Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
Let us return to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5858531&postcount=9626 .

By Standard Math an irrational number is defined as the limit of all rational numbers that are < or > from this irrational number.

In this case the rational numbers are not a complete metric space because their limit (an irrational number) does not belong to their metric space.

In this case we can ask: What enables the linkage between two metric spaces, such that an element of a given metric space is the limit of another metric space?

No one of the members of the given spaces is the linkage between the spaces, so there must be another mathematical property that is fundamentally different than the members of the given spaces.

Carful study of this case leads us to understand that the linked members of two different spaces are local elements of their spaces, such that each member belongs to a given space.

So the linkage between elements that belong to a given space, is exactly an element that does not exclusively belong to a given space, such that it belongs AND does not belong to any given space, or in other words, it is non-local w.r.t any given space.

Furthermore, if only a one given space is considered and more than one element of that space is considered, still the common property of a given space is non-local w.r.t to the given id of any member of that space.

No local element belongs AND does not belong to a given space, and no local element is the common proprty of a given space w.r.t to the ids that belong to this space..

A non-local element belongs AND does not belong to any given space, or a non-local element is the common property of a given space w.r.t to the ids that belong to this space.

Now, in the case of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5858531&postcount=9626 constant X>0 is a non-local element, where the limit point is a local element = 0 (notated as Y).

Since X=Y is false, then it does not matter how many projections of bended versions of constant X>0 are projected on the non-bended version of constant X>0, S=(2a+2b+2c+2d+..) < X (by 0.000...3/4, which is the invariant proportion between the bended projected versions of constant X>0) exactly because X=Y is false (Non-local AND Local is false).

Classical analysis can't deal with the anomaly that is exposed by
4430320710_daf5b36c0f_o.jpg

because Non-locality is not understood by Classical analysis.
 
Last edited:
Sorry for my late response to meditation and the "first stage of Yogic flying."

Briefly I meditate as an aid in learning to let go of identification with my fleeting thoughts and feelings. Also as wasy to encourage a compassionate mind.

As far as I'm concerened attempts to use meditation to develop psychic powers of as a way to meet metaphysical beings or realities is a bogus distraction.

What's important is that an awake and aware mind does see others as more than objects of a class to be acted upon for the purposes of the selfish ego.
(Though I admit that there are many gurus and meditation teachers who say this but exhibit all kinds of disgusting behavior toward their disciples.
Call it the "Fool on The Hill" effect.)
 
Apathia said:
As far as I'm concerened attempts to use meditation to develop psychic powers of as a way to meet metaphysical beings or realities is a bogus distraction.
Click to expand...

The flying sutra is just one of the sutras that at practiced during the TM-Sidhis program.

Other sutras are used to develop Love, Compassion, Friendship, Senses refinement, and more properties that are essential to cooperated and yet unique and creative life.

TM works basically in two training steps:

1) Step one: The mind learns to be aware of more and more finer levels of its activity, until it is opened to the least state of mental activity, which is actually the silent source of all levels of mental activities.

The ability to move between different levels of mantel activities is a natural process in both directions. Most of our lives we are aware of the more stimulating levels of our mental process, so practicing mental techniques that trains the mind to be opened to finer and calmer levels of the mental activity (up to the origin of any mental activity) without loosing awareness, simply develop the balance between stimulating levels and calm levels of our mind, exactly as balanced training of muscles is done by optimal linkage between rest and action.

2) Step two: By using the developed abilities to be aware of finer levels of mental activity, we actually develop our abilities to act from deeper and deeper levels of our mental space. The Yoga sutra of Patanjali ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoga_Sutras ) is an example of a very profound mental technique that actually enables our mind to activate some thought right from the calm state of unbounded awareness, which is the source of any mantel activity.

If our complexity is tuned w.r.t the source of any mental activity, and since this source is actually the source of any possible phenomena, we get an activated result, which is tuned with the source of any possible phenomena.

In other words, our request is fulfilled right from the source of all phenomena.

We can't ask harmful requests to be fulfilled right from the source of all phenomena, because harmful requests are exactly those states of mind that are not directly aware of the common source of any possible phenomena.

If each one of us will be directly opened to the unified field of all possible phenomena, our complex realm will be developed in a coherent and consistent way, such that no complexity will block the development of any other complexity.

I think that our spices makes its first steps to be directly opened to the unified field of all possible complexities, which gives us the chance to be developed beyond our current and sometimes harmful interactions.
 
Last edited:
Some correction of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5876457&postcount=9681:

Instead of:
doronshadmi said:
So the linkage between elements that belong to a given space, is exactly an element that does not exclusively belong to a given space, such that it belongs AND does not belong to any given space, or in other words, it is non-local w.r.t any given space.
Click to expand...

It has to be:
So the linkage between elements that belong to different spaces, is exactly an element that does not exclusively belong to any of these spaces, such that it belongs AND does not belong to any given space, or in other words, it is non-local w.r.t any given space.
Click to expand...

As shown in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5876457&postcount=9681 , it does not matter if the linkage (the non-local property) is defined between two different spaces or between two different elements of the same space.

So non-locality is defined between a given limit and some collection, whether the limit belongs or does not belong to that collection, where the irreducibility of non-locality (the linkage) to locality (the limit) prevents the sum of the convergent absolute added values of that collocation.
 
Last edited:
As can be seen Neuroquantology http://www.neuroquantology.com/repository/index.php?option=com_sobi2&catid=2&Itemid=66 has a lot of research activity, and some of this activity is marked as a WOO "hands waving" science by people that uses the mechanic paradigm as the basis of Complexity understanding.

The mechanic paradigm that is based on a clear cut dichotomy between the observed and the observer does not have the appropriate tools to deal with real Complexity, and one of these inappropriate tools is the concept of Limit, as understood by Standard Math.


About non-locality please see http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v454/n7206/full/nature07121.html (its pre-print version http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0808/0808.3316v1.pdf )
 
Last edited:
Let us summarize the last posts by using the notion of the unified field as understood by Quantum Spiritually view (http://www.neuroquantology.com/journal/index.php/nq/article/viewFile/377/426):

Fogs (non-local numbers) are defined along the real-line, but their exact location does not exist along the real-line, where the real-line itself if not a collection by OM, but it is the non-local aspect of the atomic self-state (the unified field http://www.invincibility.org/popups/uf2.html), exactly as a point is the local aspect of the atomic self-state (the unified field).

Fogs are the result of the irreducibility of the non-local to the local and the non-increaseability of the local to the non-local. The non-local\local mutual independencyenables the unified field (the atomic self-state) to express its unlimited infinite complexity.

This unlimited infinite complexity is undefined by the current paradigm, which claims , for example, that fog 0.999…[base 10] = finite value 1.

By the current mathematical paradigm (which is based on the Limit concept, by using only the local aspect of the unified field (the atomic self-state)) 0.999…[base 10] is a numeral that represents number 1.

Since OM uses also the non-local aspect of the unified field (the atomic self-state) it enables to define 0.999…[base 10] not as a representation of number 1, but as a number of its own, known as a fog (or non-local number).

Fogs are new kinds of numbers that can be used in order to deal with Uncertainty and Redundancy without forcing on them numbers that are derived only from the local aspect of the unified filed (the atomic self-state).

By Standard Math an irrational number (which is a local number) is defined as the limit of all rational numbers (which are also local numbers) that are < or > from this irrational number.

In this case the rational numbers are not a complete metric space because their limit (an irrational number) does not belong to their metric space.

In this case we can ask: What enables the linkage between two metric spaces, such that an element of a given metric space is the limit of another metric space?

No one of the members of the given spaces is the linkage between the spaces, so there must be another mathematical property that is fundamentally different than the members of the given spaces.

Carful study of this case leads us to understand that the linked members of two different spaces are local elements of their spaces, such that each member belongs to a given space.

So the linkage between elements that belong to different spaces, is exactly an element that does not exclusively belong to any of these spaces, such that it belongs AND does not belong to any given space, or in other words, it is non-local w.r.t any given space.

Actually, it does not matter if the linkage (the non-local property) is defined between two different spaces or between two different elements of the same space.

So non-locality is defined between a given limit and some collection, whether the limit belongs or does not belong to that collection, where the irreducibility of non-locality (the linkage) to locality (the limit) prevents the accurate value of the convergent absolute added values of that collocation.

No local element belongs AND does not belong to a given space, and no local element is the common property of a given space w.r.t to the ids that belong to this space..

A non-local element belongs AND does not belong to any given space, or a non-local element is the common property of a given space w.r.t to the ids that belong to this space.

Now, constant X>0 (the size of each orange element in the diagram of Koch's fractal below) is a non-local element, where the limit point (at the bottom of that diagram) is a local element = 0 (notated as Y).

Since X=Y is false, then it does not matter how many projections of bended versions of constant X>0 are projected on the non-bended version of constant X>0, S=(2a+2b+2c+2d+..) < X (by 0.000...3/4, which is the invariant proportion between the bended projected versions of constant X>0) exactly because X=Y is false (Non-local AND Local is false).

Classical analysis can't deal with the anomaly that is exposed by
4430320710_daf5b36c0f_o.jpg

because Non-locality is not understood by Classical analysis.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Stress reduction is a comprehensive physical measured phenomenon, which is derived from the mental practicing of TM technique, in this case.

In other words, restful alertness that was measured in brain’s activity during the TM practice [1] , plays a main role that enables Stress reduction all over the body.

The current physical measurement tools can’t measure directly the expansion of awareness during the practice, so you can’t find anything about “unbounded awareness” or that the subjects “get things from more profound levels of” their “mental activity” in these research papers.

There is no indirect way here The Man, you simply have to actually practicing TM, in order to get by yourself “unbounded awareness” or that you “get things from more profound levels of” your “mental activity”.
Click to expand...

So your “unbounded awareness” and belief “you “get things from more profound levels of” your “mental activity”” or just your own interpretation and subjective feeling when you engage in TM. Guess what Doron, we already surmised that.

doronshadmi said:
In other words The Man, indirect perception of a considered subject is a partial method of understanding it.

[1] For more details, please see:

Patterns of EEG coherence, power, and
contingent negative variation characterize the
integration of transcendental and waking states:
http://www.totalbrain.ch/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/brain-integration-progress-report.pdf
Click to expand...

The group differences are empirically strong, but we cannot conclude what caused
those group differences. Since a cross-sectional design was used, we do not know the
pre-TM EEG patterns of subjects in the Occas-TE and Cont-TE groups.
Click to expand...

Oops, guess they should have thought of that before.


doronshadmi said:
Psychological and physiological characteristics
of a proposed object-referral/self-referral continuum
of self-awareness:
http://www.totalbrain.ch/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/eeg-of-enlightenment.pdf
Click to expand...

1.2. Purpose of the current study
The current study extends these earlier brainwave findings by exploring the details of the inner
subjective experience of these subjects through two approaches—an unstructured interview and a
battery of standard psychological tests.
Click to expand...

Still not addressing the problem of those “earlier brainwave findings”.


doronshadmi said:
http://www.totalbrain.ch/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/EEG of Transcending.pdf
Click to expand...

Oh look, stress reduction (or “decreasing anxiety” as it is referred to in this paper) again.



doronshadmi said:
http://www.truthabouttm.org/truth/IndividualEffects/IsTMMetaphysical/APersonalView/index.cfm
Click to expand...

Not a research paper.
 
doronshadmi said:
A meta-analysis of 597 studies of meditation practices was published in The American Journal of Health Promotion (May/June 1998). This study found TM to be significantly superior to other forms of meditation and relaxation in a wide range of criteria related to mental and physical health.
Click to expand...

Resulting from… (its ok, you can say it) …stress reduction.


doronshadmi said:
See also:

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/112457231/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

http://www.psrast.org/tmunique.htm

http://healthpromotionjournal.com/m...de=AJHP&Product_Code=JV14I5284&Category_Code=
Click to expand...

None of those links are research papers.

doronshadmi said:
Psychophysiological Effects of Yoga:

http://www.iayt.org/site_Vx2/publications/psychophysiology.pdf
Click to expand...

A bibliography not a research paper.

A Doron, do you actually read any of these links and papers let alone understand what they are about?
 
doronshadmi said:
Let us return to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5858531&postcount=9626 .

By Standard Math an irrational number is defined as the limit of all rational numbers that are < or > from this irrational number.
Click to expand...

No an irrational number is defined as a real number that can not be expressed as a fraction of two integers.

doronshadmi said:
In this case the rational numbers are not a complete metric space because their limit (an irrational number) does not belong to their metric space.
Click to expand...

Simple nonsense. Are you simply or deliberately confusing “complete” with “continuous”?


doronshadmi said:
In this case we can ask: What enables the linkage between two metric spaces, such that an element of a given metric space is the limit of another metric space?
Click to expand...

That would be just, well, limits.

doronshadmi said:
No one of the members of the given spaces is the linkage between the spaces, so there must be another mathematical property that is fundamentally different than the members of the given spaces.
Click to expand...

If you are still talking about rational and irrational numbers, their “linkage” (or more specifically union) is the set of all real numbers (which would be a continuous space).
doronshadmi said:
Carful study of this case leads us to understand that the linked members of two different spaces are local elements of their spaces, such that each member belongs to a given space.
Click to expand...

It is simply trivial that an element of some space is local to that space. Hardly “Carful study”.

doronshadmi said:
So the linkage between elements that belong to a given space, is exactly an element that does not exclusively belong to a given space, such that it belongs AND does not belong to any given space, or in other words, it is non-local w.r.t any given space.
Click to expand...

This is where you continue to fail Doron ‘belonging’ to some “space” (like say the irrational numbers) does not preclude belonging to some other “space” like the real numbers (of which the irrational numbers are a proper subset) but belonging to some space like the rational numbers (also a proper subset of the reels) is excluded as an irrational number is specifically not rational. So not all “spaces” are mutually exclusive, but some are. “belongs AND does not belong to any given space” is again simply self contradictory while ‘belongs to some “space” AND belongs to some other “space”” is not.

doronshadmi said:
Furthermore, if only a one given space is considered and more than one element of that space is considered, still the common property of a given space is non-local w.r.t to the given id of any member of that space.

No local element belongs AND does not belong to a given space, and no local element is the common proprty of a given space w.r.t to the ids that belong to this space..

A non-local element belongs AND does not belong to any given space, or a non-local element is the common property of a given space w.r.t to the ids that belong to this space.

Now, in the case of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5858531&postcount=9626 constant X>0 is a non-local element, where the limit point is a local element = 0 (notated as Y).

Since X=Y is false, then it does not matter how many projections of bended versions of constant X>0 are projected on the non-bended version of constant X>0, S=(2a+2b+2c+2d+..) < X (by 0.000...3/4, which is the invariant proportion between the bended projected versions of constant X>0) exactly because X=Y is false (Non-local AND Local is false).

Classical analysis can't deal with the anomaly that is exposed by [qimg]http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4015/4430320710_daf5b36c0f_o.jpg[/qimg]
because Non-locality is not understood by Classical analysis.
Click to expand...

Again the only anomaly “that is exposed” is the one in your head which insists upon the self contradictory ascription of “belongs AND does not belong to any given space”.
 
doronshadmi said:
We can't ask harmful requests to be fulfilled right from the source of all phenomena, because harmful requests are exactly those states of mind that are not directly aware of the common source of any possible phenomena.
Click to expand...

Well I guess your “common source of any possible phenomena” must be getting those “requests” demonstrably wrong as “harmful” “phenomena” do happen. Doron this is just your own particular brand of “The Secret”.
 
The Man said:
Guess what Doron, we already surmised that.
Click to expand...

Indeed surmised is your best in this case, because you never practiced TM and got the foundation of any thought within yourself.

You are like a blind man that argues about colors.

The Man said:
A bibliography not a research paper.
Click to expand...
The Man research is not only by indirect methods that a measured by mechanical instruments that measure things by local-only methods, especially if the researched is the awareness itself.

Again, without a direct perception of awareness as the foundation of any mental activity, you actually have not enough knowledge in order to conclude any meaningful thing about awareness.

Still you are like a blind man that argues about colors.
 
The Man said:
Guess what Doron, we already surmised that.
Click to expand...

Indeed surmised is your best in this case, because you never practiced TM and got the foundation of any thought within yourself.

You are like a blind man that argues about colors.

The Man said:
A bibliography not a research paper.
Click to expand...
The Man research is not only by indirect methods that a measured by mechanical instruments that measure things by local-only methods, especially if the researched is the awareness itself.

Again, without a direct perception of awareness as the foundation of any mental activity, you actually have not enough knowledge in order to conclude any meaningful thing about awareness.

Still you are like a blind man that argues about colors.

The Man said:
No an irrational number is defined as a real number that can not be expressed as a fraction of two integers.
Click to expand...
Or as Dedekind's cuts, which the limits of L R sets of rational numbers, which is the relevant definition in this case.

The Man said:
If you are still talking about rational and irrational numbers, their “linkage” (or more specifically union) is the set of all real numbers (which would be a continuous space).
Click to expand...
It does not matter, in this case the common property of being a real number is the linkage (the non-local property) between ids (localities).

Still you are unable to get your own words.

The Man said:
It is simply trivial that an element of some space is local to that space. Hardly “Carful study”.
Click to expand...
And by the same reasoning, it is trivial that the common property of a given space is non-local w.r.t any given id (distinguished element) of that space.

Still you are unable to get your own words.

The Man said:
“belongs AND does not belong to any given space” is again simply self contradictory while ‘belongs to some “space” AND belongs to some other “space”” is not.
Click to expand...
“belongs AND does not belong to any given space” simply means that the defined element does not exclusively belong to any particular space (or any particular id of the same space), or in other words: this element ‘belongs to some “space” (or id of some space) AND belongs to some other “space” (or another id of the same space) (where the AND gives it the simultaneity that no local element has).

Still you are unable to get your own words.


Also local-only thinker like you ignores http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5888652&postcount=9685 , isn't it?
 
Last edited:
This is the thread that does not end
It just goes on and on, my friend
Some people starting writing it, not knowing what it was
They'll go on writing it forever, just because
This is the thread that does not end...
 
Pure_Argent said:
This is the thread that does not end
It just goes on and on, my friend
Some people starting writing it, not knowing what it was
They'll go on writing it forever, just because
This is the thread that does not end...
Click to expand...

I was really tempted to stop posting in this thread, but this little ditty encourages me to help push it on to oblivion and beyond. :wackybiglaugh:

Because, because, because, because, Because!
We're off
to see the Wizard!

Help! Mr. Wizard!
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
David Lynch explains his understanding about consciousness, creativity and the brain. He says that Transcendental Meditation played crucial role in developing his consciousness and boosting his creativity: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2UHLMVr4vg&feature=related
Click to expand...

Here's my favorite David Lynch youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XliMny3AvnE
He shows how to cook quinoa.

I've heard him speak about TM before.
Look, At least it's better than what a lot of other Hollywood people got into (Scierntology).
Thanks for the link.
 
doronshadmi said:
Indeed surmised is your best in this case, because you never practiced TM and got the foundation of any thought within yourself.

You are like a blind man that argues about colors.
Click to expand...

My surmise was correct, far better then your “direct perception” has done for you.

doronshadmi said:
The Man research is not only by indirect methods that a measured by mechanical instruments that measure things by local-only methods, especially if the researched is the awareness itself.
Click to expand...


Doron your propensity for your fantasies and subjective interpretations still do not constitute research, just as a bibliography is not a research paper.

doronshadmi said:
Again, without a direct perception of awareness as the foundation of any mental activity, you actually have not enough knowledge in order to conclude any meaningful thing about awareness.
Click to expand...

What? So someone can’t “conclude any meaningful thing about awareness” unless they already subscribe to your own subjective interpretation of “awareness”? Ever hear of begging the question Doron?



doronshadmi said:
Still you are like a blind man that argues about colors.
Click to expand...

You Doron remain the only one simply insisting that everyone must agree with you “in order to conclude any meaningful thing”, talk about the blind leading…., well…., just himself.



doronshadmi said:
Or as Dedekind's cuts, which the limits of L R sets of rational numbers, which is the relevant definition in this case.
Click to expand...

No Doron the actual definition (as I stated) is always the, well, relevant one.

doronshadmi said:
It does not matter, in this case the common property of being a real number is the linkage (the non-local property) between ids (localities).
Click to expand...

If that is “the common property of being a real number” as you claim, then it does “matter”. Since your “common property” is just a union of those two mutually exclusive sets.

doronshadmi said:
Still you are unable to get your own words.
Click to expand...

Try reading them again and may be this time you’ll actually get those words.


The Man said:
If you are still talking about rational and irrational numbers, their “linkage” (or more specifically union) is the set of all real numbers (which would be a continuous space).
Click to expand...



doronshadmi said:
And by the same reasoning, it is trivial that the common property of a given space is non-local w.r.t any given id (distinguished element) of that space.
Click to expand...

No the “common property of a given space” is specifically what identifies “any given id (distinguished element) of that space” as being, well, an “element) of that space”




doronshadmi said:
Still you are unable to get your own words.
Click to expand...

Nope evidently that is still just you.

doronshadmi said:
“belongs AND does not belong to any given space” simply means that the defined element does not exclusively belong to any particular space (or any particular id of the same space), or in other words: this element ‘belongs to some “space” AND belongs to some other “space” (where the AND gives it the simultaneity that not local element has).
Click to expand...

This is why you continue to fail, again “belongs AND does not belong to any given space" is self contradictory while ‘belongs to some “space” AND belongs to some other “space” is not. If you mean ‘belongs to some “space” AND belongs to some other “space” then just say that, but of course that would also make just about any point in compliance with such a “non-local” “in other words” ascription.

doronshadmi said:
Still you are unable to get your own words.
Click to expand...

Again, still just you, Doron

doronshadmi said:
Also local-only thinker like you ignores http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5888652&postcount=9685 , isn't it?
Click to expand...

An assumption of Loco-only fantasizes like yours.



doronshadmi said:
Yes I know, guessing is your best in this fine subject.


Most o the researchers in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5888652&postcount=9685 are idiots, isn't it The Man?
Click to expand...


Once again Doron, demonstrably still just you.
 
Whatever the benefits of TM, increased mathematical understanding clearly isn't one of them.

Stubbornness, however, can be developed by TM to god-like levels. Doron is giving Sisyphus a run for his money.
 
Last edited:
Pure_Argent said:
This is the thread that does not end
It just goes on and on, my friend
Some people starting writing it, not knowing what it was
They'll go on writing it forever, just because
This is the thread that does not end...
Click to expand...

Well at least now we’ve gotten to the major disconnect, this “Quantum Spiritually” and “neuroquantology” tripe.
 
The Nan said:
My surmise was correct,
Click to expand...
It is correct as a guess , no more not less, exactly because you do not have a direct perception of the considered subject, which is the calmest level of your mental activity, which is the non-personal base ground of any mental activity.

Again, a blind man’s arguments about colours, this is your best in this case.

The Nan said:
Doron your propensity for your fantasies and subjective interpretations still do not constitute research,
Click to expand...
Again you expose your ignorance about the non-personal base ground if any mantel activity, which is the most objective state.

On the contrary, the subjective thing here is your limited framework that is based on the local-only aspect of the researched, where both your theoretical and experimental methods are derived from this artificial limitation, which lead to subjective local-only results (abstract or non-abstract, it does not matter).

The Nan said:
What? So someone can’t “conclude any meaningful thing about awareness” unless they already subscribe to your own subjective interpretation of “awareness”? Ever hear of begging the question Doron?
Click to expand...
Exactly the opposite, without direct perception of the researched subject, you actually go in circles around the researched subject, where your indirect research methods are always no more than guesses, exactly because you are using local-only methods in order to conclude something about a thing that is not local-only.

Non-locality is a property of our realm ( please see http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v454/n7206/full/nature07121.html (its pre-print version http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0808/0808.3316v1.pdf ) and can’t be accurately researched by your local-only reasoning (it can only roughly discovered by it as an anomaly of the local-only paradigm, as shown by the attached research paper), whether you like it or not.

Non-local numbers and NXOR/XOR logics are the appropriate tool in order to deal with non-locality, without forcing a local-only reasoning (the standard paradigm, which is used both for theoretical and experimental developments that are local-only oriented) on it.


The Nan said:
You Doron remain the only one simply insisting that everyone must agree with you “in order to conclude any meaningful thing”, talk about the blind leading…., well…., just himself.
Click to expand...
You The Man, as a local-only thinker (where “locality” is synonym “rigorous” by your limited reasoning) force your partial methods as if it is a universal method, and this is exactly where you fail.

The Nan said:
No Doron the actual definition (as I stated) is always the, well, relevant one
Click to expand...
It is your subjective maneuver , which its aim is to avoid the discussion about limits that belong or do not belong to the considered collection of the absolute infinite added convergent values (in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dedekind_cut and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construction_of_the_real_numbers) we can learn how the irrational numbers are the limits of the rational numbers, where this limits are fundamentally different than the rational numbers exactly because they are not the result of the ratio between two integers, and therefore the do not belong to the rational numbers’ space, and yet there are considered as their limits).

So as you see you definition is nothing but a part of a more comprehensive dissection about limits (that belong or do not belong to a considered space, and in both cases, these limits are linked with other spaces or ids by a non-local element which is not limited to any given space or to any given id of the same space).

The Nan said:
Since your “common property” is just a union of those two mutually exclusive sets.
Click to expand...
Call it union or linkage, it does not change the fact that no one of the linked or unioned elements is the link or the union if its id is derived from its accurate locality w.r.t to other localities, where “w.r.t” is exactly the non-local property that is defined between these localities and enables the linkage or union among them.

You can do any maneuver that you like, it will not change the fact that a complex thing like collection and the relations among collections is based on Non-locality/Locality Linkage, which actually enables you to verbally or symbolically define your definitions, in the first place (including the proofs without words).

The Nan said:
No the “common property of a given space” is specifically what identifies “any given id (distinguished element) of that space” as being, well, an “element) of that space”
Click to expand...
What enables to define a collection is the linkage of the common (the non-local) with the non-common (the local).

Without this linkage, no collection is definable (verbally, symbolically or spatially).
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
Well at least now we’ve gotten to the major disconnect, this “Quantum Spiritually” and “neuroquantology” tripe.
Click to expand...
The tripe is exactly your local-only reasoning that is based on a clear cut dichotomy between the observed and the observer. Because of this clear cut dichotomy the current theoretical and experimental methods have to isolate the researched subject in order to conclude something about it, but this artificial approach is limited to this trivial separation-only local-only methodology, which has no real ability to research things right at their natural non-sterile complex environment.

NXOR/XOR Logic and non-local numbers are preliminary developments that deals with the researched not only under sterile and isolated conditions, exactly because Uncertainty, Redundancy, Incompleteness, are essential properties of the researched and not a “white-noise” that has to be eliminated in order to get a researchable environment.

The Man, your sterile and isolated local-only reasoning is going to get off stage, because it is too trivial in order to deal with real complexity.

The Man said:
Once again Doron, demonstrably still just you.
Click to expand...
Once again The Man you have demonstrated that a blind man can’t say meaningful things about colors, so?
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
Oops, guess they should have thought of that before.
Click to expand...

Oops, you ignore the conclusions:

5. Conclusion

In summary, these data suggest that distinct patterns of EEG coherence, EEG
amplitude, and late CNV amplitude are associated with the progressive integration of the transcendent with waking and sleeping states. These results indicate the efficacy of objective measures for characterizing the growth of subjective experiences.

The brain-based Integration Scale, resulting from this research, is a
preliminary scale. It accounted for 55% of the variance in-group membership.
Researchers are invited to participate in confirming, refining, and extending this scale. We anticipate this research strategy will further the exploration of the possible range of human experience and associated brain-state dynamics.
Click to expand...
 
doronshadmi said:
The tripe is exactly your local-only reasoning that is based on a clear cut dichotomy between the observed and the observer. Because of this clear cut dichotomy the current theoretical and experimental methods have to isolate the researched subject in order to conclude something about it, but this artificial approach is limited to this trivial separation-only local-only methodology, which has no real ability to research things right at their natural non-sterile complex environment.

NXOR/XOR Logic and non-local numbers are preliminary developments that deals with the researched not only under sterile and isolated conditions, exactly because Uncertainty, Redundancy, Incompleteness, are essential properties of the researched and not a “white-noise” that has to be eliminated in order to get a researchable environment.

The Man, your sterile and isolated local-only reasoning is going to get off stage, because it is too trivial in order to deal with real complexity.
Click to expand...

A big load of tripe.


doronshadmi said:
Once again The Man you have demonstrated that a blind man can’t say meaningful things about colors, so?
Click to expand...

Once again Doron you are just wrong, even about what a blind man can say about colors.


doronshadmi said:
Oops, you ignore the conclusions:
Click to expand...

Oops, again you just ignore what the authors claim they cannot conclude and why.


The group differences are empirically strong, but we cannot conclude what caused
those group differences. Since a cross-sectional design was used, we do not know the
pre-TM EEG patterns of subjects in the Occas-TE and Cont-TE groups.
Click to expand...



doronshadmi said:
The Man you are also invited to air your view about:


http://www.springerlink.com/content/pg0234268q287370/fulltext.pdf

http://www.srivyuha.org/DocumentFiles/3.pdf

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJfgzMbDhcE
Click to expand...

Doron you are invited to actually do some, well, research.





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_Meditation#Research_on_EEG

Research on EEG
According to the Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness, Transcendental Meditation increases alpha brain waves compared to a baseline. When compared to control groups using a different relaxation technique, the increase in alpha is similar or even decreases compared to the relaxation controls.[172] It also produces alpha coherence, a pattern also sometimes seen in while a subject is actively focusing his or her attention on an object or holding some information in mind. These brain patterns suggest a decrease in mental activity and are associated with a relaxed state.[173] The Cambridge handbook said "..alpha frequencies frequently produce spontaneously moderate to large coherence (0.3-0.8 over large inter-electrode distance.. . . . The alpha coherence values reported in TM studies, as a trait in the baseline or during meditation, belong to this same range. Thus a global increase of alpha power and alpha coherence might not reflect a more “ordered” or “integrated” experience, as frequently claimed in TM literature but rather a relaxed, inactive mental state." The Cambridge handbook also states that "Because alpha rhythms are ubiquitous and functionally non-specific, the claim that alpha oscillations and alpha coherence are desirable or are linked to an original and higher state of consciousness seem quite premature."[174]
A 1999 paper by Lachaux et al suggests that EEG coherence may be a less useful measurement[175] since it does not separate the effects of amplitude and phase in the interrelations between two EEG signals.
Click to expand...

I would ask what is the EEG coherence of someone who is dead, just brain dead, in a persistent vegetative state, in a coma, catatonic, asleep or unconscious and then at varying levels of brain functionality or injury.
 
dlorde said:
:boggled:

What did any of the OM stuff you posted have anything to do with 'Quantum Spirituality' (give me a break) ?
Click to expand...

Dlord, welcome back to the rabbit hole!

For some years now, Doron has offered his Organic Mathematics as the foundation of a mathematics that can account for quantum non-locality (aka Quantum entanglement) and the "hidden variables."

This is also the stomping ground of a number of misguided attempts to explain consciousness in terms of Quantum Field Theory.

This includes work by people associated with the school of Transcendental Meditation who want to find a scientific basis for Vedic Metaphysics.

Doron sees his OM as the "Mathematics of Consciousness"

Anyway, it all becomes a one pot meal.
And that still doesn't answer your question.

Stick around for the chef's reply.
 
doronshadmi said:
It is correct as a guess , no more not less, exactly because you do not have a direct perception of the considered subject, which is the calmest level of your mental activity, which is the non-personal base ground of any mental activity.

Again, a blind man’s arguments about colours, this is your best in this case.
Click to expand...

“non-personal base ground of any mental activity”? Doron it is entirely just your own personal bias and fantasies about “any mental activity”.

doronshadmi said:
Again you expose your ignorance about the non-personal base ground if any mantel activity, which is the most objective state.

On the contrary, the subjective thing here is your limited framework that is based on the local-only aspect of the researched, where both your theoretical and experimental methods are derived from this artificial limitation, which lead to subjective local-only results (abstract or non-abstract, it does not matter).
Click to expand...

No Doron it is simply your demonstrated preference for considering your own subjective inclinations as some “most objective state”.



doronshadmi said:
Exactly the opposite, without direct perception of the researched subject, you actually go in circles around the researched subject, where your indirect research methods are always no more than guesses, exactly because you are using local-only methods in order to conclude something about a thing that is not local-only.
Click to expand...

Doron, you’re the one that keeps going around in circles since your “direct perception of the considered subject” continues to fail you.


doronshadmi said:
Non-locality is a property of our realm ( please see http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v454/n7206/full/nature07121.html (its pre-print version http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0808/0808.3316v1.pdf ) and can’t be accurately researched by your local-only reasoning (it can only roughly discovered by it as an anomaly of the local-only paradigm, as shown by the attached research paper), whether you like it or not.

Non-local numbers and NXOR/XOR logics are the appropriate tool in order to deal with non-locality, without forcing a local-only reasoning (the standard paradigm, which is used both for theoretical and experimental developments that are local-only oriented) on it.
Click to expand...

Doron I have explained non-locality in the specific context of relativity to you before and it has nothing whatsoever to do with your loco-only “reasoning”. In fact quite the contrary as some point is either local (time-like and light-like interval separations) or non-local (space-like interval separation) with respect to some other point.


doronshadmi said:
You The Man, as a local-only thinker (where “locality” is synonym “rigorous” by your limited reasoning) force your partial methods as if it is a universal method, and this is exactly where you fail.
Click to expand...

Once again Doron your “direct perception” fails you.

doronshadmi said:
It is your subjective maneuver , which its aim is to avoid the discussion about limits that belong or do not belong to the considered collection of the absolute infinite added convergent values (in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dedekind_cut and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construction_of_the_real_numbers) we can learn how the irrational numbers are the limits of the rational numbers, where this limits are fundamentally different than the rational numbers exactly because they are not the result of the ratio between two integers, and therefore the do not belong to the rational numbers’ space, and yet there are considered as their limits).

So as you see you definition is nothing but a part of a more comprehensive dissection about limits (that belong or do not belong to a considered space, and in both cases, these limits are linked with other spaces or ids by a non-local element which is not limited to any given space or to any given id of the same space).
Click to expand...

No Doron once again that definition is what defines an irrational number. Your purportedly “more comprehensive dissection” is entirely subsequent to that specific definition.

doronshadmi said:
Call it union or linkage, it does not change the fact that no one of the linked or unioned elements is the link or the union if its id is derived from its accurate locality w.r.t to other localities, where “w.r.t” is exactly the non-local property that is defined between these localities and enables the linkage or union among them.
Click to expand...

Doron the union is all the elements not just any one or some of them and they are all local to that union.
doronshadmi said:
You can do any maneuver that you like, it will not change the fact that a complex thing like collection and the relations among collections is based on Non-locality/Locality Linkage, which actually enables you to verbally or symbolically define your definitions, in the first place (including the proofs without words).


What enables to define a collection is the linkage of the common (the non-local) with the non-common (the local).

Without this linkage, no collection is definable (verbally, symbolically or spatially).
Click to expand...

Ah the old standby Doron failsafe claim that anything and everything “is based on” or ‘just an aspect of’ some dichotomy “Linkage”.
 
The Man said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_Meditation#Research_on_EEG
I would ask what is the EEG coherence of someone who is dead, just brain dead, in a persistent vegetative state, in a coma, catatonic, asleep or unconscious and then at varying levels of brain functionality or injury.
Click to expand...
No measurement that is related to the coherence activity can be taken from a dead brain.

Deep sleep, or damaged brain’s activities are not characterized by a coherent brain activity, as observed, for example in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJfgzMbDhcE .
 
The Man said:
No Doron it is simply your demonstrated preference for considering your own subjective inclinations as some “most objective state”.
Click to expand...
How do you know that for sure (as a person the does not practice any mental technique that enables you to be aware of the source of any mental activity?)
 
The Man said:
Doron the union is all the elements not just any one or some of them and they are all local to that union.
Click to expand...
And the union is non-local w.r.t all local (unique ids) elements of the considered collection.
 
The Man said:
Ah the old standby Doron failsafe claim that anything and everything “is based on” or ‘just an aspect of’ some dichotomy “Linkage”.
Click to expand...
It is simply your inability to get a simple notion like “mutual independency” where things are linked with each other (mutuality) without lose their identities (independency).

Your “mutual dependency” is nothing but using only one aspect of that linkage, by ignoring the saved independency under this linkage.

By your muddy reasoning we actually get “mutual mutuality” or “dependent dependency”, which are equivalent to your “mutual dependency” statement.

You simply can’t grasp the axiomatic state among the two qualitative aspects of the atomic self-state, which are not derived from each other exactly like two axioms (they have independent qualities), and yet they are unique manifestations of a one common source that enables their consistent linkage.
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
Doron I have explained non-locality in the specific context of relativity to you before and it has nothing whatsoever to do with your loco-only “reasoning”.
Click to expand...
I can’t explain non-locality, because you consistently using only local view of the researched subjects, whether they are abstract of not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom