Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
This is the last time that I reply to any post of The Man.

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

The Man is profound example of a total lose case of a closed system that naturally die by Entropy.

After his last several posts, it is now clear that any reply to him is a waste of energy.

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

As for the rest of the peolpe in this forum, all I have to say can be found in:

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OMPT.pdf

Take it or leave it, it is up to you.

I am done here (as long as I have no new things to say).
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
This is the last time that I reply to any post of The Man.

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

The Man is profound examples of a total lose case of a closed system that naturally die by Entropy.

After his last several posts, it is now clear that any reply to him is a waste of energy.

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

As for the rest of the peolpe in this forum, all I have to say can be found in:

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OMPT.pdf

Take it or leave it, it is up to you.

I am done here (as long as I have no new things to say).
Click to expand...

Doron you have never had any ‘new’ things to say and that includes…

doronshadmi said:
This is the last time that I reply to any post of The Man.
Click to expand...


doronshadmi said:
The Man is profound examples of a total lose case of a closed system that naturally die by Entropy.
Click to expand...

Well I guess I’ve got even more time to waste now, since I have at least 10100 years to wait for my ‘entropy death’.
 
doronshadmi said:
...Take it or leave it...
Click to expand...


Wow, finally a bit of honesty.

In the past you have said you were open to, anxious for critiques of your novel outlook. The trouble was people were pointing out the obvious: Your notions vacillate between trivial and contradictory, your understanding of the mathematics you attack is minimal, your logic is flawed, and your vocabulary is a blend of gibberish and misuse, and you can't bear to hear that. You'd invested too many years in this convoluted nonsense to have it dismissed for the bunk that it is.

Now you show your true self. "Take it or leave it." You aren't open to criticism or discussion and you never were. You just wanted praise and admiration for your convoluted views. You cannot face the reality that your life's work is worthless.


Stop blaming the world, Doron. You are singularly responsible for this failure.
 
A necklace is a result of different qualities, the quality of the whole (represented by a string) and the quality of the Part (represented by a bead).

The quality of the Whole is total connectivity.

The quality of the Part is total isolation.

The necklace is an intermediated existence between total connectivity and total isolation.

By using Weak Emergence Reasoning (reductionism) one understands the necklace as sum of parts, by ignoring the different qualities of the Whole (string) and the Part (bead).

By using Strong Emergence Reasoning, where the Whole is greater than the sum of its Parts, one still ignores the different qualities of the Whole (string) and the Part (bead).

Organic Mathematics is a non-standard Strong Emergence Reasoning that does not ignore the different qualities of the Whole (string) and the Part (bead).

By using Cardinal as a measurement unit of existence non-standard Strong Emergence Reasoning defines the follows:

Total connectivity (only string) > necklace (string + bead) > total isolation (only bead).

Any attempt to get Non-Standard Strong Emergence Reasoning by Weak Emergence Reasoning (reductionism) or Standard Strong Emergence Reasoning is going to fail.
 
By OM (which is based on non-standard Strong Emergence Reasoning, where the Whole is greater than the sum of the (not 'its' but 'the') Parts) the necklace is the intermediate result of distinguished extreme qualities, known as string (Non-locality) and bead (Locality). By using the intermediate result (string+bead) one researches the quantitative aspects of the interaction between the different qualities.

Furthermore, by distinguish between quantity and quality, one enables to understand that each quality is a different existence of maximum entropy, which prevents any research at the level of each quality (Non-locality or Locality on themselves). The intermediate result (string+bead) is an anti-entropic framework, because it is the result of the openness of each quality (string or bead) to the opposite quality (string or bead).

Quantity exists only at the anti-entropic intermediate level of existence, and it cannot be used in order to capture the quality of the extreme building-blocks, which enable the intermediate anti-entropic level of existence.

By OM, our universe (abstract or not) is exactly the anti-entropic result of the interaction between extreme qualities that are opened to each other. The extremes are the minimal manifest of Singularity, which is beyond any attempt to define it (also in terms of entropy) including "Singularity" (it is beyond any definition).
 
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
Wow, finally a bit of honesty.

In the past you have said you were open to, anxious for critiques of your novel outlook. The trouble was people were pointing out the obvious: Your notions vacillate between trivial and contradictory, your understanding of the mathematics you attack is minimal, your logic is flawed, and your vocabulary is a blend of gibberish and misuse, and you can't bear to hear that. You'd invested too many years in this convoluted nonsense to have it dismissed for the bunk that it is.

Now you show your true self. "Take it or leave it." You aren't open to criticism or discussion and you never were. You just wanted praise and admiration for your convoluted views. You cannot face the reality that your life's work is worthless.


Stop blaming the world, Doron. You are singularly responsible for this failure.
Click to expand...

Here is some example of a person that forces Weak Emergence Reasoning or Standard Strong Emergence Reasoning, on the Non-Standard Strong Emergence Reasoning of OM.

It is a waste of energy to reply to such a person, whether his name is jsfisher or The Man.

They are all look the same (like identical outcomes of some production line) and have a zero ability to get things beyond the realm of the production line.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
A necklace is a result of different qualities, the quality of the whole (represented by a string) and the quality of the Part (represented by a bead).

The quality of the Whole is total connectivity.

The quality of the Part is total isolation.

The necklace is an intermediated existence between total connectivity and total isolation.

By using Weak Emergence Reasoning (reductionism) one understands the necklace as sum of parts, by ignoring the different qualities of the Whole (string) and the Part (bead).

By using Strong Emergence Reasoning, where the Whole is greater than the sum of its Parts, one still ignores the different qualities of the Whole (string) and the Part (bead).

Organic Mathematics is a non-standard Strong Emergence Reasoning that does not ignore the different qualities of the Whole (string) and the Part (bead).

By using Cardinal as a measurement unit of existence non-standard Strong Emergence Reasoning defines the follows:

Total connectivity (only string) > necklace (string + bead) > total isolation (only bead).

Any attempt to get Non-Standard Strong Emergence Reasoning by Weak Emergence Reasoning (reductionism) or Standard Strong Emergence Reasoning is going to fail.
Click to expand...


Doron if your ‘necklace analogy’ is so bad that it does not reflect your intended point then find a better analogy. All this ‘necklace analogy’ shows is that you are using the word ‘whole’ to represent something other then the ‘whole’ which would be the ‘necklace’ in your analogy and not the ‘string’ which is just another ‘part’ of that ‘whole’ ‘necklace’. If you can not find a better analogy then it is probably because you just need better notions.

With your statements about ignoring “different qualities of the Whole (string) and the Part (bead).”, you simply demonstrate the you do not understand the meaning of emergence and try to pawn off your misunderstanding as the ignorance of others or as part of the concept of emergence.


doronshadmi said:
By OM (which is based on non-standard Strong Emergence Reasoning, where the Whole is greater than the sum of the (not 'its' but 'the') Parts) the necklace is the intermediate result of distinguished extreme qualities, known as string (Non-locality) and bead (Locality). By using the intermediate result (string+bead) one researches the quantitative aspects of the interaction between the different qualities.

Furthermore, by distinguish between quantity and quality, one enables to understand that each quality is a different existence of maximum entropy, which prevents any research at the level of each quality (Non-locality or Locality on themselves). The intermediate result (string+bead) is an anti-entropic framework, because it is the result of the openness of each quality (string or bead) to the opposite quality (string or bead).

Quantity exists only at the anti-entropic intermediate level of existence, and it cannot be used in order to capture the quality of the extreme building-blocks, which enable the intermediate anti-entropic level of existence.

By OM, our universe (abstract or not) is exactly the anti-entropic result of the interaction between extreme qualities that are opened to each other. The extremes are the minimal manifest of Singularity, which is beyond any attempt to define it (also in terms of entropy) including "Singularity" (it is beyond any definition).
Click to expand...


So that is all you have (besides your usual gibberish)? A fixation on some quasi descriptive phrases like “greater then the sum of its parts” and “equal to the sum of its parts”, not only that but then you simply change one word turning “its parts” to “the parts”? ‘The parts' of what Doron? I asked that before and you never answered. All you have done is to take a quasi descriptive phrase like ‘greater then the sum of its parts’ and made it even less descriptive by removing the reference to what ‘parts’ you are talking about. As always your goal in describing and defining your notions is to be as least specific, definitive and descriptive as you possibly can, thereby ensuring you some wiggle room so you never actually consider the contradictory and trivial nature of your notions. However, I can again assure you that this is nothing new to most members of this forum.
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
‘The parts' of what Doron?
Click to expand...

Here the insider cannot get the notion of the intermediate level of existence as the result of the interaction between the Whole (string) and the Part (bead).

Furthermore, he does not get the concept of Many and how this concept is possible iff each bead has an interaction with the string.

By this interaction we get the concept of Sum.

The answer to the question "the parts of what?" is "the parts of the sum!".

By OM, the Whole is greater than the sum of the Parts, exactly because the existence of the string is independent of the existence of each bead or any sum of the beads.

Insiders can't get this beauty, and force their Weak or Standard Strong Emergence Reasoning up to ignorance.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
crisp is simply anything that can be identifed by a one and only one id.
Click to expand...

If that's what it is, why did you direct me to two places which did not state this? Where is it defined in your work? What exactly do you mean, "can be identifed by a one and only one id"? (I assume you meant to say, "can be identified by one and only one id", but I still don't know what that means. How do you prevent the use of a second id for something?)
ETA: And why on earth use a term like 'crisp' for this concept?
 
zooterkin said:
If that's what it is, why did you direct me to two places which did not state this? Where is it defined in your work? What exactly do you mean, "can be identifed by a one and only one id"? (I assume you meant to say, "can be identified by one and only one id", but I still don't know what that means. How do you prevent the use of a second id for something?)
ETA: And why on earth use a term like 'crisp' for this concept?
Click to expand...

n = 1 has a crisp id.

n > 1 also has non-crisp ids.

This is simple.

Why you can't dircet yourself to get it?
 
Last edited:
zooterkin said:
And what is that crisp id?


And what are they?


Because it's either completely trivial, or not explained?
Click to expand...

Do you see how I defined Redundancy and Uncertainty in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4694499&postcount=2733 ?

If an element has Redundancy = 1 and Uncertainty = 1 , then it has a crisp id.

For example, each element of the last form of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4694499&postcount=2733 has a crisp id.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Do you see how I defined Redundancy and Uncertainty in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4694499&postcount=2733 ?

If an element has Redundancy = 1 and Uncertainty = 1 , then it has a crisp id.

For example, each element of the last form of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4694499&postcount=2733 has a crisp id.
Click to expand...

Are you making this up as you go along?

Could you answer my questions, not give further indirections?
 
In addition to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4702337&postcount=2773 , any one (insiders are excluded) enables to get that no sum of . (the mininal existence of the Part) things is a ____ thing (the mininal existence of the Whole).

For example: ... _._._._ ... (no matter how many . are on _____ , they cannot be _____).
The Man said:
As always your goal in describing and defining your notions is to be as least specific, definitive and descriptive as you possibly can, thereby ensuring you some wiggle room so you never actually consider the contradictory and trivial nature of your notions. However, I can again assure you that this is nothing new to most members of this forum.
Click to expand...
Here the insider can't get the exact and specific difference between any sum of . (Parts) and ______ (the Whole) as can be clearly seen by the difference between NXOR and XOR connectives ( http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OMPT.pdf , page 29 ).
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4702525&postcount=2777 is the exact answer to your question.
Click to expand...

I see that 'exact' is another word you have chosen to redefine.

Let's see. The post you refer to is:
doronshadmi said:
Do you see how I defined Redundancy and Uncertainty in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4694499&postcount=2733 ?

If an element has Redundancy = 1 and Uncertainty = 1 , then it has a crisp id.

For example, each element of the last form of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4694499&postcount=2733 has a crisp id.
Click to expand...



So, another indirection. That post referred to has a big image, for some reason, even for the text. The definitions are:

doronshadmi said:
Let redundancy be more then (sic) one copy of the same value can be found.

Let uncertainty be more than one unique value can be found.
Click to expand...

So, how does something you have apparently defined as a quality of something get a value of 1? A worked example would help. Give two examples of numbers with a crisp id, and some without.
 
zooterkin said:
So, how does something you have apparently defined as a quality of something get a value of 1? A worked example would help. Give two examples of numbers with a crisp id, and some without.
Click to expand...

quality of something ???

No, whole number's value cannot be more than the sum of the parts.

0 means "no parts".

∞ means "greater than any sum of the parts" (what I call "The Whole").

Here is an example:

RB2.jpg


A crisp element is any element that has a unique color.

A non-crisp element is any element that has a white color (all the colors together).
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
A crisp element is any element that has a unique color.

A non-crisp element is any element that has a white color (all the colors together).
Click to expand...

Sorry, I really have no idea what those rainbows represent. I don't know what one element in that picture is. Can you give an example of one element, and show what its crisp id is?
 
doronshadmi said:
Here the insider cannot get the notion of the intermediate level of existence as the result of the interaction between the Whole (string) and the Part (bead).

Furthermore, he does not get the concept of Many and how this concept is possible iff each bead has an interaction with the string.

By this interaction we get the concept of Sum.

The answer to the question "the parts of what?" is "the parts of the sum!".

By OM, the Whole is greater than the sum of the Parts, exactly because the existence of the string is independent of the existence of each bead or any sum of the beads.

Insiders can't get this beauty, and force their Weak or Standard Strong Emergence Reasoning up to ignorance.
Click to expand...


A whole lot of blathering and an extremely ‘weak’ answer to a very simple question.

“the parts of the sum” you say, would that be the whole sum or just some part of that whole sum?

As usual Doron is simply confused about the meaning of ‘whole’ and somehow ascribes this to his imaginary ‘fullness’.

By Donor’s own assertions above his ‘sum’ is only a result of his ‘interaction’ between his ‘whole’ and his ‘parts’ making his ‘whole’, his ‘parts’ and his ‘interaction’ all just parts of his ‘sum’. Apparently Doron understands the meaning of the word ‘parts’ as poorly as he does the meaning of the word ‘whole’ or even his own expressed interpretation of the word ‘sum’. The only ‘beauty’ in Dorons notions is the comedic beauty of watching him run around is circles chasing his own tail thinking he is catching something ‘greater then the sum of’ his head and his keister.

So was that the last last time you will reply to my posts or can we expect a last last last time later?


ETA:
doronshadmi said:
In addition to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4702337&postcount=2773 , any one (insiders are excluded) enables to get that no sum of . (the mininal existence of the Part) things is a ____ thing (the mininal existence of the Whole).

For example: ... _._._._ ... (no matter how many . are on _____ , they cannot be _____).
Click to expand...

And you know this because you claim you can not research them separately? All you are claiming is that you are just making crap up about your ‘parts’ independent of your ‘whole’ because you claim you can not research them independently.

doronshadmi said:
Here the insider can't get the exact and specific difference between any sum of . (Parts) and ______ (the Whole) as can be clearly seen by the difference between NXOR and XOR connectives ( http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OMPT.pdf , page 29 ).
Click to expand...

Ok so that was the last last last last time doron will reply to me.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Here is some example of a person that forces Weak Emergence Reasoning or Standard Strong Emergence Reasoning, on the Non-Standard Strong Emergence Reasoning of OM.
Click to expand...

Yeah, we know. These are the latest cool terms you have stumbled across. Too bad you have no idea what they mean, but they do sound so cool, don't they?

Still, you are blaming the whole world for your failure. Stop that. Accept some responsibility for your own actions, will you, please?
 
jsfisher said:
Yeah, we know. These are the latest cool terms you have stumbled across. Too bad you have no idea what they mean, but they do sound so cool, don't they?

Still, you are blaming the whole world for your failure. Stop that. Accept some responsibility for your own actions, will you, please?
Click to expand...

The Man said:
“the parts of the sum” you say, would that be the whole sum or just some part of that whole sum?
Click to expand...
The insider simply can't get that The Whole > Sum of the Parts.

The rest of what he says is derived from the inability to get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4702737&postcount=2780 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4702871&postcount=2782 .
The Man said:
And you know this because you claim you can not research them separately? All you are claiming is that you are just making crap up about your ‘parts’ independent of your ‘whole’ because you claim you can not research them independently.
Click to expand...
Here the insider can't get the exact meaning of "Mutual Independence", which is not totally Mutual AND not totally Independent (it is an anti-entropic realm that is not total by nature and therefore researchable), (please see http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OMPT.pdf , pages 25-30).


EDIT:

Generally the insider can't distinguish between the total AND non-researchable and the non-total AND researchable.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Notion #1:

If we use partitions in order to define Entropy, then a multiset (a repetition of the same identity) has an entropy that is equivalent to the number of the repetitions that exists within it.
Click to expand...


Is there a reason why this is in "Religion and Philosophy" question mark.
 
Please look at this link:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_originated_the_phrase_'The_whole_is_greater_than_the_sum_of_its_parts'
"Additional attribution -- Kurt Koffka: "It has been said: The whole is more than the sum of its parts. It is more correct to say that the whole is something else than the sum of its parts, because summing up is a meaningless procedure, whereas the whole-part relationship is meaningful." (Kurt Koffka, 1935: New York: Harcourt-Brace. p 176) [emphasis added]

On that view, "more than" does not mean that the whole is "greater" than the sum of its parts but that it is more than merely the sum of its parts.
Click to expand...

There is another option where the Whole is greater than the sum of the Parts if the magnitude of existence of the Whole is greater than the magnitude of existence of a collection, where no sum of Parts has the magnitude of existence of the Whole, exactly as any sum of Parts has a magnitude of existence that is greater than Nothing.

So we get Whole > Sum of existing Parts > Nothing, that can be understood as different qualities of existence that cannot be equal (for example Whole = the Sum of existing Parts is impossible exactly as the Sum of existing Parts = Nothing is impossible).

For example:

_____ = Whole

... _._._._ ... = Sum of existing Parts.

There can be any non-finite sum of . interacted with _______ and still |______| > |... _._._._ ...|
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
The insider simply can't get that The Whole > Sum of the Parts.

The rest of what he says is derived from the inability to get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4702737&postcount=2780 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4702871&postcount=2782 .
Click to expand...

Well, we are still waiting for you to show “The Whole > Sum of the Parts” mathematically in your ‘mathematical theory of strong emergence’.

doronshadmi said:
Here the insider can't get the exact meaning of "Mutual Independence", which is not totally Mutual AND not totally Independent (it is an anti-entropic realm that is not total by nature and therefore researchable), (please see http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OMPT.pdf , pages 25-30).
Click to expand...

‘Anti-entropic realm’? Another Doronophrase bound to be one of your classics. So tell us Doron why does entropy only seem to increase in your ‘anti-entropic realm’? Some math would be preferable to a bad analogy that actually goes against your claim.

doronshadmi said:
EDIT:

Generally the insider can't distinguish between the total AND non-researchable and the non-total AND researchable.
Click to expand...

Quite the contrary, we certainly can and do distinguish between what one claims they can research and what they claim they can not. When are you going to be able to make that distinction?

So is this the last last last last last last last time you will reply to my posts?
 
The Man said:
Well, we are still waiting for you to show “The Whole > Sum of the Parts” mathematically in your ‘mathematical theory of strong emergence’.



‘Anti-entropic realm’? Another Doronophrase bound to be one of your classics. So tell us Doron why does entropy only seem to increase in your ‘anti-entropic realm’? Some math would be preferable to a bad analogy that actually goes against your claim.



Quite the contrary, we certainly can and do distinguish between what one claims they can research and what they claim they can not. When are you going to be able to make that distinction?

So is this the last last last last last last last time you will reply to my posts?
Click to expand...
Here the insider shows again his inability to think beyond Whole = Sum of Parts.

"Whole = Sum of Parts" is the only reasoning that he can get.
 
doronshadmi said:
Here the insider shows again his inability to think beyond Whole = Sum of Parts.

"Whole = Sum of Parts" is the only reasoning that he can get.
Click to expand...


Here we see Doron’s propensity to simply label people and then deal strictly with that label as opposed to actually addressing what has been said. We also see here Doron’s fundamental trait of not adhering to the assertions he has made (like not replying to my posts) and, as noted by jsfisher, Doron's inability to accept or even tolerate criticism. So strong is this compulsion that he has continued to respond to my post in spite of his assertion that he would not. You will also see here Doron’s typical evasive, obfuscating and self-deceptive word games by addressing the ‘insider’ as opposed to me directly when responding to my posts. Thus, at least it seems that in his mind, making his responses to my post not actually responses to my post since he does not refer to me directly.
 
The Man said:
Here we see Doron’s propensity to simply label people and then deal strictly with that label as opposed to actually addressing what has been said. We also see here Doron’s fundamental trait of not adhering to the assertions he has made (like not replying to my posts) and, as noted by jsfisher, Doron's inability to accept or even tolerate criticism. So strong is this compulsion that he has continued to respond to my post in spite of his assertion that he would not. You will also see here Doron’s typical evasive, obfuscating and self-deceptive word games by addressing the ‘insider’ as opposed to me directly when responding to my posts. Thus, at least it seems that in his mind, making his responses to my post not actually responses to my post since he does not refer to me directly.
Click to expand...
Here the insider tries to cover his inability to get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4705491&postcount=2795 .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom