented thing that does not have tautological existence, yet it is based on the discovered tautological existence called number.

Generally, by using an extended notion of Reflection principle ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_Infinite ), concepts like, set, term, number etc. are some signatures of the discovered tautological existence within given domains of discourse, which is not limited by any domain of discourse.
 
Last edited:
So logically, Existence is total existence (tautological existence, which is not limited by any domain of discourse) total non-existence (contradictory existence, which is limited by any domain of discourse in order to save its consistency) and any existence that is not total existence AND not total non-existence.

Traditional Mathematics excludes total existence (tautological existence, which is not limited by any domain of discourse) and as a result we get context-dependent-only domains of discourse, where only invented existence or total non-existence are openly used, and total existence's signature (for example: set within ZFC domain of discourse, term within WFF domain of discourse, etc.) is used as hidden assumption within each domain of discourse, which is no more than context-dependent framework.

My suggested mathematical framework does not exclude total existence (tautological existence, which is not limited by any domain of discourse) and as a result we get cross-contexts framework, where context-dependent frameworks are its organs that are related to it by openly use total existence's signatures (like set, term, number etc.) within each domain of discourse.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
So logically, Existence is total existence (tautological existence, which is not limited by any domain of discourse) total non-existence (contradictory existence, which is limited by any domain of discourse in order to save its consistency) and any existence that is not total existence AND not total non-existence.

Traditional Mathematics excludes total existence (tautological existence, which is not limited by any domain of discourse) and as a result we get context-dependent-only domains of discourse, where only invented existence or total non-existence are openly used, and total existence's signature (for example: set within ZFC domain of discourse, term within WFF domain of discourse, etc.) is used as hidden assumption within each domain of discourse, which is no more than context-dependent framework.

My suggested mathematical framework does not exclude total existence (tautological existence, which is not limited by any domain of discourse) and as a result we get cross-contexts framework, where context-dependent frameworks are its organs that are related to it by openly use total existence's signatures (like set, term, number etc.) within each domain of discourse.
Click to expand...

Ok. Excellent. How to proceed?
 
We simply have to ask what happens to Mathematics if total existence (tautological existence, which is not limited by any domain of discourse) is its essential foundation.

One of the given answers is that no collection is tautological existence.
 
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
Yes. As you define it.... Others are interested in your definition, so I'll let them continue with this thought.
Click to expand...

I tried, but I can't make any sense of his definitions (perhaps there is a language barrier). Is "platonic existence" just something he made up, or does it really mean something in the field of logic or philosophy?
 
doronshadmi said:
We simply have to ask what happens to Mathematics if total existence (tautological existence, which is not limited by any domain of discourse) is its essential foundation.

One of the given answers is that no collection is tautological existence.
Click to expand...

So, I will ask.

- What happens to mathematics if total existence is it's essential foundation?

- What is the significance of 'no collection is tautological existence'?
 
Innocuous said:
I tried, but I can't make any sense of his definitions (perhaps there is a language barrier). Is "platonic existence" just something he made up, or does it really mean something in the field of logic or philosophy?
Click to expand...

There is, it seems, a barrier of perception; either you get it, or you don't.

That is why I am asking questions that Doron, and apparently only Doron, using his invention, can solve.

If it is not possible for me to understand, then I want to see it at work.

He should tread carefully though, if he digresses again so as to halt progress to this thread (which he succesfully has done for over 7 years) I will move to ask this thread be moved into Abandon All Hope.
 
Innocuous said:
I tried, but I can't make any sense of his definitions (perhaps there is a language barrier). Is "platonic existence" just something he made up, or does it really mean something in the field of logic or philosophy?
Click to expand...

A language barrier problem doesn't adequately explain things. There seems to be some problem with multi-step reasoning. As for "platonic existence", that is something he made up, probably by splicing two discordant concepts.
 
Innocuous said:
Is "platonic existence" just something he made up, or does it really mean something in the field of logic or philosophy?
Click to expand...
Philosophically one can't make up (where make up means invent) platonic existence, exactly because platonic existence is essentially independent of any inventor, the moment of invention or any particular domain of discourse.

Moreover, platonic existence is discovered, where discovery means that a given existence is logically a tautology (its existence is always true, independently of any discoverer, the moment of discovery or any particular domain of discourse).

So, also logically one can't make up (where make up means invent) platonic existence.

Any attempt to define properties, identities, relations etc. for platonic existence, are done by inventions (by making up things, which are philosophically and/or logically not platonic existence (not tautological existence)).

But given domains of discourse like ZFC or WFF, set is the signature of platonic existence within ZFC (set always exists within ZFC), exactly as term is the signature of platonic existence within WFF (term always exists within WFF).

I use ∃x ("There exists" x, where x is the platonic reality, and at this first stage (notated by ∃x) all is known is that it exists).
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Philosophically one can't make up (where make up means invent) platonic existence, exactly because platonic existence is essentially independent of any inventor, the moment of invention or any particular domain of discourse.

Moreover, platonic existence is discovered, where discovery means that a given existence is logically a tautology (its existence is always true, independently of any discoverer, the moment of discovery or any particular domain of discourse).

So, also logically one can't make up (where make up means invent) platonic existence.

Any attempt to define properties, identities, relations etc. for platonic existence, are done by inventions (by making up things, which are philosophically and/or logically not platonic existence (not tautological existence)).

But given domains of discourse like ZFC or WFF, set is the signature of platonic existence within ZFC (set always exists within ZFC), exactly as term is the signature of platonic existence within WFF (term always exists within WFF).

I use ∃x ("There exists" x, where x is the platonic reality, and at this first stage (notated by ∃x) all is known is that it exists).
Click to expand...

Don't dwell on this too long Doron, provide a link as you normally do.

You have now stated what you use. Now use it.
 
By following the notion that no collection is tautological existence, one easily deduces that no relative measure within ZFC is accessible to set existence (which is the signature of tautological existence within ZFC) and as a result only set is actual infinity within ZFC.

This simple notion is notated by the outer "{" and "}", which is logically inaccessible to anything between them, simply because all of what is between "{" and "}" (which is always some form of collection (or its absence)) does not have tautological existence.

So, the notion is also intuitively well addressed by the used notation, which helps to understand the notion of tautological existence within ZFC.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
By following the notion that no collection is tautological existence, one easily deduces that no relative measure within ZFC is accessible to set existence (which is the signature of tautological existence within ZFC) and as a result only set is actual infinity within ZFC.
Click to expand...

"Accessible to set" is gibberish. And since you seem to have borrowed the word, signature, from first order logic, your usage of it is gibberish as well.

This simple notion is notated by the outer "{" and "}", which is logically inaccessible to anything between them, simply because all of what is between "{" and "}" (which is always some form of collection (or its absence)) does not have tautological existence.
Click to expand...

There is no such notion within ZFC.

So, the notion is also intuitively well addressed by the used notion, which helps to understand the notion of tautological existence within ZFC.
Click to expand...

I see you have abandoned all the progress you had made. No, this does not exist within ZFC.
 
jsfisher said:
"Accessible to set" is gibberish.
Click to expand...
Maybe, but not "accessible to set existence", where set is the signature of tautological existence within ZFC (set always exists within ZFC domain of discourse).

jsfisher said:
And since you seem to have borrowed the word, signature, from first order logic, your usage of it is gibberish as well.
Click to expand...
And since you think I have borrowed the word, signature, from first order logic, you think that my usage of it is gibberish.

Signature, as I use it, is an extension of the Reflection principle which says that tautological existence is also held within given domains of discourse like ZFC (set always exists within ZFC domain of discourse).


jsfisher said:
There is no such notion within ZFC.
Click to expand...
There is no such notion within ZFC according to the agreed reasoning.

Since this is philosophical forum, I do not have to follow after the agreed reasoning, which excludes platonic existence from ZFC domain of discourse.

Since I include the signature of platonic existence within ZFC domain of discourse, I use it as follows:

doronshadmi said:
If the domain of discourse is ZFC, then set is the platonic existence of ZFC that does not need any identity or relation in order to exist.

By following the notion of set's tautological existence, ∃x is the expression of it, and it can be found, for example, within ZFC Axiom Of Infinity, as follows:

"There exists a set x (or ∃x)" (this is the platonic existence, that does not need any identity or relation in order to exist (it is a tautological existence)) "such that" (this is the non-platonic existence, that needs identity and/or relation in order to exist (it is not a tautological existence))"the empty set is a member of x and, whenever a set y is a member of x, then S(y) is also a member of x."

So by this finer resolution about existence, set x tautological existence (notated by the outer "{" and "}") is inaccessible to any form of existence that is not tautological existence (where this form of existence, that is also defined as no existence at all) is between the outer "{" and "}".

Traditional Mathematics does not deal with tautological existence, and as a result ∃x (where in the case of ZFC, x is the notion of set) is not a valid expression of its domain of discourse.
Click to expand...


jsfisher said:
I see you have abandoned all the progress you had made. No, this does not exist within ZFC.
Click to expand...
I see that you are still stuck at the atomic formula stage.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
There is no such notion within ZFC according to the agreed reasoning.
Click to expand...

There is no such notion within ZFC according to its axiomatic foundation. Philosophic babble has nothing to do with it.

...
I see that you are still stuck at the atomic formula stage.
Click to expand...

No, just the meaning of things. Something you so thoroughly ignore. Your arguments carry as much weight as this:

Sir Gibberish of Speech said:
According to the traditional Websterization, 'chow' can be viewed as referring to food. This traditional view excludes the broader perspective and thereby fails to recognize the equally valid meaning of a breed of dog. Chow therefore means 'dog food'. This meaning is inaccessible under the agreed upon reasoning. Moreover, since 'ciao' in Italian is homophonic to 'chow', under the signature of platonic existence in Italy, chow is a key to our moral survival telling us, as humans, to say good-bye to dog food and eat more nutritious, healthy foods.
Click to expand...
 
jsfisher said:
There is no such notion within ZFC according to its axiomatic foundation.
Click to expand...
There is no such notion within ZFC according to the agreed reasoning of its axiomatic foundation.


jsfisher said:
No, just the meaning of things. Something you so thoroughly ignore.
Click to expand...
No, just the meaning of things according to the agreed reasoning. Something you so thoroughly ignore.


By the agreed reasoning tautological existence's signature is not included in any domain of discourse, and this simple fact can't be covered by any Sir Gibberish of Speech maneuvers (which is no more than some attempt to avoid the simple fact).
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
There is no such notion within ZFC according to the agreed reasoning of its axiomatic foundation.



No, just the meaning of things according to the agreed reasoning. Something you so thoroughly ignore.


By the agreed reasoning tautological existence's signature is not included in any domain of discourse, and this simple fact can't be covered by any Sir Gibberish of Speech maneuvers (which is no more than some attempt to avoid the simple fact).
Click to expand...

:(

It seems Doron graps every straw to kibitz so as to avoid making progress...

I can say this thread now officially has deteriorated to junk status.
 
Unity reasoning penetrates polychotomous reasoning as follows:

NOthing is contradiction, total isolation and completely subjective.

SOMEthing is potentially isolated and subjective.

EVERYthing is potentially connected and subjective.

YESthing is tautology, total connectivity and completely objective.

thing is Unity reasoning that penetrates polychotomous NO,SOME,EVERY,YES reasoning.
 
Good, but when can you show us ANYthing that can be done with your style of philosophical reasoning that can not be done otherwise?
 
Last edited:
I came to this thread a long, long time ago and saw that Doron was claiming that his set of thinking / philosophy / whatever you want to call it, was one way for humankind to avert disaster.

That got my attention. I hate disasters. So I asked for him to demonstrate to me how (as a complete layman to mathematics / set theory + logic), I could implement his system and avert disasters.

Simple language, Doron. No set this, set that, thing this, thing that. If mankind is going to use your system to avert disaster(s), it has to be accessible to someone like me - college (Ph.D., even) educated, reasonably smart, with an open mind.

Tell me, step by step, how I use your system to avert disaster(s).

Either that, or please stop clogging up the feed with this. You've had 10,000+ posts to get warmed up. Come on, man. There are other topics I might be interested in that lie buried in sub-forums.
 
Last edited:
Instead of telling you what is my suggested way to reduce the chance of self destruction, I will start our dialog by asking you what is your point of view of mankind's current and near future needed actions in order to increase its chances to survive further Nature's forces manipulations?
 
doronshadmi said:
Instead of telling you what is my suggested way to reduce the chance of self destruction, I will start our dialog by asking you what is your point of view of mankind's current and near future needed actions in order to increase its chances to survive further Nature's forces manipulations?
Click to expand...


Please define, "Nature's forces manipulations".
 
Little 10 Toes said:
Please define, "Nature's forces manipulations".
Click to expand...
Take, for example, the energy that is released through chain reaction or hydrogen fusion (and in the near future, the energy that is released through matter\anti-matter reaction, where 100% of the involved matter\anti-matter is turned into energy).

What (according your view) we have to do in order to avoid self-made destruction by these available (or nearly available) Nature's forces?
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Take, for example, the energy that is released through chain reaction or hydrogen fusion (and in the near future, the energy that is released through matter\anti-matter reaction, where 100% of the involved matter\anti-matter is turned into energy).

What (according your view) we have to do in order to avoid self-made destruction by these available (or nearly available) Nature's forces?
Click to expand...


Thank you for the example. You have not defined "Nature's forces manipulations".

If I had asked for a definition of a car, you would have answered, "Volkswagen".

Please define "Nature's forces manipulations".
 
Little 10 Toes said:
Thank you for the example. You have not defined "Nature's forces manipulations".

If I had asked for a definition of a car, you would have answered, "Volkswagen".

Please define "Nature's forces manipulations".
Click to expand...
The examples in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10092175&postcount=4108 have to be taken without loss of generality, and in this case the danger is clear and immediate, whether you linguistically define it, or not.

So once again, what (according your view) do we have TO DO in order to avoid self-made destruction by these available (or nearly available) Nature's forces?
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Instead of telling you what is my suggested way to reduce the chance of self destruction, I will start our dialog by asking you what is your point of view of mankind's current and near future needed actions in order to increase its chances to survive further Nature's forces manipulations?
Click to expand...

Oh Doron, Doron, Doron...it's *your* time to answer.

1. You started the thread, and made a statement
2. That statement peaked my interest, and I questioned you about it
3. You didn't give me a straight-forward answer
4. Time passed...
5. I came back to see if you were ready to give me a straight-forward answer
6. You reply with "instead of telling you *my* suggestions, I will *start* our dialog with..."

The dialog is ongoing, my man! I've been waiting patiently for your reply to my original question, and now you want me to answer a question?

I hate to say it, but this isn't very good debating style. It's classic misdirection. I ask you a question, and you ignore that question, and follow up with a question of your own.

I'm 99% I'm being punked at this point, but in the 1% chance that I'm not, I'll answer your question. You mentioned nuclear fission and fusion as good examples of what we need to try to avoid. I don't see what your "theory" has to do with nuclear fission or fusion, but whatever. I'm not a math guy. (I do know the basics of fission / fusion processes, etc). So I'll bite.

We need to turn to our scientists, dramatically increasing funding in nuclear energy as well as interest in nuclear safeguards. We need to turn to breeder reactor technology more frequently and we need to move aggressively on a permanent storage solution for nuclear waste (none of this "not in my backyard" politicking).

We need to give our military what it needs to ensure that adequate safeguards are in place to control the possible release of nuclear weapons on US soil. We need to work aggressively through the State department using any means at our disposal - up to, but not including, military warfare - to control the spread of nuclear technology to countries that do not yet possess it.

We need to make sure that we have solid policies in place for when accidental release of nuclear material does happen, unlike the shameful incident recently in Japan where our Navy was likely exposed to harmful radiation while trying to assist the situation.

We need, eventually, to move completely off of nuclear power. Germany is doing it, at least, they're on a very promising track. Yes, it may mean a change to our way of life. But it needs to be done.

There, I'm done for now, Doron. *Now* would you like to explain how your theory can be explained and put into use by a layman to avoid natural disasters, as you promised way back when?

I await your response.
 
doronshadmi said:
Have you heard of WWII?
Click to expand...

I think that's rather the whole point, Doron. The ability to release fission energy in a controlled fashion was developed as a result of the war (fusion a few years later). Since the two WWII bombs, how many nuclear attacks have resulted, where one party has attacked another party using fission or fusion? This, despite various hated enemies both possessing nuclear weapons?

The answer is: zero.

Can we do better, and protect ourselves further by following some of the suggestions I posted above? I believe so. But I've got a little bit of a surprise for you:

The notion that fission energy was possible, at least in theory, was known before the war. It's not like the war started and then all of a sudden, we stumbled across this magical new way of blowing things up. There had been a number of publications discussing the nature of nuclear energy. It's just that the way of realizing this theoretical weapon was only put into action due to the war, due in part to the huge amount of resources it required which would never have been authorized in peacetime. In fact, it was the Top Secret clamp put down over nuclear fission research that alerted many of the Axis powers that the research was being done - a lot of "top names" in the area mysteriously stopped publishing any of their work.

Even without the war, the idea that fission energy was possible would have been further refined and developed. It may not have been realized until much later, due to the prohibitive cost, but new technology would eventually reduce the cost of (for example) uranium enrichment and it might have come 3-4 decades later, but nuclear power was on the way.

Science marches forward. Gunpowder. Biological weapons. Chemical weapons. Nuclear power. We've found ways to survive all of these, all without the help of Doronetics.

So once again I ask, what about your theory can I (as a layman, unskilled in math or set theory) put into practice that will further enable me to avoid "disasters" or "forces of Nature?"
 
PiedPiper said:
1. You started the thread, and made a statement
2. That statement peaked my interest, and I questioned you about it
3. You didn't give me a straight-forward answer
4. Time passed...
5. I came back to see if you were ready to give me a straight-forward answer
6. You reply with "instead of telling you *my* suggestions, I will *start* our dialog with..."
Click to expand...

Yes, the song "There's a hole in my bucket, dear Lisa, dear Lisa" seems to share a tenet with Doron's MO in replying...
 
doronshadmi said:
So once again, what (according your view) do we have TO DO in order to avoid self-made destruction by these available (or nearly available) Nature's forces?
Click to expand...

You asked the question, so don't cry over the answer:

What we have to do is remove people with confused theories like Doron Shadmi's from public discussions.

That, according to my view, is what we have to do.

Because then the people with scientific insight can focus on their job and will make less mistakes.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
...and in the near future, the energy that is released through matter\anti-matter reaction, where 100% of the involved matter\anti-matter is turned into energy.
Click to expand...

Did I miss a press release? A disastrous reaction of matter / anti-matter is "in the near future"?

What time scale are you using, precisely? Are you aware of the difficulties in producing large amounts of antimatter?

Anyways, the same safeguards would apply as to nuclear material, just in a more stringent fashion. Given that 1 kg of antimatter would roughly equal the Tsar Bomba, we'd obviously have to keep very tight controls on such things. We haven't had an accidental Tsar Bomba go off or be used in warfare, and in any case, do you have any conceivable idea of how difficult it would be to accumulate 1 kg of antimatter in a government lab here on Earth?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom