Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
doronshadmi said:
What a low level of abstraction.



You do not get the idea.

At the momnet that you ask "what's between bla bla bla" this "bla bla bla" is local w.r.t "what's between the bla bla bla" and "what's between the bla bla bla" is non-local w.r.t "the bla bla bla".

Some analogy:

This is like the horizon, each time new things are not the horizon as long as you go to the horizon, but the line of the horizon is always there in a different level, and it is not made of the things that are gathered by it.
Click to expand...

jsfisher's question:
What's between blue and Antarctica?
Click to expand...

Doron's answer:
The thing that gathers them into a collection.
Click to expand...

But as you point out here, this isn't a "what." It isn't a thing to be put between.
A C B is a misleading construction when C stands for the not local that collects A and B.

A B -- because the C is not a content but a receeding horizon.
Not a thing to be a member of the collection.

There are two ways we treat the pronoun "I".
One is an objective reference where "I" am an object of discourse though not the object of a sentance.

Another is "I" as purely subject. The subjective "I" is always out of reach as an object of discourse, except in a metaphorical or symbolical way.
Trying to signify it as a mathematical sign loses it immediately.
because it is purely non-local.
As such it is neither within nor with out a collection and both within and without a collection.
In other words it is irrelevant and misleading to try to frame That Which Gathers Together Into a Collection as a mathematical object.

The "I" is not an objective thing. It is empty of any essence or catagory.
It is not a non-local object to be quantified.
It is not the real line, just as the receeding horizon is not ground or the suface of the earth.
It's just an empty placeholder.

BTW Doron, in post 2880 you atribute a post The Man made to me. Again, I can never be sure I'm really communicating with you.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
You have missed the analogy.
Click to expand...

Nice excuse for not doing anything. I haven't missed anything when you gave me two statements and a question. Let's flashback to what you said:

doronshadmi said:
Let me ask you a question (it is an analogy, so please be careful):

The dimension of . (= its magnitude of existence) is exactly 0.

The dimension of _____ (= its magnitude of existence) is exactly 1.

Can a sum of non-finite . be _____ ?
Click to expand...

I asked you to define your symbols and your phrase "its magnitude of existence".

Little 10 Toes said:
To nitpick, this is a not an analogy, it's two statements and a question.

Please define "its magnitude of existence".
Please confirm that when you say "The dimension of ." you are using '.' (without the quotes) to mean a single point and that the '_______' (without the quotes) in the phrase "The dimension of ________" means a line.
Click to expand...

So how's that definition coming along? How's that confirmation going as well.

Oh, and before you say anything else, your next message:
doronshadmi said:
Please read all of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4711347&postcount=2826 .

The two posts ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4708998&postcount=2805 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4710310&postcount=2822 ) are talking on the same thing, and you have missed both of them.
Click to expand...
It doesn't contain anything about your original question. It's dealing with your redblue line subtopic, not with you asking me a question.
 
Last edited:
Apathia said:
In other words it is irrelevant and misleading to try to frame That Which Gathers Together Into a Collection as a mathematical object.
Click to expand...
You have missed it.

The difference between the local and the non-local is qualitative.

By using a collection one can measure them indirectly in terms of a quantitative difference, where the measurement unite is called cardinal that its minimal value is 0 (in the case of Emptiness) and its maximal value is ∞ (in the case of Fullness).

As long as you do not get the qualitative difference between non-local (Relation) and local (Element) things, you can't understand them.

Apathia said:
BTW Doron, in post 2880 you atribute a post The Man made to me. Again, I can never be sure I'm really communicating with you.
Click to expand...

Sorry for that, this is my mistake, the quote is The Man's words.
Apathia said:
Another is "I" as purely subject.
Click to expand...
Worng.

The "I" is the result of Singularity's self reference, and it is both Non-local AND Local. For more details please read vary carefully http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OMPT.pdf pages 15 - 30.

EDIT:

By the way, Singularity's self reference is exactly what's between Locl and Non-local things.
 
Last edited:
Little 10 Toes said:
Please define "the magnitude of existence".
Click to expand...

Do you really do not get that Emptiness has the least magnitude (where "magnitude" is a measurement unit) of existence, and its opposite, called Fullness, has the most magnitude of existence?

It is a straightforward notion.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Your French fried.
Click to expand...
Thought as much. You just type the first thing that enters your head, and have no idea what it means; I suspect most the examples you present to back up your usages are the results of searches done when you are challenged, rather than the basis for you choosing to use a term in the first place. Even that supposedly witty rejoinder of 3 words is nonsense. My French fried what?
 
sympathic said:
He probably meant "French Fries" as a joke (I suppose), which should be crisp.
Click to expand...

A crisp answer.


zooterkin said:
Thought as much. You just type the first thing that enters your head, and have no idea what it means; I suspect most the examples you present to back up your usages are the results of searches done when you are challenged, rather than the basis for you choosing to use a term in the first place. Even that supposedly witty rejoinder of 3 words is nonsense. My French fried what?
Click to expand...

A non-crisp answer.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
What a low level of abstraction.
Click to expand...

What a high level of crap.

doronshadmi said:
The insider can't get that the thing that gathers things is permanently not one of those things.
Click to expand...

Doron just can’t get what is that he writes.

doronshadmi said:
So if we ask "what’s between the thing that gathers things and the gathered things", we have these options:
Click to expand...

No Doron there is another option, actually answering the question so we can observer that answer.


doronshadmi said:
This thing is observed by this question as one of the gathered things (it is on the same level of the gathered things, and there is a thing in another level that gathers them into some collection, for example A B –
Click to expand...

So as I said you are considering (or ‘observing’ by your own words) your “thing that gathers things” to be both the ‘gathering thing’ and “one of the gathered things”. Well, as you are claming my surmise was correct I can understand your assertion of “a low level of abstraction” since that surmise was correctly based on your assertions of your ‘abstraction’.

Obviously, since you claim it is a “thing that gathers things” the gathering of itself falls within that ability as defined.

You also seem to be giving anthropomorphic properties to that ‘question’ by claiming “This thing is observed by this question”.


doronshadmi said:
Another option is that that this question is equivalent to the question of "what exists northern to the north pole?" .

Since the question is meaningless, then the answer is that __ is between A B.
Click to expand...

So your underline is the answer to a meaningless question? That would just make it a meaningless answer.

We would still like to ‘observe’ an answer to that question Doron and not just your “thing” “observed by this question” or your alternative ‘meaningless’ answer.
 
doronshadmi said:
You have missed it.

The difference between the local and the non-local is qualitative.
Click to expand...

I haven't missed that.
It's a qualitative, symbological, linguistic difference, not a quantitative, mathematical difference.

By using a collection one can measure them indirectly in terms of a quantitative difference, where the measurement unite is called cardinal that its minimal value is 0 (in the case of Emptiness) and its maximal value is ∞ (in the case of Fullness).
Click to expand...

By using your unique lingustic device, numbers are made into symbols for metaphysical objects.
You are not doing mathemtics. You are using mathematical terms and elements metaphorically.

As long as you do not get the qualitative difference between non-local (Relation) and local (Element) things, you can't understand them.
Click to expand...

I do see the qualitative difference. That's why I'm having so much trouble with your game plan.

But then again, its not a simple distinction. Continually we play off what is at one time an element as a relation and what is at one time a relation as an element. Often in the same sentence we jump a word from one mode of meaning to the other.

The "I" is the result of Singularity's self reference, and it is both Non-local AND Local.
Click to expand...

The "I" is merely self-referencing, not a metaphysical enitity.
So, yes, "I" is both Local and Non-Local.
Local as opposed to Non-local is a play of referencing and distinction where an element may be at one time local to a collection and another time non-local to the same collection.
No element is permenatly local or permenantly non-local. Nor do numbers have permenant non-local forms.
At least not in a quantitative sense.

Go ahead and play with metaphorical qualities.
But realize you cannot calculate with them.
You can only calculate with your "crisp" numbers.
The non-local foirms (The mushy ones as opposed to the crisp ones) aren't quantities and aren't logical objects.

But wait, they're supposed to be relations, aren't they?

OH, I forgot the device.
You get
Relation Elements
Element Realtions
Relation Relations
Element Elements

Of course I'm
(let me say it for you)
Wrong.

Ah, "Mushy Numbers"
Just please try to contain this mushiness, so that the whole of mathematics doesn't become an indeterminative slush.

Will we see the interaction of the Soggy and the Crisp?

[QUOTE}By the way, Singularity's self reference is exactly what's between Locl and Non-local things.[/QUOTE]

You're still mushying things up with this "between."
"interpenetrate" would be more apt a metaphor.
 
Last edited:
Apathia said:
I haven't missed that.
It's a qualitative, symbological, linguistic difference, not a quantitative, mathematical difference.



By using your unique lingustic device, numbers are made into symbols for metaphysical objects.
You are not doing mathemtics. You are using mathematical terms and elements metaphorically.



I do see the qualitative difference. That's why I'm having so much trouble with your game plan.

But then again, its not a simple distinction. Continually we play off what is at one time an element as a relation and what is at one time a relation as an element. Often in the same sentence we jump a word from one mode of meaning to the other.



The "I" is merely self-referencing, not a metaphysical enitity.
So, yes, "I" is both Local and Non-Local.
Local as opposed to Non-local is a play of referencing and distinction where an element may be at one time local to a collection and another time non-local to the same collection.
No element is permenatly local or permenantly non-local. Nor do numbers have permenant non-local forms.
At least not in a quantitative sense.

Go ahead and play with metaphorical qualities.
But realize you cannot calculate with them.
You can only calculate with your "crisp" numbers.
The non-local foirms (The mushy ones as opposed to the crisp ones) aren't quantities and aren't logical objects.

But wait, they're supposed to be relations, aren't they?

OH, I forgot the device.
You get
Relation Elements
Element Realtions
Relation Relations
Element Elements

Of course I'm
(let me say it for you)
Wrong.

Ah, "Mushy Numbers"
Just please try to contain this mushiness, so that the whole of mathematics doesn't become an indeterminative slush.

Will we see the interaction of thye Soggy and the Crisp?

[QUOTE}By the way, Singularity's self reference is exactly what's between Locl and Non-local things.[/QUOTE}


You're still mushying things uo with this "between."
"interpenetrate" would be more apt a metaphor.
Click to expand...

Well I’m glad to see you back in stride on this thread Apathia.

Apparently the mushiness is precisely what he can not contain as the indeterminate slush is all he seems able to present.

You know I’ve been waiting to hear ‘Soggy/Crisp Interaction’ for some time now which would later be followed by people being accused of ‘Soggy only’ or ‘Crisp only’ ‘thinking’ and thus not getting the full ‘Sogginess’ or ‘Crispness’ of his notions. Not to mention the biweekly claim that its ‘simple beauty’ is beyond us.
 
Last edited:
Oh, it's just that this time the temptation to reply won.
Usually I tell myself, "You don't want to go there."

What he does to mathematics with his unique lingustic abstraction of many names, is bound to come up to contradiction after contradiction.

But I don't think that bothers him in the least, for he wants mathematics to be "soggy."

Remember this picture?
40268~The-Persistence-of-Memory-c-1931-Posters.jpg


Doron likes it.
I like it.
Doron wants it to be a statement about mathematical time.
Sure there are people who take it as an atrtistic statement about the Theory of Relativity.
But here's the thing, the Theory of Relativity, as any mathematical theory, gives a precise calculation of how time is warped.
It's very crisp.
Doron's program tries to mix quantity and quality in the same stew, so that qualities get a "cardinal" measure and quantities get fuzzy, or incomplete, so to speak.

You can't blame him for trying. There's something attractive about finding a way to objectify qualities and subjectify quantities.
Objectify qualities and we can have an objective morality where what's right can in a sense be calculated.
Subjectify quantities and we're not mere statistics. I'm not a number but a free man.
Doron has his own answer to Dualism.
It's not the only way out oif the dillema, but it's his, his very own religion.

Unfortunately the cost of it is to sogg mathematics.
 
Apathia said:
Oh, it's just that this time the temptation to reply won.
Usually I tell myself, "You don't want to go there."

What he does to mathematics with his unique lingustic abstraction of many names, is bound to come up to contradiction after contradiction.

But I don't think that bothers him in the least, for he wants mathematics to be "soggy."

Remember this picture?
[qimg]http://h1.ripway.com/Apathia/40268~The-Persistence-of-Memory-c-1931-Posters.jpg[/qimg]

Doron likes it.
I like it.
Doron wants it to be a statement about mathematical time.
Sure there are people who take it as an atrtistic statement about the Theory of Relativity.
But here's the thing, the Theory of Relativity, as any mathematical theory, gives a precise calculation of how time is warped.
It's very crisp.
Doron's program tries to mix quantity and quality in the same stew, so that qualities get a "cardinal" measure and quantities get fuzzy, or incomplete, so to speak.

You can't blame him for trying. There's something attractive about finding a way to objectify qualities and subjectify quantities.
Objectify qualities and we can have an objective morality where what's right can in a sense be calculated.
Subjectify quantities and we're not mere statistics. I'm not a number but a free man.
Doron has his own answer to Dualism.
It's not the only way out oif the dillema, but it's his, his very own religion.

Unfortunately the cost of it is to sogg mathematics.
Click to expand...

I entirely agree and have always liked that picture myself. No, certainly, we can not blame him for trying. Vagueness and indeterminacy have their own enticing appeal; some are drawn to them like moths to a flame. It is part of our flexibility that allows us to function effectively since we are not inherently just logical machines. However it is also our downfall that we must overcome with definitive terms, concepts and language like mathematics in order for us to realize our full potential. So blame him for trying, no. For trying, failing and still trying the same arguments again and again dressed up with just different words, without apparently learning anything, for that we can blame no one but him.
 
Apathia said:
But then again, its not a simple distinction. Continually we play off what is at one time an element as a relation and what is at one time a relation as an element.
Click to expand...

It is a simple and a qualitative distinction.

a) Relation is always non-local.

b) A point (which is an element) is always local.

c) A line segment (which is an element) is always non-local w.r.t to a point that is on it, but the same line segment can be local w.r.t another line segment or a point that are not on it.

Also a line segment is always local w.r.t a relation.

The (c) case is the one that you have troubles to get, so here are the cases:

1) A line segment is always non-local w.r.t to a point that is on it, for example:

__.__

2) The same line segment can be local w.r.t another line segment or a point that are not on it, for example:

__ __.__ . (the line segment in the middle is local w.r.t the line segment on its left or w.r.t the point on its right.

3) __ + __ = ____ , where the line segments are local w.r.t + or = relations.

In order to get (1),(2),(3) plase read http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OMPT.pdf pages pages 22 - 24.

Also you do not get Singularity's self reference as the bridging between the local AND the non-local.

These qualitative differences are used indirectly as quantitative differences only under the Non-locality\Locality Bridging.
Apathia said:
Unfortunately the cost of it is to sogg mathematics.
Click to expand...
Apathia said:
By using your unique lingustic device, numbers are made into symbols for metaphysical objects.
Click to expand...

What you call Mathematics is the limited case of weak emergence, where the Whole is the sum of its parts.

Organic Mathematics is a non-standard Strong Emergence Theory, where the Whole is greater than the sum of the (not its, but the) Parts.

In order to start to get it please read at least http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OMPT.pdf page 17.

Apathia said:
Relation Relations
Element Elements
Click to expand...

Some example: = + (what you call relation relation) is meaningless at OM.

Some example: 1 __ (what you call element element) is meaningless at OM.

Only relation element or element relation can have a meaning at OM.

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

In other words Apathia, your criticism is based on a fundamental misunderstanding, and therefore it is not relevant, in this case.

First make your homework before you air your view about OM.

Your fandametal mistake Apathia is that you have a "crisp notion" of what Math is not.

There is no difference between you, jsfisher or The Man that have a "crisp notion" of what Math is.

Your both "crisp notions" are wrong, because you do not get that OM is a non-standard Strong Emeregence, that cannot be understood by using Standard or Weak Strong Emeregence.
The Man said:
For trying, failing and still trying the same arguments again and again dressed up with just different words,...
Click to expand...
The Man said:
I can understand your assertion
Click to expand...
On the contrary to Obama's slogan:

NO, YOU CAN'T!
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
In other words Apathia, your criticism is based on a fundamental misunderstanding, and therefore it is not relevant, in this case.

First make you homework before you air your view about OM.
Click to expand...

Wow! Talk about biting the hand....

Oh, well. Now, back to an earlier question. You'd said your notion of between was "derived directly form the must have property of any collection of all distinct objects (the standard mathematical notion)." What property of any collection would that be?
 
Apathia said:
You can't blame him for trying. There's something attractive about finding a way to objectify qualities and subjectify quantities.
Objectify qualities and we can have an objective morality where what's right can in a sense be calculated.
Subjectify quantities and we're not mere statistics. I'm not a number but a free man.
Doron has his own answer to Dualism.
It's not the only way out oif the dillema, but it's his, his very own religion.

Unfortunately the cost of it is to sogg mathematics.
Click to expand...

That it is a religions is very clear. As for it warping Mathematics, it didn't have to be so. Had Doron explored his notions as a philosophic point of view and then looked towards how that might influence a new branch of Mathematics, he'd have been fine. He didn't do that. Instead, his took them as not a view, but the view, the only possible view which in turn led to contradiction with most of Mathematics.

More unfortunate is that it appears Doron's notions are not based on any sort of new insight, but on a complete misunderstandings of some basic principals.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
That it is a religions is very clear.
Click to expand...
You are right, weak emergence became the dogma of the mathematical science.

It is about time to change this dogma, in order to avoid this beautiful science to be some kind of a religion (which is the exact state of Standard Math).

jsfisher said:
Instead, his took them as not a view, but the view, the only possible view ...
Click to expand...
This is the very notion of the Organic view, to gather different mathematical branches into a one framework, where each current or future developed branches, will be developed without disconnected from The Tree of Mathematics.

By your alternative, where each mathematical framework is totally disconnected, you cannot use the term "Brach", because it has a meaning only under a one organic framework, exactly as Organic Mathematics claims.
jsfisher said:
More unfortunate is that it appears Doron's notions are not based on any sort of new insight, but on a complete misunderstandings of some basic principals.
Click to expand...
This is the typical conclusion of a person that uses weak emergence as a dogma.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
It is a simple and a qualitative distinction.

a) Relation is always non-local.
Click to expand...

Of course. But you do see don't you that we speak of relations of relations, so that one realtion is in the Local slot and the other in the Non-Local slot?
I guess not.

Also you do not get Singularity's self reference as the bridging between the local AND the non-local.
Click to expand...

I see what you do with this. It's a fascinating device.
But the trouble comes down to your making of the non-local a domain.
Yes, I know, there's Non-Local in its "self state." and then non-local as one end of the bridge. But these two keep getting conflated with each other.
And that makes for confusing contradictions.

BTW I like the "Bridging" metaphor much better than this "between" business that makes instant inconsistancy.

What you call Mathematics is the limited case of weak emergence, where the Whole is the sum of its parts.

Organic Mathematics is a non-standard Strong Emergence Theory, where the Whole is greater than the sum of the (not its, but the) Parts.
Click to expand...

Math people, is there such a thing in mathematics as to deal with emerging properties?

I'm inclined to give Doron the point here if mathematics has no way to describe emergence.
Though I'm not keen on some kind of retrofit to arithmetic and algebra such that sums are indeterminate or a range of different values.

In order to start to get it please read at least http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OMPT.pdf page 17.
Click to expand...

In other words Apathia, your criticism is based on a fundamental misunderstanding, and therefore it is not relevant, in this case.

First make your homework before you air your view about OM.
Click to expand...

I've probably spent more time wit your various .pdfs than anyone here.
As the others have expirenced, when I go to the pages you cite, I find merely a repeat of the same dense verbage without any clarifying definitions or information.

I've had to grope my way through hitting, but mostly missing the intent of your presentation.

As the others, I am unable to find an ultimate coherence to your ideas.


Some example: = + (what you call Relation Relation) is meaningless at OM.

Some example: 1 __ ((what you call element element) is meaningless at OM.

Only relation element or element relation can have a meaning at OM.
Click to expand...

Are the combos Local/Local and Non-Local/Local also meaningless?
Are relation element and element relation the same thing?
I kind of hope not.

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

On the contrary to Obama's slogan:

NO, YOU CAN'T!
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]

I sure can't argue with that.
 
Again,

Your fandametal mistake Apathia is that you have a "crisp notion" of what Math is not.

There is no difference between you, jsfisher or The Man that have a "crisp notion" of what Math is.

Your both "crisp notions" are wrong, because you do not get that OM is a non-standard Strong Emeregence, that cannot be understood by using Standard or Weak Strong Emeregence.
Apathia said:
Are the combos Local/Local and Non-Local/Local also meaningless?
Click to expand...
Your question is meaningless.
Apathia said:
Are relation element and element relation the same thing?
Click to expand...

From parallel observation yes, from serial observation no.
Apathia said:
As the others, I am unable to find an ultimate coherence to your ideas.
Click to expand...
Because you try to get a non-standard Strong Emergence Reasoning in terms of Standard or Weak Strong Emergence.

Apathia said:
BTW I like the "Bridging" metaphor much better than this "between" business that makes instant inconsistancy.
Click to expand...

It is not a metaphor, it is a rigorous mathematical definition.

This time please read very carefully all of http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OMPT.pdf .

Be aware of the fact that I improve it all the time.
Apathia said:
Math people, is there such a thing in mathematics as to deal with emerging properties?
Click to expand...
Yes, but only in terms of Standard Strong Emergence, where the Whole is greater than the sum of its Parts.
 
Last edited:
First off, I need to make a correction. The "must have property" in question related to immediate successor and immediate predecessor, not between. I mistyped.

That said...
doronshadmi said:
Its completeness
Click to expand...

This is very surprising, Doron, since completeness is not a collection property.

Did you mean something else? The only restriction you'd imposed on the original "some collection" was that it have a cardinality > 1 (and that all its members be distinct objects, but that's already a given).
 
Apathia said:
Math people, is there such a thing in mathematics as to deal with emerging properties?

I'm inclined to give Doron the point here if mathematics has no way to describe emergence.
Click to expand...

In a context sensitive way, yes, Mathematics deals with emergence (at least insofar as I understand the term). If I may borrow Doron's necklace analogy, the necklace exceeds the sum of the beads and string separately. The beads have order and binding in the necklace they didn't have alone.

If I understand weak and strong emergence correctly, it isn't that the whole may exceed the sum of its parts (which is the only way I think Doron has used it), but that the whole can be different from its parts. The parts can lose their separate identity. In a real sense, 1 + 2 = 3 is an example of this in that two things are united into one thing, and the one thing has no distinguishable parts.

Again, it depends on context. Emergence consequences can appear or disappear depending on what's under consideration.
 
doronshadmi said:
Yes I know, the term all is used only as a decoration, isn't it jsfisher?
Click to expand...

Either way, completeness is not a collection property.

But let's also consider just how you used the term, all:
doronshadmi said:
it is derived directly form the must have property of any collection of all distinct objects (the standard mathematical notion).
Click to expand...

Your use of all is somewhat ambiguous.

You could have meant "any collection of all possible distinct objects", except then the word "any" jumps out as odd since there shouldn't be more than one of these things. Moreover, this wouldn't be a collection, either, but a proper class. You didn't say "the proper class of all distinct objects."

No, that interpretation doesn't work.

Doron, how often have you said something like "a set where all the members are distinct and order is not important"? Everything after "a set" is redundant. With you history of expression, it seemed more reasonable to assume you meant "any collection in which all members are distinct objects."

Not only was this second interpretation consistent with your style, it is also consistent with the original requirement, that the collection need only have cardinality > 1.

So, that was the interpretation of your words I used. Is there some other interpretation you intended that still maintains consistency with the cardinality requirement?

And where is this completeness property requirement coming from?
 
"magnitude of existence" definition

doronshadmi said:
Do you really do not get that Emptiness has the least magnitude (where "magnitude" is a measurement unit) of existence, and its opposite, called Fullness has the most magnitude of existence?

It is a straightforward notion.
Click to expand...

So in the phrase "magnitude of existence", you say that magnitude is a measurement unit. What is it measuring?
 
jsfisher said:
Again, it depends on context.
Click to expand...

Just tell to a mathematician that Cantor's second diagonal argument is not a proof of non-countability, but it is a proof of the incompleteness of any non-finite given collection, and you immediately see his ability to be opened to new ideas.

Just ask a mathematician to define a line in terms of dragging a point, and you will find that he uses this term without understand the consequences if this claim.

Just show to a mathematician that any collocation that he uses obeys the use of the universal quantifier "for all" that determined by him, and as a result of his determination there must be, for example, an immediate predecessor to y in the case of [x,y), and you will see that he does not understand the consequences if his own determinations.

Things first must be notions' dependent.

Without notions there is no context, and the notion that stands at the basis of the world "context" is exactly the string\bead bridging where the "con" is the string aspect and the "text" is the bead aspect of the bridging.

As long as the mathematicians do not get the notions of their own frameworks, this science will stay notionless mechanic action.
jsfisher said:
You could have meant "any collection of all possible distinct objects", except then the word "any" jumps out as odd since there shouldn't be more than one of these things. Moreover, this wouldn't be a collection, either, but a proper class.
Click to expand...
Look how twisted and complicated is the notion of this mathematician.

Instead of simply get the consequences of using the universal quantifier in [x,y) case (and as a result, there must be an immediate predecessor to y, that actually cannot be found and leads to contradiction) the mathematician will use a complicated maneuver in order to avoid the straightforward consequences of his own determinations.
jsfisher said:
a proper class
Click to expand...
This is the nice word that the mathematicians invented in order to avoid the contradictions of their own the determinations.

Instead of face them they through them to the pinky garbage can, called by them "proper class", and everybody are happy (but stay notationless).
jsfisher said:
And where is this completeness property requirement coming from?
Click to expand...
From your own determinations and use of the the universal quantifier in [x,y) case.
 
Last edited:
Little 10 Toes said:
So in the phrase "magnitude of existence", you say that magnitude is a measurement unit. What is it measuring?
Click to expand...
This is a beautiful question.

As I get it, Measuring is the notion that stands at the basis of the determination to understand many things by using a common principle that help us to compare them with each other.


According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure_theory the common principle is a collection of distenct elements (a set).
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Just tell to a mathematician that Cantor's second diagonal argument is not a proof of non-countability, but it is a proof of the incompleteness of any non-finite given collection, and you immediately see his ability to be opened to new ideas.
Click to expand...

You have previously alleged defects in Cantor's proof. As stated before, allegation doesn't equal fact. When pressed for fact, you fell flat. All you were able to demonstrate was your lack of understanding of Cantor's proof.

Just ask a mathematician to define a line in terms of dragging a point, and you will find that he uses this term without understand the consequences if this claim.
Click to expand...

You seem hung up on this poetic aside (and not my aside, by the way). Perhaps you should discuss it with its author to better understand what he meant rather than hound me with this straw man. No, wait, understanding isn't your goal, is it?

Just show to a mathematician that any collocation that he uses obeys the use of the universal quantifier "for all" that determined by him, and as a result of his determination there must be, for example, an immediate predecessor to y in the case of [x,y), and you will see that he does not understand the consequences if his own determinations.
Click to expand...

Multiple instances of nonsense, here. For starters, collocation? Did you really misspell collection that badly? Also, the original statement only required a collection have cardinality > 1. The ambiguous all (not for all, by the way) was introduced later as either movement of the goal posts or an irrelevant redundancy -- an ambiguity you have not yet resolved, by the way, Doron.

Then again, since understanding isn't your goal, I doubt you will address the ambiguity. Instead you will leave your grand string of relevance and poorly worded statements to lay cover for your bogus proclamation that completeness is a "must have" collection property.

...<gibberish>...
Instead of simply get the consequences of using the universal quantifier in [x,y) case (and as a result, there must be an immediate predecessor to y, that actually cannot be found and leads to contradiction) the mathematician will use a complicated maneuver in order to avoid the straightforward consequences of his own determinations.
Click to expand...

Again, you allege something, but you can not provide any proof. And again, instead of demonstrating your point, you display you lack of understanding of a simple construct, the universal qualifer in this case.

Be that as it may, here again for everyone's reference is Doron's original claim that's now under fire:
doronshadmi said:
for any given immediate successor of some collection that its cardinal > 1 there must be an immediate predecessor, and for any given immediate predecessor of some collection that its cardinal > 1 there must be an immediate successor.
Click to expand...

Note that the word all appears nowhere in the claim. Note also that Doron cannot support the claim.
 
doronshadmi said:
In other words Apathia, your criticism is based on a fundamental misunderstanding, and therefore it is not relevant, in this case.

First make your homework before you air your view about OM.

Your fandametal mistake Apathia is that you have a "crisp notion" of what Math is not.

There is no difference between you, jsfisher or The Man that have a "crisp notion" of what Math is.

Your both "crisp notions" are wrong, because you do not get that OM is a non-standard Strong Emeregence, that cannot be understood by using Standard or Weak Strong Emeregence.
Click to expand...

Did I not tell you it was only a matter of time before we were accused of being entirely too ‘crisp’.
 
jsfisher said:
an ambiguity you have not yet resolved, by the way, Doron.
Click to expand...

An ambiguity you have not yet resolved, by the way, jsfisher, which is a direct result of your limited Weak Emergence viewpoint, which is also a notionless mechanic action.
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
Did I not tell you it was only a matter of time before we were accused of being entirely too ‘crisp’.
Click to expand...

It is "crisp notion" in terms of a notionless mechanic action, something like dragging a point.
 
Last edited:
"magnitude of existence" definiton

doronshadmi said:
This is a beautiful question.

As I get it, Measuring is the notion that stands at the basis of the determination to understand many things by using a common principle that help us to compare them with each other.


According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure_theory the common principle is a collection of distenct elements (a set).
Click to expand...

Too bad you don't actually answer the question directly.

I'll make it simple, when you say "magnitude of exsistence", are you measuring the number of distinct objects in a collection?

[ ] Yes
[ ] No
 
Little 10 Toes said:
Too bad you don't actually answer the question directly.

I'll make it simple, when you say "magnitude of exsistence", are you measuring the number of distinct objects in a collection?

[ ] Yes
[ ] No
Click to expand...
[v]Yes (but instead of "distinct objects" I use "the existence of objects")

0 magnitude = no existing objects (Emptiness (the totality of non-existence)).

∞ magnitude = beyond existing objects (Fullness (the totality of existence)).

0 < n < ∞ , n magnitude = existing objects (the non-total existence).
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
An ambiguity you have not yet resolved, by the way, jsfisher, which is a direct result of your limited Weak Emergence viewpoint, which is also a notionless mechanic action.
Click to expand...

Ah the interaction of the credulous with the gullible, you just provide the ambiguities and expect those gullible enough to resolve them for themselves.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom