doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
Yes, I see the consistency of my argument and the informal definition of dimension, which is something that you don’t see.The Man said:
Deeper than primes
- Thread starter doronshadmi
- Start date
-
- Tags
- deeper than primes
- Status
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
Not even close, as clearly demonstrated in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5813673&postcount=9424 (you ignored {}, and arbitrarily started at {x}, which clearly demonstrates your shallow reasoning about this fine subject).The Man said:
Here is a concrete example of your shallow reasoning about this fine subject:
and we clearly see that {} is ignored by your shallow reasoning.The Man said:
Furthermore, your shallow reasoning can’t get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5816833&postcount=9438 and /or http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5816889&postcount=9439.
There are limits, but they can’t be reached by infinitely many “steps”.The Man said:
Since Non-locality is considered in addition to Locality (such that there is an OR connective betwwen these concepts under a one framework).The Man said:
I am doing it all the time. On the contrary you are so afraid to touch, re-research, re-consider anything that does fit to your local-only reasoning, which was wrong even 2,300 years ago.The Man said:
You can’t The Man because you are using a local-only reasoning.The Man said:
Oops you do not distinguish between definition and measurement.The Man said:
You still do not get that, for example, an orthogonal X line w.r.t to Y line, is on and not on that Y line, which is a property that no point on Y line has.The Man said:
What a ridiculous twisted maneuver, The Man.The Man said:
By your own words:
1) Ethics and Logics do not necessarily exclude each others (OR connective is sufficient enough for the linkage of Ethics with Logics under a one framework).
2) One can choose to find XOR between Logics and Ethics.
I choose (1), you choose (2), so?
The Man said:
1) By your own words Ethics AND Logics do not necessarily exclude each others (OR connective is sufficient enough for the linkage of Ethics with Logics under a one framework).The Man said:
2) Since you are using a local-only reasoning, you can’t get Non-locality.
In other words, you have no meaningful argument because Ethics\Logics linkage is based on OR connective under a one framework exactly as Non-locality\Locality linkage is based on OR connective under a one framework (Non-local AND Local is a contradiction by OM and so is Ethics AND Logics, but your local-only reasoning can’t get that).
You may claim that X Axis which is orthogonal to Y axis is both Local AND non-local w.r.t Y axis, according to OM’s reasoning.
Since all you do is local-only reasoning, you can’t get that that X Axis, which is orthogonal to Y axis, is only non-local w.r.t Y axis, exactly because it is on AND not on Y axis (which is a property that no point on Y axis has).
By your local-only reasoning you see only Locality everywhere, so iF some one uses an additional property you immediately get it as Local AND Non-local in order to satisfy your disagreement with Non-locality by forcing on OM a contradiction. But you see The Man, this shallow and aggressive attitude is a direct result of your axiomatic disagreement with Non-locality.
What you write is a perfect example of a person that gets things only by Black\White view, which prevents any chance of synthesis.The Man said:
OM’s reasoning is based Complementary Logic, where two opposites complement each others instead of contradict each other, as clearly shown, for example in:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/16669828/EtikaE
We can’t expect much form a person that gets anything by Black\White view (which naturally prevents any foggy view of the considered subject).
Here is a concrete example form The Man’s abilitiy to grasp this fine subject:
A shallow reply of a person that uses a shallow reasoning.The Man said:
You unethical behaviour is clearly exposed here, you attack OM without any effort to first understand its foundations (as briefly shown in http://www.scribd.com/doc/16669828/EtikaE) as clealry shown by this part:
The Man said:
Last edited:
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
Skeptic, this thread is about the foundations of that building.
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
I wish to refine this part:
As can be seen, there is an OR connective between the "horizontal" (non-local) aspect and the "vertical" (local) aspect of a non-local number along the real-line, where by OM the real line itself is not a collection, but it is an atomic ur-element.
In the case of numbers like 0 or 1, only the "vertical" (local) ascept is considered.
If X,Y axis are geometrical forms, then the orthogonal aspect between X,Y is only non-local, as shown in the quate above.
There is also OR connective between X,Y axis (here X,Y are not geometrical forms but it is a 2d representation of the real line) as can be seen in the case of the non-local numbers 0.111...[base 2] and 0.222...[base 3], for example:doronshadmi said:
As can be seen, there is an OR connective between the "horizontal" (non-local) aspect and the "vertical" (local) aspect of a non-local number along the real-line, where by OM the real line itself is not a collection, but it is an atomic ur-element.
In the case of numbers like 0 or 1, only the "vertical" (local) ascept is considered.
If X,Y axis are geometrical forms, then the orthogonal aspect between X,Y is only non-local, as shown in the quate above.
Last edited:
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2005
- Messages
- 24,532
Nonsense. This thread is about the gibberish, contradictions, inconsistencies, misunderstandings, and just plain fail that one person named Doron Shadmi can imagine.
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
jsfisher thinks that the proof without words that S=(2a+2b+2c+2d+...) < X is Geometry:
just because his abstraction ability totally depends on strings of symbols.
EDIT:
In http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5806151&postcount=9384 I also provided strings of symbols in order to express the notion of fogs and sums, but jsfisher's abstraction training is not sufficient enough in order to deal with fogs (also known as non-local numbers).
Last edited:
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
Doron the fundamental difference that you are still not understanding (most likely do to your deliberate “fog”) is that a point need not be labeled with some particular set of coordinates and as I stated before when comparing different coordinate systems it is useful to label points in a way not based on the coordinates of any particular system. You still seem to be confusing (perhaps deliberately) the label of some point, its coordinates in some particular coordinate system and the dimensions of some space. Again you are specifically talking about the labels of the dimensions of some space and defining the number of dimensions of that space by the number of coordinates needed to identify a given point (the informal definition of dimension).
No just the lack of, well, proof (with or without words).
Let me help you, again you have been defining the dimensions of your ‘spaces’ by the number of coordinates need to identify “a given point” (the informal definition of dimension).
Except of course for those elements which are represented by and used to define your “n” and your “k”. Which would be the…(it’s ok you can say it)… dimensions and points of that space.
Well those posts of yours do certainly demonstrate that I’m far better suited to explain my own reasoning than you. Blow your own horn much Doron?
Don’t see? So I pointed out to you that you are simply asserting the informal definition of dimension by asking…
And you respond by claiming I didn’t see that when I pointed it out to you? Your “fog” is really getting the best of you Doron.
You keep confusing the label some point may have, with the coordinates that point may have and the dimensions of some space containing that point, all very “fine” distinctions.
We can clearly see that you are confusing the labling of dimensions with the labling of points, but we already saw that in your other post.
Ok, so what are those limits? You’ve just basically asserted that they are not infinite so they must then be finite.
There is no OR in your “belongs to AND does not belong to” that is what makes it a contradiction. If your claim is that it is your local” OR “non-local” that alleviates this contradiction then you are simply asserting that no one needs your self-contradictory “non-local” ascription.
The truly sad part Doron is I actually think you believe that statement.
Math is changing all the time Doron even as we speak, if you actually knew anything about it you would understand that.
Again with your loco-only labels.
They are already distinguished from each other, try looking them up sometime, you’re the only one trying to conflate them.
You still don’t get that “is on and not on” is just self contradictory, but what would you expect from your deliberate “fog”.
If you are going to assert something ‘by my own words’ then use my own words, without adding your own. I certainly said nothing about “(OR connective is sufficient enough for the linkage of Ethics with Logics under a one framework)”.
Nope.
That was simply false the first time you wrote it and it will still be false no matter how many times you write it.
By your own “OR” assertion before, no one needs your self –contradictory “Non-locality”
Did you just miss or simply ignore the parts where I specifically referred to…
Once again it is just you making contradictory statements that makes your statements, well, contradictory. That you want to claim your directly self-contradictory “Non-locality” as a dodge for that is just your problem.
Well if you had actually read what I wrote you would see that I was arguing against a simplistic and specifically against a “Black\White view” even a multilayer one as you describe as your “EEM”. I guess your “fog” was acting up again and you just could not read what I actually wrote.
Well there we have it ladies a germs, the cry of the tyrant that any disagreement with their grandiose notions must undoubtedly be “unethical behaviour”. As I have said before Doron you are trying to enact the very aspects of the tyrants you had previously claimed to despise and it is apparently your “fog” that is keeping your from seeing your own tyrannical reflection in the mirror.
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
The Man said:
The Man these replies actually summaries the rest of your last post, which is characterized by fundamental misunderstanding of what you read.The Man said:
By your replies above it is clearly seen how you ignore the bolded parts that explicitly state that no points (or any other elements) are needed in order to define a space, and continue to argue about "the number of coordinates need to identify “a given point” " or "elements which are represented by and used to define your “n” and your “k”. Which would be the…(it’s ok you can say it)… dimensions and points of that space."
No wonder that by this attitude you don't say any meaningful thing about what I really write.
Again, my argument is about the minimal number of labels that a point has w.r.t to a given space.The Man said:
As aboute spaces, I do not define a space by any related element when I write:
but since your reasoning is local-only, you translate everything to points or things that are related to points. But this is your problem.doronshadmi said:
You do not get it yet, here it is again:The Man said:
Locality=(belongs XOR not-belongs)
Non-locality=(belongs AND not-belongs)
(Locality AND Non-locality) is a contradiction.
(Locality OR Non-locality) is not a contradiction.
The same thing holds about (Ethics OR Logics) which is consistent by OM.
Again, I claim tha you have an axiomatic disagreement with Non-locality, and all you posts are based on this axiomatic disagreement .
EMM is definitely with disagreement with Black\White view as the one and only one strong form of reasoning, as used by classical Logics, so your reply is a load of nonsense about this subject.The Man said:
The Man, you reasoning is based on collections of elements, but you simply miss the qualitative Non-local and Local atomic aspects that actually enable them.
As a result your collection-only reasoning is not sufficient enough to get the real limits of the mathematical science which are:
Locality (totally finite, that has no predecessor)\Non-locality (total infinity, that has no successor), which are the qualitative foundations of Complexity an Quantity.
Last edited:
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
n= 1 to ∞
k= 0 to n-1
k-space is local w.r.t n-space, and n-space is non-local w.r.t k-space.
A space is atomic (not local and not non-local) w.r.t itself.
Spaces are independent of each other (not defined by each other) because they are atoms, but if linked they provide complex results (by linkage they are mutually independent, such that Mutuality is the integral aspect and Independency is differential aspect of that linkage), for example :
0-space, 1-space, 2-space or 3-space are independent of each other.
0-space\1-space linkage provides measured 1-space, which is a complex (0-space is used as a 1-labeled measurement tool of that complex, where 1-space is non-local w.r.t 0-space).
0-space\1-space\2-space linkage provides measured 2-space, which is a complex (0-space is used as a 2-labeled measurement tool, 1-space is used as a 1-labeled measurement tool of that complex, where 2-space is non-local w.r.t 0-space or 1-space).
0-space\1-space\2-space\3-space linkage provides measured 3-space, which is a complex (0-space is used as a 3-labeled measurement tool, 1-space is used as a 2-labeled measurement tool, 2-space is used as a 1-labeled measurement tool of that complex, where 3-space is non-local w.r.t 0-space, 1-space or 2-space).
etc. … ad infinituum, where ∞-space is totally non-local w.r.t to any other space and 0-space is totally local w.r.t any other space.
k= 0 to n-1
k-space is local w.r.t n-space, and n-space is non-local w.r.t k-space.
A space is atomic (not local and not non-local) w.r.t itself.
Spaces are independent of each other (not defined by each other) because they are atoms, but if linked they provide complex results (by linkage they are mutually independent, such that Mutuality is the integral aspect and Independency is differential aspect of that linkage), for example :
0-space, 1-space, 2-space or 3-space are independent of each other.
0-space\1-space linkage provides measured 1-space, which is a complex (0-space is used as a 1-labeled measurement tool of that complex, where 1-space is non-local w.r.t 0-space).
0-space\1-space\2-space linkage provides measured 2-space, which is a complex (0-space is used as a 2-labeled measurement tool, 1-space is used as a 1-labeled measurement tool of that complex, where 2-space is non-local w.r.t 0-space or 1-space).
0-space\1-space\2-space\3-space linkage provides measured 3-space, which is a complex (0-space is used as a 3-labeled measurement tool, 1-space is used as a 2-labeled measurement tool, 2-space is used as a 1-labeled measurement tool of that complex, where 3-space is non-local w.r.t 0-space, 1-space or 2-space).
etc. … ad infinituum, where ∞-space is totally non-local w.r.t to any other space and 0-space is totally local w.r.t any other space.
Last edited:
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
Fogs are natural results of the irreducibility of Non-locality to Locality and the non-increaseability of Locality to Non-locality.
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
Here is a quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimension :
"In mathematics, the dimension of an object is an intrinsic property, independent of the space in which the object may happen to be embedded. For example: a point on the unit circle in the plane can be specified by two Cartesian coordinates but one can make do with a single coordinate (the polar coordinate angle), so the circle is 1-dimensional even though it exists in the 2-dimensional plane. This intrinsic notion of dimension is one of the chief ways in which the mathematical notion of dimension differs from its common usages"
This is simply wrong, because in both examples a point (0-space) has 2 labels w.r.t 2-space, where in one case
it is (x,y)(=Cartesian coordinate) and on the other it is (length,angle)(= polar coordinate).
On the other hand a circle's circumference that is not related to a given plane (2-space), can be considered as a 1-space.
In this case 0-space is a 1-labeled measurement tool of the circle's circumference, but then we are dealing with a complex.
"In mathematics, the dimension of an object is an intrinsic property, independent of the space in which the object may happen to be embedded. For example: a point on the unit circle in the plane can be specified by two Cartesian coordinates but one can make do with a single coordinate (the polar coordinate angle), so the circle is 1-dimensional even though it exists in the 2-dimensional plane. This intrinsic notion of dimension is one of the chief ways in which the mathematical notion of dimension differs from its common usages"
This is simply wrong, because in both examples a point (0-space) has 2 labels w.r.t 2-space, where in one case
it is (x,y)(=Cartesian coordinate) and on the other it is (length,angle)(= polar coordinate).
On the other hand a circle's circumference that is not related to a given plane (2-space), can be considered as a 1-space.
In this case 0-space is a 1-labeled measurement tool of the circle's circumference, but then we are dealing with a complex.
Last edited:
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
The Man said:
The Man, when you are looking the the mirror all you see is !-reasoning, which is your own tyrannical reflection in the mirror.
If I look at the mirror I see also ?-reasoning in addition to !-reasoning, where there is an OR connective between them.
In other words a real tyrant (which is you) does his best (as you actually do all along this thead) in order to eliminate the aspcet of ?-reasoning.
You are totally cloased under your only !-reasoning, such that you simply do not wish to deal with the aspcet of ?-reasoning, as clearly seen in http://www.scribd.com/doc/16669828/EtikaE .
But we can't expect much form a person that uses a thought experiment, which is based on heating one's head with a hammer in order to prove that the hammer has stronger objectivity than one's awarness of that hammer ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4117846&postcount=40 ).
Furthermore, The Man claims that such thought experiment is used as a good basis for his philosophy of life.
Last edited:
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2005
- Messages
- 24,532
So much wrong in so few words. How do you accomplish so much, doron?
(1) Your AutoCAD drawing is not a proof of anything, except your lack of an understanding of what constitutes a proof.
(2) S = X.
(3) That's an equality relationship, not geometry.
(4) I have no dependence upon symbols to deal with abstractions. Nor do I muddle things as you do, Doron.
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
Again what your have written is you defining the dimensions of some space by the coordinates needed to specify some “given point” in that space. That you simply choose to ignore your own definition of the dimensions of some space (the informal definition of dimension) is simply your problem.
Again the labels your are specifically referring to are of the demensions of some space not the labels of some point in that space, but you are using the points in that space to define those dimensions of the space you are labeling. Again that you simply can not see this must be a result of your deliberate “fog”.
I think we all ‘got’ that Doron, your “Non-locality=(belongs AND not-belongs)” is simply self-contradictory and your “Locality OR Non-locality” infers that no one (again except you) actually needs your self-contradictory “Non-locality” ascription.
Again Ethics AND Logic is a better combination, but the two can be in direct conflict requiring an OR/XOR choice. Your purported “framework” by permitting contradictions fails as that very “framework” permits the contravening of that “framework” by the contradiction it permits as the basis of that "framework". As I have tried to explane to you before.
No it is just the self –contradiction of your “Non-locality” ascription that disagrees with, well, itself.
The “Black\White view” or as you put it “”friend”\”enemy” (Black\White) reasoning” is your own asserted basis of your “EMM”. It is what you start with to create your "EMM" coloring book.
No Doron my reasoning is based on, well, reason, which at times just happens to also involve collections, even infinite collections.
Last edited:
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
“?-reasoning”? So you just don’t know what your reasoning is? I’m sure that surprises no one on this thread. Just as I’m sure that you are quite content in your deliberate “fog” as well as your “?-reasoning”, as you insisting that others must simply accept your “fog” and “?-reasoning” clearly exemplifies your “?-reasoning”.
As your “?-reasoning” and memory fails you again, I specifically recommend against such experimentation and it was your own stated “head/hummer interaction” that I recommended as a possible “philosophy of life”. How is one “heating one's head with a hammer”? Must be a very hot hammer (still a hot hummer usually works for me).
(What? It’s just a tricked out SUV)
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
Must be why I usually find myself living on the ground floor or in a basement!!!!
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
A typical reply of a person that thinks that my proof without words is Geometry, exactly because his abstraction abilities toally depends on strings of symbols.
Last edited:
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
The Man said:
You are confusing between a name that is given to some space (by the maximum number of labels that an 0-scape is used in order to measure the given space) and the space itself, which is atomic by nature (and this atomic property is its real definition).The Man said:
In other words, your labelled-oriented reasoning simply can’t grasp http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5822729&postcount=9449.
Again, the maximum number of labels that are needed in order to measure some space is not the definition of that space, but simply used also as a tool to distingiush between atomic aspects of spaces. The tool that is used to distinguish between atomics aspects is not the atomic aspects at their self state, where the self state is the real definition of a space.
0 < n < ∞ < ∞
0-space and ∞-space are not measurable at thier self state.
n-space is the finite complex measurment of some n-space, which is atomic at its self state.
∞-space is the infinite complex measurment of some ∞-space, where ∞-space is a fog (complex only state) that does not have self atomic nature.
We can Cleary see it in the case of any named-space, that has no measured labels at its self state since a space at its self state is atomic (not local AND not non-local).
∞-space is exactly the irreducibility of ∞-space (total Non-locality) to 0-space (total Locality) AND the non-increaseability of 0-space (total Locality) to ∞-space (total Non-locality).
∞-space is the basis of fogs, no matter if converges or diverges collection is considered.
Again you have failed to distinguish between the definition of a space by its atomic aspect, and its name that is given by the number of labels that are atteched to 0-space, which is used as one of the muasurment tools of the given space.
You simply stacked under the complex result of a measured space and have no ability to get its atomic nature, which is not local AND not non-local.
In other words, you don’t understand spaces at all, and specifically you don’t understand the real meaning of names like 0-space, n-space, ∞-space or ∞-space.
Last edited:
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
The foundations of some building is the ground itself, which is more fundamentel than any floor of that building.
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
No you do not get it The Man, since you have an axiomatic disagreement about Non-locality.The Man said:
The Man, since you have an axiomatic disagreement about Non-locality, you have no valid argument about OM.The Man said:
Here you can’t get that The “Black\White view” is not the basis of OM’s reasoning, but it is used as a starting point that demonstrates the need to be developed beyond the “Black\White view”.The Man said:
Your understating skills to get EMM do not exist.
Yes I know The Man, your reasoning is some joyful accident.The Man said:
Last edited:
ddt
Mafia Penguin
How can that be? You haven't yet shown any axiom about non-locality, despite that we've asked numerous times about it . 5,374 posts and counting...
Last edited:
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
A typical question of a person that gets everything by “!” mark (Black\White view), and as a result he does not understand “?” mark as a non Black\White view.The Man said:
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
If X belongs XOR does not belong to a given domain, then X is local w.r.t that domain.How can that be? You haven't yet shown any axiom about non-locality, despite that we've asked numerous times about it . 5,374 posts and counting...
If X belongs NXOR does not belong to a given domain, then X is non-local w.r.t that domain.
More details are in:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/16542245/OMPT (pages 22-24, pages 26-29)
A person that uses only local view gets Non-locality as a contradiction.
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
Can some one translate that into English for me?
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
Some correction of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5825100&postcount=9458:
Instead of:
Instead of:
It has to be:doronshadmi said:
doronshadmi said:
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
Here is the quote of what you said about “philosophical view of existence”The Man said:
And here is a quote of you, which provides the answer to your question: “How is one “hitting one's head with a hammer”?”The Man said:
By your thought experiment you clearly use a person that hits his own head with an hammer, or using some other person to do the job of hitting some person’s head with an hammer.The Man said:
You also added that:
What existing law The Man, is it some physical law that prevents the actual existence of such an experiment?The Man said:
Probably no, so this existing law is actually based also on Ethics, because only by classical Logics there is nothing that prevents the actual existence of your “research project”. So your “**” is derived from some linkage of Ethics with Logics.
Furthermore, the non-actual existence of such an experiment is derived from the deep understanding of the goal to protect and develop Complexity and specially the Complexity that is aware of itself and it is also responsible for the results of its actions.
So it is about time to tell also to yourself that we have to do our best in order to develop a comprehensive framework where Etichs and Logics reinforce each other.
OM is some preliminary effort to develop such a framework, as written in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5814052&postcount=9429, and you, The Man, are doing your “best” in order to block any development of such a project, and the reason is your Black\White view about Ethics and Logics, as shown in that quote:
Black=“ethics unfettered by logic”The Man said:
White=”ethics entirely constrained by logic”
The Man, don’t you think that it is about time to be developed beyond this “Black\White view” ?
You disagree with OM's direction about such a project, and this is fine with me.
Please Let us know for a change what are your suggestions in order to develop a non “Black\White view” version
of Ethics\Logics framework?
Last edited:
Hitting, Doron, hitting.
ETA: We'll start with the basics, before attempting to explain the other levels of misunderstanding you are achieving.
Last edited:
Complexity
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,242
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
Corrected, thank you.
Please provide some concrete examples.
Done, all along this thread.
Last edited:
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
A sad case Doron,beyond help.
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
Not a sad case if you read and get http://www.scribd.com/doc/16669828/EtikaE .
That doesn't seem to me to take in the full non-locality.
I'd add that when X neither belongs to nor does not belong to and at the same time both belongs to and does not belong to to a given domain, it is non-local with respect to that domain.
The thing about non-locality is that it negates negation and empties emptiness.
A is not-A but at the same time it is not-not-A, and it is A.
But it seems to me you are trying to use a kind of non-localized locality or a localized non-locality, so that you can have a new logic to superceed the old and to enable what necessarily transcends logic to be captured in a logic.
Of course there are modal, fuzzy, intuitionist and other logics that set out to do somewhat the same. But yours is the only one that frames that as a meshing of Locality and Non-Nocality.
The localized non-locality or the non-localized locality creates a special, ontological realm or "magnitude" (in the "clouds") for indeterminate and
non-fixed quantites.
(Apathia once again throws the same old stuff against the wall to see what will stick or fall off this time around.)
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
Hi Apathia,
Please look at:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5825100&postcount=9458 and some coorection of it in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5825395&postcount=9465 before we continue.
Well, let's see. You missed the fact that The Man was pointing out your error in saying 'heating' rather than 'hitting'. You misunderstood when he pointed out that he was not recommending a head/hammer interaction despite what you alleged, and again when he endorsed your proposed head/hummer interaction. Is that enough?
Small correction of my post:
Make that:
The localized non-locality or the non-localized locality creates a special, ontological realm or "magnitude" (in the "clouds") for numbers of indeterminate and non-fixed quantites.
Thase are specifically the "Non-Local Numbers" of Doron's OM, such as irrational and trancendental numbers.
Make that:
The localized non-locality or the non-localized locality creates a special, ontological realm or "magnitude" (in the "clouds") for numbers of indeterminate and non-fixed quantites.
Thase are specifically the "Non-Local Numbers" of Doron's OM, such as irrational and trancendental numbers.
I have copied and pasted both into my File of Interesting Doron Posts.
If they address the issue I'm usually bugging you with, I'll continue with them.
If they are just the latest restatement of your program without clarification or expansion, I'll step back into the shadows.
It appears they don't address the matter of a full understanding of what Non-Locality means.
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2005
- Messages
- 24,532
ddt
Mafia Penguin
I see no axioms, only English word salad. We've gone over this already numerous times. My comment was really not meant that you try another time, only to point out what had already been established: that you're not capable of drawing up any axioms for your "theories".
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2008
- Messages
- 13,320
"Heating" (instead of "hitting") is a technical problem that is based on my wrong use with a speller, and has nothing to do with any misunderstanding of that subject.
The source of the recommendation of The Man to avoid the actuality of his research project, is not understood to him, because it is based also on Ethics and not only on, so called, objective physical laws, that The Man wished to stress their power over one’s awareness.
A notion that its aim is to prove the objective power of physical laws over one’s awareness, totally misses the non-trivial expressions of that laws, which actually based on Simplicity\Complexity Linkage, which stands at the basis of The Man’s research project.
In other words, The Man missed the profound conclusion of his own project, because he used some extreme view (things are totally independent of our mind) against another extreme view (things are totally dependent on our mind).
An extreme-only view of X is based on what I mark as !-reasoning and misses the additional option of the complex linkage among the extremes (what I mark as ?-reasoning, in addition to !-reasoning).
Fogs are the natural result of ?-reasoning, Sums are the natural result of !-reasoning, and OM is ?-reasoning OR !-reasoning framework.
Last edited:
- Status