The only nonsense here is entirely your contribution to this dialog, because you are basically using an aggressive attitude about the content of my posts, which naturally prevents from you to really get what you read.
Well since you apparently have never aggressively or critically examined your own assertions, my timidly and simply accepting your nonsense would hardly be of any use to anyone (though that is obviously what you would like and insist upon).
It is quite simple to demonstrate how you miss what I write, for example:
My argument is about the minimal number of labels that a given point has with respect to a given space.
By following this argument you clearly get the following:
The minimal number of labels that a given point has with respect to 0-space is 0 labels (can be notated as {}).
A zero dimensional space would have just one point and again you could label that whatever you want.
The minimal number of labels that a given point has with respect to 1-space is 1 labels (can be notated as {x}).
The minimal number of labels that a given point has with respect to 2-space is 2 labels (can be notated as {x,y}).
The minimal number of labels that a given point has with respect to 3-space is 3 labels (can be notated as {x,y,z}).
...
The minimal number of labels that a given point has with respect to n-space is n labels (can be notated as {x,y,z,...,n}).
...
The minimal number of labels that a given point has with respect to ∞-space is ∞ labels (can be notated as {x,y,z,... }).
A 1 or multidimensional space would have an infinite number of points and again you could label them whatever you want or not at all. As I said before it often helps to label them in accordance with their ordering (coordinates). However when dealing with and particularly comparing different coordinate systems it is more productive to label them with something other then the coordinates of any one of those systems (usually a variable like “point A”).
Above you are specifically talking about the labeling of dimensions “{x,y,z,... }” and using “a given point” to establish the dimensions of your “spaces”.
Your " … a label just means a label" reasoning, leads to the following:
According to you The Man, you count the minimal numbers of points (and not the minimal number of labels of a given point) that exist under a given space, as follows:
0-space has at most 1 point.
1-space has at least 2 points.
2-space has at least 2 points.
3-space has at least 2 points.
...
n-space has at least 2 points.
...
∞-space has at least 2 points.
I am far better suited to explain my own reasoning than you, so see above.
Do you see the difference between my argument an your argument?
Do you now see the similarity of your “argument” and the informal definition of dimension?
Your argument has nothing to do with my argument, but since you are so aggressive you block yourself and do not get other’s arguments.
My assertions have everything to do with your “argument”, but since you are just so willing to timidly and simply accept anything you like to think (especially something ‘foggy’) you block yourself and do not get that.
So please calm down, reduce your aggression, which, I believe, will let you to get other’s arguments better.
First calm yourself down, then you will feel less inclined to project your agitation onto others. Second aggressively and critically attack and question your own notions and assertions, then others will feel less inclined to have to do it for you.
What is not clear in the following?
What I speficaly asked about it...
What “limits” are you referring to? You have certainly never limited yourself to the restrictions of your own assertions, not to mention that you have specifically decried the application of limits in what you call “Standard Math”.
The “limits” you’re referring to, particularly considering your expressed and apprent distain for, well, limits.
Since when the number of people that do not agree with a consistent argument, determine its validity or necessity w.r.t a given framework?
I said nothing about “the number of people that do not agree with a consistent argument”. Since when does the fact that no one but you needs your notions and assertions infer anything about people agreeing or disagreeing? Since when does a direct self-contradiction like “belongs to AND does not belong to” in any way constitute a “consistent argument” (unless of course you meant consistently self-inconsistent).
So first you attack, and then you ask.
Exactly what you should be doing Doron, aggressively and critically attacking and questioning your own notions and assertions. If you can show that you are actually doing that, I don’t think anyone would care what particular order you did that in. Having obviously abdicated that particular responsibility yourself, it then falls to others to do so in your stead.
By changing your aggressive attitude, you may get the difference between sums and fogs, and then you will get my argument.
I’ve gotten your argument Doron, you deliberately choose to live in your own “fog”, how ,well, ‘foggy’ for you.
Wrong The Man.
A space is defined without the need of any point or collection of points.
A space is measured by using points, where the numbers of measured values (labels) that are related to a given point is in direct ratio with the degree of the given space.
Look at your first post quoted in this post and the quote just above, oops your using points to define your ‘spaces’ again.
In that case we do not care about the non-local property of X but only about the local property of X with respect to Y upon some surface, which is non-local w.r.t both X and Y axis.
Who is this “we”? The fact of the matter remains that your “non-local” line can be specifically “local” in all dimensions but one, as well as your “non-local” ascription being simply self-contradictory.
You simply do not get it The Man, only a point is a local-only element.
Elements of higher spaces can be local or non-local w.r.t to other elements, but you totally ignore their non-local property and care only about their local property.
By using this limited reasoning, there is no wonder that you do not get Non-locality.
Furthermore, by using your “X axis is local w.r.t Y axis” you miss the additional view that X axis is both on AND not on Y axis, which is a non-local property that no point on Y axis has.
You still simply do not get that your “non-local” line is only a point in any orthogonal dimension or space. So not only do you have your self-contradictory “belongs to AND does not belong to” ascription of “non-local” you are now going to add the ridiculous and self-contradictory assertion that “X axis is both on AND not on Y axis”. You do so enjoy your “fog”.
“not mutually exclusive” means that there is no XOR connective between them.
No it just means that each of the concepts does not necessarily exclude the other. It in no way infers that one will not and/or can not make a choice between an action or decision they find to be logical XOR another they find to be ethical.
In that case they are sharable (both true) under a one framework, and OM is some effort to develop such a framework.
Yes they do not restrict some action or decision from being considered both logical AND ethical. However your OM has no such "framework", based on its “non-local” ascription some action or decision could “belong to AND not belong to” something considered ethical AND logical. So your OM ethics and logic is just a dodge to posit whatever you want as being “non-locally” ethical and logical. (as this thread has clearly shown).
On the contrary you are doing your best in order to save Ethics and Logics as two concepts that can’t share a one framework.
As I said they are not mutually exclusive, so considering something as both logical AND ethical is not inherently problematic. However they are not mutually inclusive either. Something considered ethical does not automatically confer logic (particularly binary logic) and something being logical does not constitute it being ethical.
Why is that The Man? (after all if they are not disjoint, so they can share common things that may help us to develop them under a one framework).
Because they are not mutually inclusive. However ethics unfettered by logic is by definition irrational and ethics entirely constrained by logic (particularly binary logic) tends to be uncompassionate. Your OM “framework” is highly questionable and suspect both logically and ethically as are your obviously paranoid motivations and stated reasons for positing it, as you repeat in the post I just quoted from. Had you actually studied history you would have found (as I have told you already) that the imposition of a singular (generally binary) logical (with us XOR against us) and particularly ethical (good XOR bad) framework has been the hallmark of tyrants throughout the ages.
Again:
<subsequent nonsense snipped>
Doron your notions and assertions about logic and ethics are at best uninformed, misguided and naive, at worst they are just illogical and unethical.
