Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
doronshadmi said:
For a contradiction we need 100% probability for A AND 100% probability for not-A, where A is Local.

Let us say that A is local (for example: the coin's flip example). Since each flip has 50% probability for A ('heads') AND 50% probability for not-A ('tails') under superposition, we do not have a contradiction under flip's superposition, because:

50% probability for A ('heads') AND 50% probability for not-A ('tails') = flip's superposition

Is NOT

100% probability for A ('heads') AND 100% probability for not-A ('tails') = flip's contradiction.

In other words, thank you The Man for helping to support my argument.

(by the way, 50% probability for A ('heads') AND -50% probability for not-A ('tails')(or vice versa) = no flip is tended to collapse to a 100% actual result of A ('heads') OR not-A ('tails') local result)



No, the intermediate result that is not 100% empty AND not 100% full enables us to research, in the first place. You mix between the ontological foundations of the researchable (which are Emptiness and Fullness) and some existing researchable result, where a researchable result must be more than 100% empty AND less than 100% full, otherwise it is not researchable. The magnitude of existence of Emptiness (value 0) or Fullness (value ∞) can be defined only indirectly, by using, for example an existing tool like set, that its magnitude of existence is more than 100% Emptiness (more than 0) AND less than 100% Fullness (less than ∞).



0 is not Emptiness and ∞ is not Fullness. The intermediate ontological result that is not 100% empty AND not 100% full enables us to indirectly research (by using a set) the magnitude of the existence of Emptiness (value 0) and the magnitude of the existence of Fullness (value ∞). Also ∞ (the magnitude of exitence of Fullness) is not ∞ (the magnitude of existence of a non-finite collection).

In other words The Man, you simply do not understand with what you deal here, and make a word salad out of it.

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

Now, let us check what you have to say about the Line\point example.



Here you trivially and artificially force the local view of Line\point interaction ("A point is either on a line or it is not and the line either includes that point or it does not.") and brutally ignore the non-local view of this interaction, which is (by basically using your example):

"A line is (on the point) AND (not the point) and it does not include the point, because it is an atom, exactly as the point is an atom (the line and the point ar not derived from each other).


In other words The Man, you simply do not understand with what you deal here, and make a word salad out of it.

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


In general, you are a living proof of why standard reasoning is too weak in order to deal with OM's reasoning.
Click to expand...

Well thanks Doron for again confirming that you have absolutely no clue as to what the words you use actually mean or what you are talking about. Oh, and you mention your ‘atoms’ again, which version are you referring to this time your ‘atoms’ that are indivisible and non composite or your ‘atoms’ that are composed as divisions?
 
The Man said:
Well thanks Doron for again confirming that you have absolutely no clue as to what the words you use actually mean or what you are talking about. Oh, and you mention your ‘atoms’ again, which version are you referring to this time your ‘atoms’ that are indivisible and non composite or your ‘atoms’ that are composed as divisions?
Click to expand...

Ya, look who is talking.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Ya, look who is talking.
Click to expand...


Oh? Got any examples where The Man has used terms contrary to their accepted meaning, or invented new terms without providing any meaning for them whatsoever, or made statements that contradicted each other, or...so many other possibilities?
 
jsfisher said:
Oh? Got any examples where The Man has used terms contrary to their accepted meaning, or invented new terms without providing any meaning for them whatsoever, or made statements that contradicted each other, or...so many other possibilities?
Click to expand...



Again you miss the point.

You and The Man do not understand http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4671588&postcount=2666 exactly because you are using the currently agreed Standard Logic.

Because all you can get is the Standard Reasoning, you are unable to distinguish between local and non-local things.

As a result you get everything only in terms of Locality and see contradictions everywhere.

For example: You do not distinguish between the non-local [_]_ and the local [_] , and as a result you get [_]_ in terms of [_].

In [_] AND out [ ]_ is a contradiction, because a local thing cannot be in AND out of a given domain.

In [_]_ AND out [_]_ is not a contradiction, because a non-local thing is exactly in AND out of a given domain.

You and The Man can't get it, because your reasoning is too weak (it is limited to a local-only reasoning) in order to get OM.
 
Last edited:
Without a loss of generality ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Without_loss_of_generality ) we can define Impossibility as follows:

"By using the Standard Reasoning, it is impossible for jsfisher and The Man to get OM."

I wish to thank you from the bottom of my heart to your profound influence on the development of OM. I sincerely mean it without using any cynicism, and especially for you I wish to finish our dialog by: "No more, no less is not the way to get OM".
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Without a loss of generality ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Without_loss_of_generality ) we can define Impossibility as follows:

"By using the Standard Reasoning, it is impossible for jsfisher and The Man to get OM."

I wish to thank you from the bottom of my heart to your profound influence on the development of OM. I sincerely mean it without using any cynicism, and especially for you I wish to finish our dialog by: "No more, no less is not the way to get OM".
Click to expand...

Unfortunately Doron, as sincere as your thanks may be, we simply can not accept responsibility for whatever it is you think we might have done for you. Sorry jsfisher but I do not whish to speak for you, however I am certain that I am not speaking out of turn on this matter. Doron, you have consistently ignored our remarks in preference for your own misinterpretations. When we try to explain the actual meaning and application of the terminology you use you simply regurgitate your own bizarre and misguided application. We have tried to help, but all you seem to read of it is some confirmation of your own personal misinterpretation of what we say. So thank yourself Doron and do not try to pawn off your inability to comprehend what others are telling you as some kind of help on their part. Spare us your thanks and actually make an effort to understand the terms you use, the concepts they infer and thus what you are talking about, that would be thanks enough for us.
 
doronshadmi said:
Again you miss the point.

You and The Man do not understand http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4671588&postcount=2666 exactly because you are using the currently agreed Standard Logic.

Because all you can get is the Standard Reasoning, you are unable to distinguish between local and non-local things.

As a result you get everything only in terms of Locality and see contradictions everywhere.

For example: You do not distinguish between the non-local [_]_ and the local [_] , and as a result you get [_]_ in terms of [_].

In [_] AND out [ ]_ is a contradiction, because a local thing cannot be in AND out of a given domain.

In [_]_ AND out [_]_ is not a contradiction, because a non-local thing is exactly in AND out of a given domain.

You and The Man can't get it, because your reasoning is too weak (it is limited to a local-only reasoning) in order to get OM.
Click to expand...

No Doron, as usual it just comes down to your simple lack of specificity. Fine, you want to make your definitions of “in” and “out” so unspecific in your “non-local” sense that something, specifically your ‘indivisible’ ‘non-local’ ‘atoms’, must be both “in” and “out”. All you have done is to remove any utility of the distinction between “in” and “out” for your “non-local” ‘atomic’ consideration in your notions that you claim have ‘distinction as a first order property’. Without specificity there is no utility and as such the unspecific nature of your notions makes them useless
 
The Man said:
No Doron, as usual it just comes down to your simple lack of specificity. Fine, you want to make your definitions of “in” and “out” so unspecific in your “non-local” sense that something, specifically your ‘indivisible’ ‘non-local’ ‘atoms’, must be both “in” and “out”. All you have done is to remove any utility of the distinction between “in” and “out” for your “non-local” ‘atomic’ consideration in your notions that you claim have ‘distinction as a first order property’. Without specificity there is no utility and as such the unspecific nature of your notions makes them useless
Click to expand...

No The Man.

"in" AND "out" explicitly uses "in" and "out" as essential concepts that are connected by non-locality ( __ is simultaneously "in" AND "out" w.r.t a given domain, and this notion is notated as [_]_).

You can't get it because your reasoning is closed under Locality (you do not distinguish between [_]_ and ([_] or [ ]_) , simply because you are using a reasoning that can get things only in terms of [_] or [ ]_).

It is quite sad to see your impossible struggle to get [_]_ in terms of [_] or [ ]_ , because to claim, for example, that [_]_ AND [_] is the same thing, is indeed a contradiction.

My heart with you, but I can't help you. You and only you can help to yourself to overcome this impossibility.
The Man said:
When we try to explain the actual meaning and application of the terminology you use you simply regurgitate your own bizarre and misguided application.
Click to expand...
It is bizarre as long as [_]_ and [_] is the same thing for you.
The Man said:
We have tried to help,
Click to expand...
The only way to get OM is to help yourself to get it, which is somthing that you did not do all along this thread.

The Man said:
Spare us your thanks and actually make an effort to understand the terms you use,
Click to expand...

If, for a change, you stop your affords to help me to be like you, then maybe there is some chance that you will start to get OM.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
No The Man.

"in" AND "out" explicitly uses "in" and "out" as essential concepts that are connected by non-locality ( __ is simultaneously "in" AND "out" w.r.t a given domain, and this notion is notated as [_]_).

You can't get it because your reasoning is closed under Locality (you do not distinguish between [_]_ and ([_] or [ ]_) , simply because you are using a reasoning that can get things only in terms of [_] or [ ]_).
Click to expand...

Doron, I do not ‘distinguish between’ them because they are simply meaningless representations that you have given some significance in your own mind but can not seem to relate that significance to anyone without contradicting yourself.


doronshadmi said:
It is quite sad to see your impossible struggle to get [_]_ in terms of [_] or [ ]_ , because to claim, for example, that [_]_ AND [_] is the same thing, is indeed a contradiction.
Click to expand...

What struggle are you talking about? They are your claims Doron, the ‘struggle’ to effectively explain and support them is yours and yours alone.


doronshadmi said:
My heart with you, but I can't help you. You and only you can help to yourself to overcome this impossibility.
Click to expand...

Spare me your sympathetic platitudes; you are going to need them for yourself. Particularly if you think it is incumbent on anyone but you to overcome whatever ‘impossibilities’ you perceive in your own notions.

doronshadmi said:
It is bizarre as long as [_]_ and [_] is the same thing for you.
Click to expand...

No Doron it is bizarre as long as you remain unable to understand the meaning and conceptual basis of the words and phrases you use.

doronshadmi said:
The only way to get OM is to help yourself to get it, which is somthing that you did not do all along this thread.
Click to expand...

Ah the mating call of the con artist to the credulous. “I can’t specifically explain it to you, you just have to ‘get it’ for yourself”. You should try looking up cold reading and related techniques, that seems to be what you expect as a result, people to make connections for themselves that your notions do not or can not make explicitly and consistently on their own.


doronshadmi said:
If, for a change, you stop your affords to help me to be like you, then maybe there is some chance that you will start to get OM.
Click to expand...

What in the word makes you think I want anyone including myself to ‘be like me’. For myself at least I have little choice but to be like me and likewise just being able to understand the general meaning of words you use and the concepts they infer is also a requirement if you are expecting communicate effectively. Language is a common ground Doron; with it different people can express their differing perspectives. Without that common ground there is just words meaning one thing for one and something else to another, concepts that when communicated are no longer the same concept, explanations that basically explain nothing and definitions that are indefinite. Have no questions about it Doron the responsibility is yours to understand the concepts and terminology that you use to express you notions. Not just your interpretations of them, but as they are understood and interpreted by the audience you are addressing. There is an old saying and I can’t remember who it is attributed to, but it goes like this..

“The failure of a presenter to get a point across demonstrates a lack of knowledge by that presenter of the subject, the audience or both.”
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
Language is a common ground Doron;
Click to expand...
Language is a developed common ground The Man;

The Man said:
Doron, I do not ‘distinguish between’ them because they are simply meaningless representations that you have given some significance in your own mind but can not seem to relate that significance to anyone without contradicting yourself.
Click to expand...

The one who claims that [_]_ AND ([_] OR [ ]_) is the same thing, gets only contradiction.

There is nothing to add in your case The Man.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Language is a developed common ground The Man;
Click to expand...


Yes developed, past tense. The words, phrases and concepts you are using already have ‘developed’ common meanings, please learn them. Then perhaps you can go from there.



doronshadmi said:
The one who claims that [_]_ AND ([_] OR [ ]_) is the same thing, gets only contradiction.

There is nothing to add in your case The Man.
Click to expand...

Well we have heard that from you many times before.
 
The Man said:
Unfortunately Doron, as sincere as your thanks may be, we simply can not accept responsibility for whatever it is you think we might have done for you. Sorry jsfisher but I do not whish to speak for you, however I am certain that I am not speaking out of turn on this matter. Doron, you have consistently ignored our remarks in preference for your own misinterpretations. When we try to explain the actual meaning and application of the terminology you use you simply regurgitate your own bizarre and misguided application. We have tried to help, but all you seem to read of it is some confirmation of your own personal misinterpretation of what we say. So thank yourself Doron and do not try to pawn off your inability to comprehend what others are telling you as some kind of help on their part. Spare us your thanks and actually make an effort to understand the terms you use, the concepts they infer and thus what you are talking about, that would be thanks enough for us.
Click to expand...

You expressed my sentiments better than I would have.
 
If _ is local then (in [_] AND out [ ]_) is a contradiction.

If ___ is non-local then NOT(in [_]_ AND out [_]_) is a contradiction.

The Man said:
No Doron it is bizarre as long as you remain unable to understand the meaning and conceptual basis of the words and phrases you use.
Click to expand...

No The Man it is bizarre as long as you remain unable to understand the meaning and conceptual basis of the words and phrases you read.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
If _ is local then (in [_] AND out [ ]_) is a contradiction.

If ____ is non-local then NOT(in [_]_ AND out [_]_) is a contradiction.



No The Man it is bizarre as long as you remain unable to understand the meaning and conceptual basis of the words and phrases you read.
Click to expand...

Doron, again the problem is not that others do not understand what you are saying it is that you do not understand what you are saying. ‘In’ and ‘out’ are simply definitions of location and so they are both specifically local. Might one be able to consider something that transverses that boundary between what one would define as ‘in’ and what one would define as ‘out’, well of course. It is quite simple and trivial to define such a thing once you have defined the locations, classifications or identifications considered to be ‘in’ and thus those considered to be out. There is absolutely no contradiction in that it is also quite simple and trivial to define what portion or aspect of that thing meets the criteria you have created for ‘in’ and thus what portion or aspect meets the criteria you have created for ‘out’. In fact it is quite necessary in order to demonstrate that your thing resides at locations or has aspects considered to be ‘in’ as well as those considered to be out. The problems comes Doron, when you set no specific location or identification criteria for ‘in’ and thus no criteria for ‘out’ thereby removing any utility of those distinctions. Furthermore you insist that your thing is an ‘atom’ and is ‘indivisible’ such that no portion or aspect can be ‘in’ while some other portion or aspect is ‘out’. Instead try to assert it as being in a superposition of ‘in’ and ‘out’ ‘states’, without understanding what those words actually mean, how to apply them or even if they can be applied in that consideration. The lack of specificity, the misunderstanding and the contradictions are yours and yours alone Doron. I doubt anyone on this thread would have a problem discussing or making a point understood about something being ‘in’ and ‘out’ because we can be specific, define the applicable locations or aspects, understand the common terminology, not include extraneous and irrelevant terminology to try as explain such simple and trivial issues as well as not directly contradict ourselves with almost every other statement (if not just in the same statement).
 
doronshadmi said:
If _ is local ...
If ___ is non-local ...
Click to expand...

You still cannot explain what you mean by these words I've bolded, can you?

No The Man it is bizarre as long as you remain unable to understand the meaning and conceptual basis of the words and phrases you read.
Click to expand...

And just whose fault is it that you haven't explained the meanings of those words from your secret vocabulary.
 
The Man said:
The problems comes Doron, when you set no specific location or identification criteria for ‘in’ and thus no criteria for ‘out’ thereby removing any utility of those distinctions. Furthermore you insist that your thing is an ‘atom’ and is ‘indivisible’ such that no portion or aspect can be ‘in’ while some other portion or aspect is ‘out’.
Click to expand...

The terms "in" "out" are determined by a domain, for example:

[in]out

A local element can be in one an only one state w.r.t the domain's [in]out determination.

In other words, a local element is in OR out w.r.t the domain's [in]out determination and this is tautology in terms of Locality.

A non-local element must be in both states w.r.t the domain's [in]out determination.

In other words, a non-local element is in AND out w.r.t the domain's [in]out determination and this is tautology in terms of Non-locality.

An element cannot be both local AND non-local w.r.t the domain's [in]out determination.

In order to get it all you have is to understand the difference between [in]out (in AND out) which is naturally non-local,
and [in]out or [in]out (in OR out) which is naturally local.

Any reasoning that tries to force (to use a non-natural reasoning) the non-local in terms of the local, or the non-local in terms of the local, leads to contradiction.

In general The Man and jsfisher, you force the local tautology on the non-local tautology all along this thread, and the result of this forcing is indeed a contradiction.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
The terms "in" "out" are determined by a domain, for example:

[in]out
Click to expand...

Yet again you have made no definitive statements as to the definition of that domain boundary and thus your distinctions of ‘[in]out’ remains without utility.

doronshadmi said:
A local element can be in one an only one state w.r.t the domain's [in]out determination.

In other words, a local element is in OR out w.r.t the domain's [in]out determination and this is tautology in terms of Locality.

A non-local element must be in both states w.r.t the domain's [in]out determination.

In other words, a non-local element is in AND out w.r.t the domain's [in]out determination and this is tautology in terms of Non-locality.

An element cannot be both local AND non-local w.r.t the domain's [in]out determination.
Click to expand...

Well seeing as you have not defined the attributes or aspects of your ‘element’ or your ‘domain’ boundary you can not make any definitive statements about the relation of that element to that boundary. All you are doing is making baseless assertions about relationships of ‘domains’ and ‘elements’ you have not and perhaps can not specifically and consistently define.

doronshadmi said:
In order to get it all you have is to understand the difference between [in]out (in AND out) which is naturally non-local,
and [in]out or [in]out (in OR out) which is naturally local.
Click to expand...


No Doron in order to ‘get it’ all we have to do is understand that it is simple and trivial to define a ‘domain’ boundary then define something that traverses that boundary. This is again your tendency to make a mountain out of a molehill in ascribing some universal significance to what is so easily definable, while you actually do not define either your boundary conditions or your traversing element.

doronshadmi said:
Any reasoning that tries to force (to use a non-natural reasoning) the non-local in terms of the local, or the non-local in terms of the local, leads to contradiction.
Click to expand...

Oh hold the presses a new Doronophrase ‘non-natural reasoning’. Crap is natural Doron and it certainly describes your ‘reasoning’.

doronshadmi said:
In general The Man and jsfisher, you force the local tautology on the non-local tautology all along this thread, and the result of this forcing is indeed a contradiction.
Click to expand...

So now you want to add ‘tautology’ to the words you do not understand and misuse, now asserting the result of a tautology (the negation of a contradiction) “is indeed a contradiction”. You even contradict yourself when you speak of contradiction.


Let’s apply some of Doron’s assertions, something he never seems to do effectivly.

Along the real number line we can define our ‘in’ domain as the interval (-5,5) anything else is considered ‘out’.

With three lines each five units in length that can also be represented as intervals as follows Line ‘A’ [-3,2], Line ‘B’ [-10, -5] and Line ‘C’ [2,7]. Lines ‘A’ and ‘B’ are local by Doron’s assertions, line ‘A’ being only ‘in’ the defined ‘domain’ and line ‘B’ being only ‘out’ of the defined ‘domain’ line ‘C’ would be ‘non-local’ by Dorons assertions as it is partially ‘in’ and partially ‘out’ of the defined ‘domain’. All the lines are essentially the same (5 units in length) the only difference between them is their locations along the real number line. As such it is simple and trivial to see that ‘local’ and ‘non-local’ are just results of some defined location regardless of what you choose to call that location or those locations, the defined ‘domain’ and the defined ‘lines’ in this case.
 
The Man said:
Yet again you have made no definitive statements as to the definition of that domain boundary and thus your distinctions of ‘[in]out’ remains without utility.
Click to expand...
Wrong.

Given any domain, it is at least defined as [in]out

The Man said:
With three lines each five units in length that can also be represented as intervals as follows Line ‘A’ [-3,2], Line ‘B’ [-10, -5] and Line ‘C’ [2,7]. Lines ‘A’ and ‘B’ are local by Doron’s assertions, line ‘A’ being only ‘in’ the defined ‘domain’ and line ‘B’ being only ‘out’ of the defined ‘domain’ line ‘C’ would be ‘non-local’ by Dorons assertions as it is partially ‘in’ and partially ‘out’ of the defined ‘domain’. All the lines are essentially the same (5 units in length) the only difference between them is their locations along the real number line. As such it is simple and trivial to see that ‘local’ and ‘non-local’ are just results of some defined location regardless of what you choose to call that location or those locations, the defined ‘domain’ and the defined ‘lines’ in this case.
Click to expand...

Wrong again.

In order to distinguish between local element and non-local element, we define its state w.r.t a given domain.

The Man continues to use the wrong examples, and as a result cannot get the difference between locality and non-locality w.r.t a given domain.
 
doronshadmi said:
Wrong.

Given any domain, it is at least defined as [in]out
Click to expand...

But you have failed to define those things...or at least how to distinguish between the two.

Wrong again.

In order to distinguish between local element and non-local element, we define its state w.r.t a given domain.
Click to expand...

You don't define something's state. You define terms that can be used to describe something's state. Well, no, you, Doron, don't ever define anything. I meant "you" in the impersonal pronoun sense, in this case meaning anyone except you.
 
doronshadmi said:
Wrong.

Given any domain, it is at least defined as [in]out
Click to expand...

As jsfisher points out and I pointed out before it is not defined as anything until you ‘at least’ define what constitutes ‘in’ and what constitutes ‘out’ for that ‘domain’. Only then does it become a ‘domain’ of ‘in’ and a ‘domain’ of ‘out’.


doronshadmi said:
Wrong again.

In order to distinguish between local element and non-local element, we define its state w.r.t a given domain.

The Man continues to use the wrong examples, and as a result cannot get the difference between locality and non-locality w.r.t a given domain.
Click to expand...

The lines meet your given criteria for ‘local’ and ‘non-local’ and only location was required to be defined. You see that is why those words share the same Latin root ‘locus’ meaning ‘place’ or ‘spot’.
 
jsfisher said:
But you have failed to define those things...or at least how to distinguish between the two.
Click to expand...

No The Man.

You, The Man, have failed to get [in]out .

This is the very essence of the concept of Domain; it is used to distinguish between what's in it and what's out of it.

Let us explicitly show again how you are forcing the tautology of the Local on the tautology of the Non-local.
The Man said:
‘C’ would be ‘non-local’ by Dorons assertions as it is partially ‘in’ and partially ‘out’ of the defined ‘domain’.
Click to expand...

You are wrong The Man.

Since the line segment is an atom, it is simply wrong to define it in terms "partially ‘in’ and partially ‘out’ of the defined ‘domain’".

The very notion of Non-locality w.r.t the domain is not less than in AND out w.r.t the domain, and there is nothing partial here.

Furthermore the tautology of the Non-local is shown exactly by in AND out w.r.t the domain.

Since you are forcing concepts like "partial" on the Non-local, you are not dealing anymore with the Non-local.

Furthermore, because you are forcing concepts like "partial" on the Non-local, you are actually using the tautology of the Local (in OR out) and get (in AND out) as a contradiction.

A line segment can be Local (in [_] OR out [ ]_ w.r.t the domain) OR Non-local (in [_]_ AND out [_]_ w.r.t domain).

Any attempt to force the Local on the Non-local, or to force the Non-local on the Local, leads to contradiction, simply because two distinguished states are essentially not the same thing (and so is the case of the Local OR the Non-local).

The intermediate universe (which is the result of the complementation between the Local and the Non-local) exists exactly because it is not totally Local and not totally Non-local.

This result is known as Collection, and Collection is not understood as long as its Building-blocks are not understood.

doronshadmi said:
Your reasoning is "nothing more, nothing less" than X, where X is reseachable.

My reasoning is "more, less" than X, where X is reseachable.

By "more,less" reasoning we think out of the box of X, which enables us to get X better:

[qimg]http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OMF.jpg[/qimg]​

My reasoning replaces your reasoning.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
The lines meet your given criteria for ‘local’ and ‘non-local’ and only location was required to be defined. You see that is why those words share the same Latin root ‘locus’ meaning ‘place’ or ‘spot’.
Click to expand...
This exactly what I do:

The Local obeys [in]out , [in]out (the tautology is in OR out).

The Non-local does not obey [in]out (the tautology is in AND out).
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
No The Man.

You, The Man, have failed to get [in]out .

This is the very essence of the concept of Domain; it is used to distinguish between what's in it and what's out of it.
Click to expand...

In making that distinction of ‘in’ and ‘out’ you actually define two ‘domains’ a domain that is ‘in’ and one that is ‘out’. That fact seems to be lost on you.

doronshadmi said:
Let us explicitly show again how you are forcing the tautology of the Local on the tautology of the Non-local.
Click to expand...

Again with the misuse of the word ‘tautology’.

doronshadmi said:
You are wrong The Man.

Since the line segment is an atom, it is simply wrong to define it in terms "partially ‘in’ and partially ‘out’ of the defined ‘domain’".
Click to expand...

Would that be your assertion of an indivisible and non-composite ‘atom’ or your other assertion of your ‘atom’ composed as a division?


doronshadmi said:
The very notion of Non-locality w.r.t the domain is not less than in AND out w.r.t the domain, and there is nothing partial here.
Click to expand...

Quite the contrary in asserting the ‘domain’ has the distinctions of ‘in’ and ‘out’ you have in fact partitioned that ‘domain’ into those partial distinctions. What ever happened to distinction being a ‘first order property’ of your notions? You consistently fail to makes the distinctions you say your notions require.

doronshadmi said:
Furthermore the tautology of the Non-local is shown exactly by in AND out w.r.t the domain.

Since you are forcing concepts like "partial" on the Non-local, you are not dealing anymore with the Non-local.


Furthermore, because you are forcing concepts like "partial" on the Non-local, you are actually using the tautology of the Local (in OR out) and get (in AND out) as a contradiction.
Click to expand...

No one is “forcing concepts like "partial"“ you are requiring it by partitioning your domain as ‘in’ and ‘out’ distinctions, something you seem to fail to distinguish. There were no contradictions in the example I gave. If your notions result in a contradiction for you then it is a problem with your notions and what they require.



doronshadmi said:
A line segment can be Local (in [_] OR out [ ]_ w.r.t the domain) OR Non-local (in [_]_ AND out [_]_ w.r.t domain).

Any attempt to force the Local on the Non-local, or to force the Non-local on the Local, leads to contradiction, simply because two distinguished states are essentially not the same thing (and so is the case of the Local OR the Non-local).
Click to expand...

Again the lines in the example I gave conformed to your stated definitions of local and non-local, that you fail to make the distinctions you claim your notions require, is your problem. Thus the contradictions, as always, remain yours. Again they are not ‘states’ but simply locations, do you even understand what those words mean? Apparently in your notions about distinction you can not distinguish between the meanings of those two words.


doronshadmi said:
The intermediate universe (which is the result of the complementation between the Local and the Non-local) exists exactly because it is not totally Local an not totally Non-local.

This result is known as Collection, and Collection is not understood as long as its Building-blocks are not understood.
Click to expand...

Well if your ‘domain’ is the universe then it is totally ‘local‘. Again you seem to fail to understand that local and non-local are just distinctions of location (not ‘states’) that must be defined for the application being considered. Some applications consider the entire universe. Thus in that application non-local becomes some other, perhaps definable, universe. In the basic application of physics non-local is generally considered to be a space like separation in 4D space-time or an area of space not causally connected to the location you are considering due the limitations of the speed of light.


doronshadmi said:
This exactly what I do:

The Local obeys [in]out , [in]out (the tautology is in OR out).

The Non-local does not obey [in]out (the tautology is in AND out).
Click to expand...

Again with the misuse of the word “tautology”, simply calling your assertion a “tautology” does not make them so.

Now you are claiming that “The Non-local does not obey [in]out” asserting that distinction has no meaning for your ‘non-local’ yet is what you use to define your ‘non-local’. Nice way you contradict yourself again Doron.
 
The Man said:
In making that distinction of ‘in’ and ‘out’ you actually define two ‘domains’ a domain that is ‘in’ and one that is ‘out’. That fact seems to be lost on you..
Click to expand...

No, there is a one domain that has two aspects, in this case, called 'in' , 'out'.

If we are using the coin's example, then the domain is the coin and it has to sides called 'tails' , 'heads'.

We can change 'tails' , 'heads' to 'in' , 'out'.

You explore a local property w.r.t this domain, called a flip.

A flip cannot be 'in' AND 'out' w.r.t the coin (the flip's tautology is 'in' OR 'out').

I take a rubber band and put it around the coin.

A rubber band around the coin must be 'in' AND 'out' w.r.t the coin (the rubber band 's tautology is 'in' AND 'out').

The Man, you still see everything only in terms of Locality.

Furthermore, you do not understand the word "universe".

The entire universe is exactly the result of the interaction between the Local and the Non-local, but you have no chance to get it, because your reasoning is closed under Locality.

Your problem is even worse; you understand Locality and Non-locality only in terms of metric space, where OM uses these concepts as abstracts to describe things that are not limited only to metric space, for example: a logical connective is the non-local aspect of Logics and a proposition is the local aspect of Logics.
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
Now you are claiming that “The Non-local does not obey [in]out” asserting that distinction has no meaning for your ‘non-local’ yet is what you use to define your ‘non-local’. Nice way you contradict yourself again Doron.
Click to expand...

You are right about this, it has to be written like this:


The Local obeys [in]out , [in]out (the tautology is in OR out).

The Non-local does not obey [in]out , [in]out, but it obeys [in]out (the tautology is in AND out).
 
Wow. I never thought that someone could not understand basic logic using a coin flip. Let's review some basic definations. If you do not agree to these terms, tell me.

coin: a flat piece of metal, typically circular, that has an equal chance on landing on either side when dropped on the ground. The edge of the coin is kept at a minimum. This coin will be a fair_coinWP
Heads : one side of a coin
Tails : the corresponding side

Using a coin as a random result generator, you will get one of two results 100% of the time. If looking at one result, Heads in this case, you will get that result 50% of the time. Using Logic, this would be written Heads OR Tails. You will not be able to get the result of Heads and the result Tails at the same time (Heads AND Tails) since the odds are 1:2.

When placing a rubber band around the coin, you will still get Heads OR Tails when flipping the coin because those are the two results.


doronshadmi said:
No, there is a one domain that has two aspects, in this case, called 'in' , 'out'.

If we are using the coin's example, then the domain is the coin and it has to sides called 'tails' , 'heads'.

We can change 'tails' , 'heads' to 'in' , 'out'.
Click to expand...
Why use one set of terms, then change those terms, and then go back to the original terms?

doronshadmi said:
You explore a local property w.r.t this domain, called a flip.

A flip cannot be 'in' AND 'out' w.r.t the coin (the flip's tautology is 'in' OR 'out').
Click to expand...
So a local property of a coin cannot be Heads AND Tails with reguards to the coin. Doesn't make sense (or cents).


doronshadmi said:
I take a rubber band and put it around the coin.

A rubber band around the coin must be 'in' AND 'out' w.r.t the coin (the rubber band 's tautology is 'in' AND 'out').
Click to expand...
No it musn't, if there is such a word. The rubber band is not Heads AND Tails. You haven't defined "edge" in reguards to your domain and besides, you've already said that there are two aspects.
 
doronshadmi said:
No, there is a one domain that has two aspects, in this case, called 'in' , 'out'.

If we are using the coin's example, then the domain is the coin and it has to sides called 'tails' , 'heads'.

We can change 'tails' , 'heads' to 'in' , 'out'.
Click to expand...

You still have partitioned the coin in to two sub domains one you refer to as ‘heads’ an the other as ‘tails’ nether of these sub domains of heads or tails is the complete coin but the addition of both those are the ‘domain’ you are referring to as the ‘coin’. In fact this would make the coin as a whole ‘non-local’ with respect to itself by your requirements as it consists of both heads and tails.


doronshadmi said:
You explore a local property w.r.t this domain, called a flip.
Click to expand...

So far all the domains mentioned the ‘heads’ sub domain, the ‘tails’ sub domain, the coin’s entire domain (consisting of the heads and tails sub domains) and now the ‘flip’ domain are all local to the coin.

doronshadmi said:
A flip cannot be 'in' AND 'out' w.r.t the coin (the flip's tautology is 'in' OR 'out').
Click to expand...

An aspect that comes from the definition and partitioning of the coin as much as the definition of a flip. Were we to partition the coin differently say along it’s diameter as opposed to about it’s thickness then each side would have both sub domains of that partition. Any ‘flip’ would then always result in both sub domains and thus be non-local to the coin by your ascriptions.

doronshadmi said:
I take a rubber band and put it around the coin.


A rubber band around the coin must be 'in' AND 'out' w.r.t the coin (the rubber band 's tautology is 'in' AND 'out').
Click to expand...

Why? We can just refer to the coin as a whole. Having both the partitioned sub domains of ’heads’ and ’tails’. Why introduce some other unneeded element. In fact being around the coin your rubber band is also local to the coin (by the standard inference of ‘local’ meaning 'in the vicinity of')

doronshadmi said:
The Man, you still see everything only in terms of Locality.
Click to expand...

Well when you are speaking of local and non-local you are speaking "in terms of Locality”. perhaps it is simply that you do not realize or choose to not accept that fact.

doronshadmi said:
Furthermore, you do not understand the word "universe".

The entire universe is exactly the result of the interaction between the Local and the Non-local, but you have no chance to get it, because your reasoning is closed under Locality.
Click to expand...

Only if you choose to partition the universe in such a fashion and then it is simply trivial that what you have partitioned is the sum of the results of your partition.


doronshadmi said:
Your problem is even worse; you understand Locality and Non-locality only in terms of metric space, where OM uses these concepts as abstracts to describe things that are not limited only to metric space, for example: a logical connective is the non-local aspect of Logics and a proposition is the local aspect of Logics.
Click to expand...

Again doron ‘abstraction’ does not mean simply making up what ever you want to claim. Particularly about concepts already well established and defined. Again locality and non-locality are about one thing, defining location, whether that be the result of some applied metric in some space or the association of elements in logic.
 
The Man said:
You still have partitioned the coin in to two sub domains one you refer to as ‘heads’ an the other as ‘tails’ nether of these sub domains of heads or tails is the complete coin but the addition of both those are the ‘domain’ you are referring to as the ‘coin’. In fact this would make the coin as a whole ‘non-local’ with respect to itself by your requirements as it consists of both heads and tails.
Click to expand...
The domain called coin is indeed a whole\parts domain.

If you are using a flip, then you are focused only on its parts aspect (the tautology of this use is 'tails' OR 'heads', where a flip cannot be simultaneously 'tails' AND 'heads' (this is a contradiction from flip's (Local) point of view)).

If you are using a rubber band, then you are focused only on its whole aspect (the tautology of this use is 'tails' AND 'heads', where a rubber band must be simultaneously 'tails' AND 'heads' (NOT('tails' AND 'heads') is a contradiction from rubber band's (Non-local) point of view)).

Let us do it simpler.

X has two opposite aspects.

If Y obeys simultaneously to one and only one aspect of X, then Y is Local w.r.t X.

If Y obeys simultaneously to more than a one aspect of X, then Y is Non-local w.r.t X.
The Man said:
Well when you are speaking of local and non-local you are speaking "in terms of Locality”. perhaps it is simply that you do not realize or choose to not accept that fact.
Click to expand...
No, Locality obeys simultaneously to one and only one aspect of X.

You choose to get things only in terms of Locality.
The Man said:
Only if you choose to partition the universe in such a fashion and then it is simply trivial that what you have partitioned is the sum of the results of your partition.
Click to expand...
Since any universe is not less than a whole\parts domain (uni=whole, verse=part), it must be an interaction between Non-locality and Locality.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
The domain called coin is indeed a whole\parts domain.

If you are using a flip, then you are focused only on its parts aspect (the tautology of this use is 'tails' OR 'heads', where a flip cannot be simultaneously 'tails' AND 'heads' (this is a contradiction from flip's (Local) point of view)).
Click to expand...

Doron, once you partition the coin you are focused ‘on its parts aspect‘, since that is the purpose of the partition to distinguish ‘parts’. Otherwise that partition has no utility.

doronshadmi said:
If you are using a rubber band, then you are focused only on its whole aspect (the tautology of this use is 'tails' AND 'heads', where a rubber band must be simultaneously 'tails' AND 'heads' (NOT('tails' AND 'heads') is a contradiction from rubber band's (Non-local) point of view)).
Click to expand...

If you are using the rubber band in relation to your partitioned ‘parts’ then you are still ‘focused on the parts aspect‘. In fact that focus on ‘the parts aspects’ is fundamental to your definition of 'non-local', that it must include both ‘parts’. Again this still makes your coin 'non-local' to itself by your own definitions. Similarly if you do not choose to partition the coin then it is always ‘local‘ to itself by your definitions. Also as I mentioned before if you partition the coin differently then any ‘flip‘ can also be 'non-local' by your definitions. Again Doron, local and non-local, even by your own definitions, are simply a matter of how one chooses to define those or partition some locations.


doronshadmi said:
Let us do it simpler.

X has two opposite aspects.

If Y obeys simultaneously to one and only one aspect of X, then Y is Local w.r.t X.

If Y obeys simultaneously to more than a one aspect of X, then Y is Non-local w.r.t X.

No, Locality obeys simultaneously to one and only one aspect of X.

You choose to get things only in terms of Locality.
Click to expand...

Again Doron the examples I gave meet your requirements of local and non-local, there were no contradictions and only locations were required to be defined. Your problems with your own notions and definitions are yours alone simply because you choose to think references to location like local and non-local must infer something other then simply location.

So as usual finding yourself unable to defend your claims you now introduce another word you apparently do not know the meaning of or how to apply, ‘simultaneously’. In my example line ‘C’ ‘simultaneously’ meets the requirements of the ‘in’ and ‘out’ definitions and thus your previous and now your current requirement for being ‘non-local’.



doronshadmi said:
Since any universe is not less than a whole\parts domain (uni=whole, verse=part), it must be an interaction between Non-locality and Locality.
Click to expand...

Again doron only if you choose to partition it that way and it is simple and trivial that what you partition must be the sum of the results of your partition. Again you fail to understand the significance of making specific definitions and then the requirement to work within those definitions.

ETA;

Try looking up the origins or words instead of just makin up your own.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/universe

Origin:
1325–75; ME < OF univers < L ūniversum, n. use of neut. of ūniversus entire, all, lit., turned into one, equiv. to ūni- uni- + versus (ptp. of vertere to trun)
Click to expand...


So it is not a combination of ‘whole’ and ‘part’ as you claim but ‘one’ and ‘to turn’ or as sated ‘turned into one’. Stop making up crap and do some darn research.
 
Last edited:
You call it Whole\Parts.

I call it Non-locality\Locality.


We are talking on the same thing, but you ignore the Whole and use only its Part's view.


[in]out = Whole = Non-locality

[in]out , [in]out = Parts = Locality


( ([in]out) = (in AND out) = the tautology of Non-locality ) ≠ ( ([in]out , [in]out) = (in OR out) = the tautology of Locality )
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
You call it Whole\Parts.

I call it Non-locality\Locality.


We are talking on the same thing, but you ignore the Whole and use only its Part's view.
Click to expand...

Says the man who uses only the 'parts view' as the basis of his definitions of 'local' and 'non-local'.

No Doron we are not 'talking on the same thing', I am taking about definable and supportable cliams, you are just talking about your fantasies.
 
The Man said:
If you are using the rubber band in relation to your partitioned ‘parts’ then you are still ‘focused on the parts aspect‘. In fact that focus on ‘the parts aspects’ is fundamental to your definition of 'non-local', that it must include both ‘parts’.
Click to expand...

Here you have missed it again. "In relation to …" means that we are focused on the relation aspect (the non-local aspect) that exists between the parts.

The Man said:
Again this still makes your coin 'non-local' to itself by your own definitions.
Click to expand...

No The Man, The coin is exactly a Whole\Parts thing or Non-local\Local thing. You simply do not get this simple beauty and continue to force your partial X OR Y Local-only reasoning on the coin.

The Man said:
Similarly if you do not choose to partition the coin then it is always ‘local‘ to itself by your definitions.
Click to expand...
Again, NO.

The coin is exactly a Whole\Parts thing or Non-local\Local thing.

The Man said:
Also as I mentioned before if you partition the coin differently then any ‘flip‘ can also be 'non-local' by your definitions.
Click to expand...
Wrong. A flip cannot be in more than a one and only one part's state of the coin.

The Man said:
Again Doron, local and non-local, even by your own definitions, are simply a matter of how one chooses to define those or partition some locations.
Click to expand...
No.

A rubber band shows the non-local aspect of the coin.

A flip shows the local aspect of the coin.

The coin itself is not totally non-local and not totally local.

The coin itself is exactly non-local\local thing (a whole\parts thing in your language).

The Man said:
Says the man who uses only the 'parts view' as the basis of his definitions of 'local' and 'non-local'.
Click to expand...
Thank you.

Indeed "the man uses only the 'parts view' as the basis of his definitions of 'local' and 'non-local'".

The Man said:
No Doron we are not 'talking on the same thing', I am taking about definable and supportable cliams, you are just talking about your fantasies.
Click to expand...
No The Man, you do not get your own words.
 
Last edited:
The Man,

It is all based on your misunderstanding of the concept called "universe".

As a result you do not get a universe or domain like a coin.

It is clear now why you can't get, for example, a paper like that:

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/BasicOM-E.pdf

Pay attention that this paper is only the serial case of Organic Numbers, but you will not get also the the serial case, because you are not able to get "universe" as parallel\serial thing exactly as you don't get it as a whole\parts thing.
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
So it is not a combination of ‘whole’ and ‘part’ as you claim but ‘one’ and ‘to turn’ or as sated ‘turned into one’. Stop making up crap and do some darn research.
Click to expand...

"turned into one" is simply the viewpoint from the Parts to the Whole. The universre is also ""turned into many" or the viewpoint from the Whole to the Parts.

Stop forcing us a pertial-only, local-only and serial-only view of the concept of Universe.
 
Last edited:
Sorry if I've missed it, but what breakthroughs have you been able to make as a result of your use of Organic Numbers? In what way is your system better than the tried and tested conventional mathematics?
 
zooterkin said:
Sorry if I've missed it, but what breakthroughs have you been able to make as a result of your use of Organic Numbers? In what way is your system better than the tried and tested conventional mathematics?
Click to expand...

It's a lot easier to prove the Hokey Cokey true in doronetics -

doronshadmi said:
[snip]

[in]out = Whole = Non-locality

[in]out , [in]out = Parts = Locality


( ([in]out) = (in AND out) = the tautology of Non-locality ) ≠ ( ([in]out , [in]out) = (in OR out) = the tautology of Locality )
Click to expand...

Therefore -

[in]out + [in]out = shake it all about
 
catbasket said:
It's a lot easier to prove the Hokey Cokey true in doronetics -



Therefore -

[in]out + [in]out = shake it all about
Click to expand...

'+' is the non-local aspect and 'in' or 'out' is the local aspect of the reseached domain, so you proved me right.
 
Last edited:
zooterkin said:
Sorry if I've missed it, but what breakthroughs have you been able to make as a result of your use of Organic Numbers? In what way is your system better than the tried and tested conventional mathematics?
Click to expand...

ON use Distinction as their first-order properties, where conventional mathematics is nothing but the particular case of crisp Distinction, as if it is the universal principle of the foundations of this science.
 
doronshadmi said:
'+' is the non-local aspect and 'in' or 'out' is the local aspect of the reseached domain, so you proved me right.
Click to expand...
How on earth does what I posted support your claim this proves you right? Is there some non-local aspect of OM logic which you haven't yet introduced?

Clearly you are incapable of getting that under catbasket revised Organic Mathematics the '+' is merely a local representation of the non-local aspect!

Your Standard Model of Organic Mathematics is puny in comparison to catbasket revised Organic Mathematics!


SMOM < (cbr)OM

... and this is true for both the local and non-local aspects of OM, whether the outdated SM or (cbr).

ON use Distinction as their first-order properties, where conventional mathematics is nothing but the particular case of crisp Distinction, as if it is the universal principle of the foundations of this science.
Click to expand...

Whereas (cbr)OM clearly proves that SMOM is nothing but the particular case of soggy Distinction, as if it is the universal principle of the foundations of this science!

It is now clear to me that you simply cannot get that the distinction of Distinction (doD) into merely standard and crisp Distinction is incomplete unless and only unless you don't fail to not get that these represent only the local and non-local aspects of Researchable Totality. To further abuse the coin 'Heads' AND/OR 'Tails' (NOT) analogy - you have completely failed to get the elastic band!

This really should be obvious to anyone who has, as you claim, been researching the unresearchable for more than twenty years. I suspect you simply haven't thought this through thoroughly enough.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom