Deeper than primes

doronshadmi · May 5, 2010

The Man said:
No Doron once again that definition is what defines an irrational number.

The definition that an irrational number is any number that is not the result of the ratio between two integers, is simply the first stage of my argument.

You stop at that stage, but I continue to use the first stage in order to show that irrational numbers are also the limits of rational numbers along the real-line, by using Dedekind’s cuts.

In that case an irrational number is an example of a limit that does not belong to the set of the limited elements (the rational numbers, in this case).

Still there is a linkage between the limit and the limited elements, where this linkage is fundamentally different than the limit or the limited elements, such that it is non-local w.r.t them.

I also showed that this non-local property is defined also among elements of the same set, if one of these elements is used as the limit of the other elements of the considered set.

So Non-locality/Locality reasoning is consistent whether the limit belongs to the set of the limited elements, or not.

Baylor · May 5, 2010

You bumped your thread 4,005 times. Time to call it a day, donchya think?

doronshadmi · May 5, 2010

UNLoVedRebel said:
You bumped your thread 4,005 times. Time to call it a day, donchya think?

Or a night, who knows?

doronshadmi · May 5, 2010

David Scharf ( http://www.mum.edu/faculty/scharf_david.html )— Research Focus ( http://www.mum.edu/faculty/scharf_david_research.html )

Common sense tells us — and there is good scientific and philosophical support for this — that the conscious mind can be causally efficacious, and while this efficacy may be transmitted by the biophysics of our brain and nervous system, it refuses to reduce to biophysics. This points to a kind of interactionism between the conscious mind and the brain, but what kind of interactionism? In the seventeenth century, when modern science was in its infancy, it may have seemed reasonable for Descartes to propose an interactionism between mind and matter as radically distinct substances, where matter was the subject of the new mathematical physics, and mind was outside its domain. But today Cartesian interactionism seems decidedly less plausible because, among other reasons, if something — even if it is consciousness itself — is interacting with the physical domain, physics is going to want to understand it, incorporate it into the scientific domain, and model its interactions with suitable equations. So it would make more sense, nowadays, to suppose that mind and matter are two expressions of a common underlying substance and, what’s more, this theme is in keeping with the trend toward unification that has predominated in contemporary science — particularly, in recent advances in theoretical physics. According to the Vedic perspective of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, as developed in partnership with John Hagelin, the unified field of physics is identical to Transcendental Consciousness, the deepest level of the conscious mind.

According to this Vedic conception an individual mind is only a surface-level manifestation of consciousness. This contrasts sharply with contemporary physicalist approaches, which start from the assumption that consciousness is only a localized phenomenon, dependent on a particular individual’s brain and nervous system. In this context, it is perhaps not surprising that physicalism in all its manifestations has so far failed to provide a satisfactory resolution of the mind-body problem. The reason: neither consciousness nor its intrinsic cognitive properties are reducible to the localized, ultimately classical-physics brain. Rather, consciousness has its deepest roots in a fundamental symmetry represented in the unified field of contemporary quantum field theory. Although ultimately the Vedic conception is a type of monism, at the level of neuroscience the intervention of mind will be understood as an interaction between mind and brain. If these ideas are proven right, this interaction will only be successfully described in the context of advanced physics, utilizing all the resources that advanced physics can bring to bear, including spatial and temporal nonlocality as well as the more exotic symmetry principles.

Apathia · May 5, 2010

doronshadmi said:
your question? Who is this “your” and exactly is his question?

Ah!
Who is this that asks this question?
(It's the classic Korean Zen hwadu.) ("hwadu" - a Korean Zen koan.)

"Where is the one that asks?" is another.

(I'm assuming you're not asking that question conventionally. But if you are, the answer is in the post.)

Apathia · May 5, 2010

doronshadmi said:
David Scharf ( http://www.mum.edu/faculty/scharf_david.html )— Research Focus ( http://www.mum.edu/faculty/scharf_david_research.html )

Quote:

Common sense tells us — and there is good scientific and philosophical support for this — that the conscious mind can be causally efficacious, and while this efficacy may be transmitted by the biophysics of our brain and nervous system, it refuses to reduce to biophysics. This points to a kind of interactionism between the conscious mind and the brain, but what kind of interactionism? In the seventeenth century, when modern science was in its infancy, it may have seemed reasonable for Descartes to propose an interactionism between mind and matter as radically distinct substances, where matter was the subject of the new mathematical physics, and mind was outside its domain. But today Cartesian interactionism seems decidedly less plausible because, among other reasons, if something — even if it is consciousness itself — is interacting with the physical domain, physics is going to want to understand it, incorporate it into the scientific domain, and model its interactions with suitable equations. So it would make more sense, nowadays, to suppose that mind and matter are two expressions of a common underlying substance and, what’s more, this theme is in keeping with the trend toward unification that has predominated in contemporary science — particularly, in recent advances in theoretical physics. According to the Vedic perspective of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, as developed in partnership with John Hagelin, the unified field of physics is identical to Transcendental Consciousness, the deepest level of the conscious mind.

According to this Vedic conception an individual mind is only a surface-level manifestation of consciousness. This contrasts sharply with contemporary physicalist approaches, which start from the assumption that consciousness is only a localized phenomenon, dependent on a particular individual’s brain and nervous system. In this context, it is perhaps not surprising that physicalism in all its manifestations has so far failed to provide a satisfactory resolution of the mind-body problem. The reason: neither consciousness nor its intrinsic cognitive properties are reducible to the localized, ultimately classical-physics brain. Rather, consciousness has its deepest roots in a fundamental symmetry represented in the unified field of contemporary quantum field theory. Although ultimately the Vedic conception is a type of monism, at the level of neuroscience the intervention of mind will be understood as an interaction between mind and brain. If these ideas are proven right, this interaction will only be successfully described in the context of advanced physics, utilizing all the resources that advanced physics can bring to bear, including spatial and temporal nonlocality as well as the more exotic symmetry principles.

Now there's where you could address dlord's unanswered question.

Your Organic Mathematics is intended to show how number and mathematics is a result of an interaction between the local, individual consciousness and the non-local, universal, Unified Consciousness. .

The Man · May 5, 2010

doronshadmi said:
No measurement that is related to the coherence activity can be taken from a dead brain.

A lack of left frontal activity is coherent with a lack of right frontal activity Doron

doronshadmi said:
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 .

No such claims are made by that “example”.

doronshadmi said:
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?)

Based on your own assertions at that your “direct perception” continues to fail you as it does above. I do practice a “mental technique”, it’s called learning. You should try it sometime.

doronshadmi said:
And the union is non-local w.r.t all local (unique ids) elements of the considered collection.

Doron the union is a “unique id” that its elements are ‘local’ to.

doronshadmi said:
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).

Doron we have been over this before “mutually independent” means that changes to one do not result in changes to the other. They are not dependent on each other, thus independent and that independence from each other is mutual. The mutual ‘link’, as you put it, is specifically their shared lack of dependency upon each other.

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

Again Doron we have been over this before “mutual dependency” means that changes to one results in changes to the other. They are specifically dependent upon each other which is the negation of independent, they specifically have no “independency” in that regard to be, well, ‘saved’.

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

No Doron it is simply your deliberately ‘foggy’ “reasoning” and your “direct perception” that has failed you yet again.

doronshadmi said:
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.

Again “two qualitative aspects of the atomic self-state” means your “self-state” isn’t “atomic” (indivisible) by your own ascriptions as you deliberately divide it into “two qualitative aspects” just so you can recombine them again into your “complex” contrivance.

doronshadmi said:
I can’t explain non-locality, because you consistently using only local view of the researched subjects, whether they are abstract of not.

No Doron you “can’t explain non-locality” because you insist on directly contradicting yourself and have succumb to your own subjective, self contradictory and generally contradictory interpretations “of the researched subjects, whether they are abstract of not”.

As a result your ‘explanations’ are only apparently meaningful to you, which again answers your previous question.

doronshadmi said:
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?)

doronshadmi said:
The definition that an irrational number is any number that is not the result of the ratio between two integers, is simply the first stage of my argument.

You stop at that stage, but I continue to use the first stage in order to show that irrational numbers are also the limits of rational numbers along the real-line, by using Dedekind’s cuts.

In that case an irrational number is an example of a limit that does not belong to the set of the limited elements (the rational numbers, in this case).

Still there is a linkage between the limit and the limited elements, where this linkage is fundamentally different than the limit or the limited elements, such that it is non-local w.r.t them.

I also showed that this non-local property is defined also among elements of the same set, if one of these elements is used as the limit of the other elements of the considered set.

So Non-locality/Locality reasoning is consistent whether the limit belongs to the set of the limited elements, or not.

Again Doron we have been over this before, a limit does not need to be a member of the set, but it can be. Your “Non-locality/Locality reasoning is” simply inconsistent with itself, again specifically in your “belongs to AND does not belong to” ascription of “Non-locality”. Have you decided to officially change that ascription to ‘belongs to some set, space or domain AND belongs to some other set, space or domain’ as we discussed before?

doronshadmi · May 5, 2010

The man said:
Based on your own assertions at that your “direct perception” continues to fail you as it does above.

No activity of R = No activity of L, but our learning The Man ("I do practice a “mental technique”, it’s called learning") does not distinguish between coherent activity and no activity.

The man said:
Doron the union is a “unique id” that its elements are ‘local’ to.

Out leaning The Man still can't get the non-locality of the union w.r.t to the local ids, again a partial learning is observed.

The man said:
Again “two qualitative aspects of the atomic self-state” means your “self-state” isn’t “atomic” (indivisible) by your own ascriptions as you deliberately divide it into “two qualitative aspects”

No branches (qualitative aspects) divide the trunk (the atomic self-state).

They are simply different manifestations of a one thing, but your limited learning ability can't grasp that.

The man said:
No Doron you “can’t explain non-locality”

Your local-only learning practice has nothing to say about non-locality.

The man said:
Again Doron we have been over this before,

You have been before, now and after in local-only learning state of mind, that can't get even simple thing like Dedekin's cut and how it is related to my argument about the exclusion of the limit w.r.t a given set.

Also you can't grasp the notion of the inclusion of non-locality as the linkage among some id that is considered as a limit of the members that share with it the same set.

Your local-only practice works extra hours, without any result.

doronshadmi · May 5, 2010

Apathia said:
Quote:

Now there's where you could address dlord's unanswered question.

Your Organic Mathematics is intended to show how number and mathematics is a result of an interaction between the local, individual consciousness and the non-local, universal, Unified Consciousness. .

OM is a tool that is used to research how the atomic self-state manifests itself by getting infinite complexity out of minimum linkage among qualitative ids.

Skeptic · May 6, 2010

The Man said:
No Doron it is simply your deliberately ‘foggy’

I doubt it's deliberate....

Again Doron we have been over this before, a limit does not need to be a member of the set, but it can be.

Okay, so Doron doesn't understand limits -- or compactness -- either. Surprise, surprise, surprise.

Skeptic · May 6, 2010

doronshadmi said:
OM is a tool that is used to research how the atomic self-state manifests itself by getting infinite complexity out of minimum linkage among qualitative ids.

Yes, but can you change a tire with it?

The Man · May 6, 2010

doronshadmi said:
No activity of R = No activity of L, but our learning The Man ("I do practice a “mental technique”, it’s called learning") does not distinguish between coherent activity and no activity.

You should learn what coherent means. Look at your own example, you will see that when the R and L activity drop to nothing simultaneously the coherence remains at about 100%.

doronshadmi said:
Out leaning The Man still can't get the non-locality of the union w.r.t to the local ids, again a partial learning is observed.

Tell us Doron, in regards to your “self-state”, what is “non-local” “w.r.t” to itself?

doronshadmi said:
No branches (qualitative aspects) divide the trunk (the atomic self-state).

Again Doron you divide your “atomic self-state” into those aspects deliberately just so you can combine them again into your “complex” contrivance.

doronshadmi said:
They are simply different manifestations of a one thing, but your limited learning ability can't grasp that.

They are simply your “manifestations” Doron, but your “direct perception” “can't grasp that”.

doronshadmi said:
Your local-only learning practice has nothing to say about non-locality.

Your loco-only “reasoning” can only describe your notion of “non-locality” by directly contradicting itself.

doronshadmi said:
You have been before, now and after in local-only learning state of mind, that can't get even simple thing like Dedekin's cut and how it is related to my argument about the exclusion of the limit w.r.t a given set.

A set can be open (the limits are not members of the set), closed (the limits are members of the set) or half open (one of the limits is a member of the set) without even considering “Dedekin's cut”. You are just arguing with yourself.

doronshadmi said:
Also you can't grasp the notion of the inclusion of non-locality as the linkage among some id that is considered as a limit of the members that share with it the same set.

Doron a limit that is not a member of the set specifically does not “share with it the same set”.

doronshadmi said:
Your local-only practice works extra hours, without any result.

Your loco-only practice works extra hours, days, weeks, months, years and decades without any result.

The Man · May 6, 2010

Skeptic said:
I doubt it's deliberate....

I would like to think so Skeptic, but Doron’s simple refusal to understand that the difference of the infinite convergent series ½+¼+1/8+1/16... from 2 times that series (1+½+¼+1/8+1/16...) is that series and thus the sum of that series equals 1. Doron insists on making that simple self similar relationship ‘foggy’, so I am left with the inescapable conclusion that his “fog” must be deliberate.

zooterkin · May 6, 2010

doronshadmi said:
OM is a tool that is used to research how the atomic self-state manifests itself by getting infinite complexity out of minimum linkage among qualitative ids.

It is? Ok, please give an example of this.

doronshadmi · May 6, 2010

The Man said:
You should learn what coherent means. Look at your own example, you will see that when the R and L activity drop to nothing simultaneously the coherence remains at about 100%.

You should learn what coherent-activity means. In your dead brain there is no coherent-activity.

Furthermore, by measure a dead brain tissue you actually will find a non-coherent results that are derived from the process of tissue's decomposition, which is non-coherent.

Only a live brain can manifest coherent-activity among its components.

The Man said:
Tell us Doron, in regards to your “self-state”, what is “non-local” “w.r.t” to itself

Any self-state is not local and not non-local w.r.t itself, exactly as any atom is at its self-state.

Non-local or Local are the minimal qualitative manifestations that are derived from the atomic self-state. Your local-only reasoning naturally can't get it, similarly as (by analogy) a one eye viewer can't get 3D.

The Man said:
A set can be open (the limits are not members of the set), closed (the limits are members of the set) or half open (one of the limits is a member of the set) without even considering “Dedekin's cut”.

Nonsense, Dedekin's cut and open\clopen sets are derived form the same principle, such that some considered element is not a member of a considered collection, and yet there is a linkage between them, which is non-local because it is not any of the linked elements. Your local-only reasoning can't comprehend that.

The Man said:
Doron a limit that is not a member of the set specifically does not “share with it the same set”.

At this particular part I spoke about a closed set, where the limit is a member of that set, but you have missed it.

The Man said:
Your loco-only practice works extra hours, days, weeks, months, years and decades without any result.

Yes, a D3 vision can't be known by a one eye viewer.

doronshadmi · May 6, 2010

zooterkin said:
It is? Ok, please give an example of this.

The complexity around you and within you is a direct results of the linkage between the non-local qualitative aspect and the local qualitative aspect of the atomic self-state.

Sums and fogs share the same complex garden, that is derived from the atomic self-state.

doronshadmi · May 6, 2010

The Man said:
I would like to think so Skeptic, but Doron’s simple refusal to understand that the difference of the infinite convergent series ½+¼+1/8+1/16... from 2 times that series (1+½+¼+1/8+1/16...) is that series and thus the sum of that series equals 1. Doron insists on making that simple self similar relationship ‘foggy’, so I am left with the inescapable conclusion that his “fog” must be deliberate.

You simply can't grasp that sums (in the case of positive added values) are the results of a finite addition.

Your local-only reasoning can't grasp http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5721761&postcount=9104 and fog 0.000...1/2, such that:

1 – (1/2+1/4+1/8+1/16+…) > 0 by fog 0.000...1/2

2 - (1/1+1/2+1/4+1/8+...) > 0 by fog 0.000...1/2

4 - (2/1+1/1+1/2+1/4+...) > 0 by fog 0.000...1/2

...

Aslo you can't get fog 0.000...3/4 in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5890520&postcount=9686 .

doronshadmi · May 6, 2010

Skeptic said:
Yes, but can you change a tire with it?

Without it (the reseached subjects of OM, where OM is no more than some research tool) there is no tire and no one that chages the tire.

doronshadmi · May 7, 2010

I think that we carefully have to investigate what actually enables complex structures.

I have found that Complexity is derived from the linkage of opposites such that they do not contradict each other during linkage.

As I get it, self awareness development is essential to non-destructive linkage between opposites, and by practicing TM for example, we actually reinforce this linkage, which in turn enables finer manifestations of complex forms.

In my opinion, the nervous system of self-aware complex systems, is more software than hardware, such that their abilities to develop internal and external complex forms is increased by non-linear frequency.

Non-linear complexity development, as I get it, is actually the non-linear development of the balance between opposites, which is exactly the manifestation of the linkage (the unified-field, which is the natural source of opposites) among opposites.

Reduction is only the local aspect of complex systems, and can't really capture complexity's development similarly as (by analogy) a one eye viewer can't get 3D vision.

Non-linearity and Chaos Theory plays a main role in our understanding of Complexity's development as a result of a developed balance between opposites like order and disorder.

Here are two papers about this interesting subject:

Is the normal heartbeat chaotic or homeostatic?
http://reylab.bidmc.harvard.edu/pubs/1991/nps-1991-6-87.pdf

Some outstanding paper from the class of Spring '03 of Oregon University:

Human Beings as Chaotic Systems:
http://www.physics.orst.edu/~stetza/ph407H/Chaos.pdf

As I get it, Self similarity upon different scale levels is exactly the optimal condition to develop deeper awareness of finer mental activity, where the non-local property of this self-similarity over scales is the property that actually enables us to transcend and directly be aware of the source of all possible manifested phenomena, which are naturally free of contradiction, otherwise they do not exist as complex forms.

I believe that we can learn much form our biological complexity, for example, our heart:

Each cell of our heart has the ability work (to produce a beat) independently of the other cells. Yet this independent (local) ability is synchronized by special cells that (by using a non-local principle with respect to the independent cells) coordinate their independent abilities into a one coherent heartbeat, which actually enables our existence as living complex systems.

Furthermore, by Chaos Theory we have learned that this Non-local\Local linkage is characterized by self-similarity over different scale levels of each heartbeat, which actually demonstrates the beauty that is found at the basis of the non-linear dynamics of our heart.

It enables simple principles to manifest great complexity by avoiding contradiction between the independent ability of each heart cell to work in its own beat (if the linkage between Non-locality and Locality is interrupted, we get independent beats which contradict each others, our heart stops and we die).

So our heart is a concrete example of Mutual Independency (synchronization (non-locality) among independent beats (locality)).

In general any autonomy that is based on dichotomy between opposites, can't be used as a fruitful base ground for Complexity's development, because by this dichotomy the opposites are not opened to each other, and without this openness there is no Complexity. Actually the whole idea of Complexity is derived from the ability of opposites to be developed beyond their isolated ids without losing their ids during interaction (Mutual Independency).

In my opinion, Complexity is the exact manifestation of linked ids, where linked ids is actually the fundamental term of any axiomatic system, such that each axiom saves its id (it is not derived from any other axiom) during linkage (the unified field) and each axiom does not contradict any other axiom (again, because all ids are derived from the same source, known as the unified field).

Mutual Independency is the main principle, where the mutual and the independent are oneped to each other.

ddt · May 8, 2010

doronshadmi said:
OM is a tool that is used to research how the atomic self-state manifests itself by getting infinite complexity out of minimum linkage among qualitative ids.

Well, the infinite complexity part is right insofar as that you've been unable, after over 5,500 posts here and thousands more on other fora, to explain it properly.

Oh, and for the rest, that sentence is 100% word salad.

doronshadmi · May 8, 2010

ddt said:
Oh, and for the rest, that sentence is 100% word salad.

ddt, What You See Is What You Get, and you don't get, for example, http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5905638&postcount=9737 .

And why you don't get it? Because you refuse to accept Non-locality as an additional qualitative property, that if linked with the opposite qualitative property, we get the Complexity within AND without us.

For example, you do not understand the invariant proportions 1/2 and 3/4 as rigorously defined in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5905638&postcount=9737 , and fundamentally change the standard approach about fractals.

You are still forcing finitism and limits on infinite complexity, by claiming, for example that 0.999…[base 10] (which is a single path into the depth of some infinite fractal) is nothing but some representation of 1 (where 1 is definitely not a single path into the depth of some infinite fractal).

By forcing finitism and limits on a complex thing like an infinite fractal, you actually cut off any chance to develop mathematical tools that enable to research infinite fractals.

We do not need more than that in order to demonstrate why all you get is world salad.

zooterkin · May 8, 2010

doronshadmi said:
The complexity around you and within you is a direct results of the linkage between the non-local qualitative aspect and the local qualitative aspect of the atomic self-state.

Sums and fogs share the same complex garden, that is derived from the atomic self-state.

Really? How does that answer the question? To remind you, you claimed:

doronshadmi said:
OM is a tool that is used to research how the atomic self-state manifests itself by getting infinite complexity out of minimum linkage among qualitative ids.

Please give an example of OM being used as a tool to do anything at all.

Apathia · May 8, 2010

doronshadmi said:
And why you don't get it? Because you refuse to accept Non-locality as an additional qualitative property, that if linked with the opposite qualitative property, we get the Complexity within AND without us.

I always like to comment on the moments when the issue is clearly stated (at least to my reading).
It's true that Mathematics doesn't accept the Non-local as a property, especially of numbers.
This is a corollary to modern Ontology's assertion that existence or being is not a property anything possesses.

Key to Doron's way of number is that he asserts that Non-locality is a quality, a quality that can be possessed as an inherent property of a number.

When he goes on to assert that "cardinality is a measure of existence," he is not only asserting that existence is also an inherent property of number, but that Non-locality as an inherent property can be quantified.
Enter the Organic Numbers with their links between the inherent properties of Locality and Non-Locality.

Now the reason that I sometimes assert that Buddhist thought and Western Mathematics have more in common than Mathematics and Doron's unique take on Vedic thought is that it (Buddhism) pretty much consistently states in all its various sects that existence or being is not an inherent property anything possesses.
Also Buddhist thought doesn't make of the concept of Infinity an ontological reality.

But I bring Buddhism into this discussion to point out that there is a highly ethical philosophical tradition that doesn't find itself opposed or smothered by Western Mathematics and Science and doesn't require that they be cut back to the roots for a new, more spiritual, paradigm.

BTW Vedic Mathematics never entailed or even thought to do Doron's redo.
It's his only.
Vedic Mathematics carried on with the same concept of number common to all of mathematics on this planet.

Apathia · May 8, 2010

BTW 2: Quantum Theory including quantum entanglement is doing just fine with contemporary mathematics.
The people who are looking for those ellusive and dubious "hidden variables" do complain.
But I'd wager that if they did make something of such things, it wouldn't involve ditching Limits and Analytic Geometry.

To anticipate a question:

Doron: So how do you account for Complexity.

Apathia: Me? I don't account for Complexity.
I start there.
It's much more complex and rich than combinations of black and white pixels.

The Man · May 8, 2010

doronshadmi said:
You should learn what coherent-activity means. In your dead brain there is no coherent-activity.

Again you should learn what coherent means.

doronshadmi said:
Furthermore, by measure a dead brain tissue you actually will find a non-coherent results that are derived from the process of tissue's decomposition, which is non-coherent.

Really? Please cite any published results of such a study.

doronshadmi said:
Only a live brain can manifest coherent-activity among its components.

Again

The Man said:
You should learn what coherent means. Look at your own example, you will see that when the R and L activity drop to nothing simultaneously the coherence remains at about 100%.

doronshadmi said:
Any self-state is not local and not non-local w.r.t itself, exactly as any atom is at its self-state.

So now your “Local” and “Non-local” are “not” “aspects” of your atomic self-state?

doronshadmi said:
Non-local or Local are the minimal qualitative manifestations that are derived from the atomic self-state.

Not according to you since “Any self-state is not local and not non-local w.r.t itself, exactly as any atom is at its self-state.”

doronshadmi said:
Your local-only reasoning naturally can't get it, similarly as (by analogy) a one eye viewer can't get 3D.

Your loco-only “reasoning” you can’t gat that poor analogies do not alleviate your direct contradictions.

doronshadmi said:
Nonsense, Dedekin's cut and open\clopen sets are derived form the same principle, such that some considered element is not a member of a considered collection, and yet there is a linkage between them, which is non-local because it is not any of the linked elements. Your local-only reasoning can't comprehend that.

Dedekin's cut is specifically based on half open sets, if you had actually read your own cited reference you would have known that. They are not “derived form the same principle” one (Dedekin's cut) is specifically based upon the other (half open sets). Your "direct perception" has failed you again.

doronshadmi said:
At this particular part I spoke about a closed set, where the limit is a member of that set, but you have missed it.

You mean this “particular part”…

doronshadmi said:
Also you can't grasp the notion of the inclusion of non-locality as the linkage among some id that is considered as a limit of the members that share with it the same set.

There is no mention of closed sets, but you do refer to your “non-locality as the linkage among some id that is considered as a limit..” and as you note above “there is a linkage between them, which is non-local because it is not any of the linked elements.” In a closed set those limits are some “of the linked elements” so in order for any of those limits to be “non-local because it is not any of the linked elements” they can not be members of the set.

doronshadmi said:
The Man said:

Your loco-only practice works extra hours, days, weeks, months, years and decades without any result.

Click to expand...

Yes, a D3 vision can't be known by a one eye viewer.

Glad to see you agree. So isn’t it about time you stopped wasting extra hours, days, weeks, months, years and decades without any result and you start leaning something? Like for example that bad analogies do not alleviate you directly contradicting yourself.

doronshadmi · May 8, 2010

The Man said:
Again you should learn what coherent means.

The right term is coherent-activity, and not just coherent.

The Man said:
So now your “Local” and “Non-local” are “not” “aspects” of your atomic self-state?

The Man said:
Not according to you since “Any self-state is not local and not non-local w.r.t itself, exactly as any atom is at its self-state.”

Again your branch-only reasoning can't get the trunk (the atomic self-state as the foundation of any branch).

The Man said:
Please cite any published results of such a study.

You still do not get the meaning of coherent-activity, if you need a published paper that researches the coherent-activity of tissue's decomposition.

The Man said:
In a closed set those limits are some “of the linked elements” so in order for any of those limits to be “non-local because it is not any of the linked elements” they can not be members of the set.

Again you ignorance of Non-locality is shown because you get it in terms to the members (the Localities) and not in terms of the linkage among the members.

The Man said:
So isn’t it about time you stopped wasting extra hours, days, weeks, months, years and decades without any result and you start leaning something? Like for example that bad analogies do not alleviate you directly contradicting yourself.

So isn’t it about time you stopped wasting extra hours, days, weeks, months, years and decades without any ability to get Non-Locality?

Like for example that your local-only reasoning of Non-locality is the cause of why you get it as a contradiction.

doronshadmi · May 8, 2010

Apathia said:
I always like to comment on the moments when the issue is clearly stated (at least to my reading).
It's true that Mathematics doesn't accept the Non-local as a property, especially of numbers.
This is a corollary to modern Ontology's assertion that existence or being is not a property anything possesses.

Key to Doron's way of number is that he asserts that Non-locality is a quality, a quality that can be possessed as an inherent property of a number.

When he goes on to assert that "cardinality is a measure of existence," he is not only asserting that existence is also an inherent property of number, but that Non-locality as an inherent property can be quantified.
Enter the Organic Numbers with their links between the inherent properties of Locality and Non-Locality.

Now the reason that I sometimes assert that Buddhist thought and Western Mathematics have more in common than Mathematics and Doron's unique take on Vedic thought is that it (Buddhism) pretty much consistently states in all its various sects that existence or being is not an inherent property anything possesses.
Also Buddhist thought doesn't make of the concept of Infinity an ontological reality.

But I bring Buddhism into this discussion to point out that there is a highly ethical philosophical tradition that doesn't find itself opposed or smothered by Western Mathematics and Science and doesn't require that they be cut back to the roots for a new, more spiritual, paradigm.

BTW Vedic Mathematics never entailed or even thought to do Doron's redo.
It's his only.
Vedic Mathematics carried on with the same concept of number common to all of mathematics on this planet.

Apathia, what exactly prevents from you to get the Trunk/Braches Model and why do you force vedic mathematics on OM?

doronshadmi · May 8, 2010

Apathia said:
BTW 2: Quantum Theory including quantum entanglement is doing just fine with contemporary mathematics.
The people who are looking for those ellusive and dubious "hidden variables" do complain.
But I'd wager that if they did make something of such things, it wouldn't involve ditching Limits and Analytic Geometry.

To anticipate a question:

Doron: So how do you account for Complexity.

Apathia: Me? I don't account for Complexity.
I start there.
It's much more complex and rich than combinations of black and white pixels.

You still miss the fact that OM does not stop on accounting Complexity, but it is based on direct perception of the reseached subject.

You still forcing notions that are taken from Standard Math, on OM.

Apathia said:
It's much more complex and rich than combinations of black and white pixels.

Pixels are locals, you still do not get Non-locality.

doronshadmi · May 8, 2010

Apathia said:
BTW 2: Quantum Theory including quantum entanglement is doing just fine with contemporary mathematics.
The people who are looking for those ellusive and dubious "hidden variables" do complain.
But I'd wager that if they did make something of such things, it wouldn't involve ditching Limits and Analytic Geometry.

You describe the current tools that are used in QM, so?

Also limits are used by OM, but in this case we deal with finite systems.

Apathia · May 8, 2010

doronshadmi said:
Apathia, what exactly prevents from you to get the Trunk/Braches Model and why do you force vedic mathematics on OM?

1. I see the model. I also see that the model is a very poor cartoon figure for reality.

2. No. I'm not forcing Vedic Mathematics on OM. OM is indeed a different animal with a very different concept of number in which quantities are given qualitative property and qualities are given quantitative properties.

As soon as you insist that cardinality is a "measure of existance" you do this.
Even if you insist that Quality remains quality in its self state and Quantity remains quantity in its self state.
You very intention for OM is that, because you want a mathematics that expresses qualities, values, and ethical principles.

Ancient Vedic Mathematics has much more in common with contemporary mathematics than it does your OM.

As for philosophy, your views do have some Vedic roots, as you have expressed yourself in citing TMs project of the "Unified Field."

Apathia · May 8, 2010

doronshadmi said:
Pixels are locals, you still do not get Non-locality.

Have you really noticed the most obvious structure of your OM as is apperant
in so many of your diagrams?
And in your "truth table" presentation of OM?

Take two elements: The Point and The Infinite Line.
Make combos, multifacited combos, deep combos, so-called fractal combos.

But reality is actually much more complex than that simple device.
Especially if you are wanting to express the analogical natures of things and values.

In spite if your intentions to to express the aspects of reality that are beyond the digital, you offer a stick figure, black and white model and hope that it somehow generates transcendence and subjectivity.

But I'm missing that The Line stands for transcedence and subjectivity, right?
Oh, put I know what it stands for. I know what it symbolizes.
But it is just a symbol. Subjectivity is only there in your intention to treat a sign as a symbol.
On paper and in the language of mathematics (which is a language of signs, not symbols) all thos combos are combos of local elements.

The mathematicians here read tham as local signs, because in the language of mathematics that's all they are.
It's only as you invest upon them a meaning that isn't inherent to those signs and manipulations that they become for you your OM.

Take 1 + -1 = 0
It's a simple mathematical statement.

On of our forum members, Undercover Elephant, uses it as a symbol of metaphysic of Neutural Monism.
You could use it to symbolize you very different view of the two ontological principles.
Other interpretations can be offered.
But all such interepretations aren't mathematics.
They are using mathematical signs as metaphysical symbols.

You do precisely this in your exposition of OM as linkages or bridges between the local and the non-local.
But you do it without the slightest awareness of the lingustic and conceptual leap you are making.
When others don't see that leap (because it isn't there in the words and numbers themsleves) you accuse them of not seeing what you claim as a "Direct Perception."
That "perception" is your projection upon mathematical language.
I see what meaning you are investing, but I see that you are the sorce of that meaning.

Skeptic · May 8, 2010

doronshadmi said:
You simply can't grasp that sums (in the case of positive added values) are the results of a finite addition.

Er, Doron, we all know the sum of the series is NOT a sum of an infinite number of elements, but the LIMIT of an infinite SEQUENCE of partial -- finite -- sums.

It's just that it's often convenient to speak of the "infinite sum" 1+1/2+1/4+... instead of being precise and saying what this colloquial term really means, namely, that it's the limit of the sequence {1, (1+1/2), (1+1/2+1/4),...}.

Open any Freshman's math textbook and you'll find the "sum" (or "infinite sum") of an infinite series defined in the way I just gave. There is no infinite summation.

You are, as usual, confusing symbols or words -- in this case, a definition ("infinite sum") that defines no new mathematical elements but is merely used as a verbal shortcut -- with reality, that is, you think that people using the words "infinite sum" or "the sum of an infinite series" means that they are actually summing (using the addition operation) an infinite number of times "at once". They're not.

In principle there is nothing you can say about infinite series that you cannot equally well say about infinite sequences. In fact the transition from one to another is trivial. It's just that it's more convenient to sometimes work with one and not with another.

1 – (1/2+1/4+1/8+1/16+…) > 0 by fog 0.000...1/2

2 - (1/1+1/2+1/4+1/8+...) > 0 by fog 0.000...1/2

Uh-huh...

Quite apart that it isn't clear what on earth Doron means when he put the "1/2" at the "end" of an infinite sequence of zeroes -- which is the equivalent of putting a point at the "end" of a line -- it's amusing to see what the results of using his own definitions would be.

For example, let's take the first line:

1 - (1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + ...) = fog 0.00000......1/2

Multiply both sides by 2:

2*1 - 2*(1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + ...) = 2* fog 0.0000 .... 1/2

Or:

2 - (1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 ....) = 2* fog 0.000000.... 1/2

But, according to Doron's own definition (2nd line):

2 - (1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 ...) = fog 0.0000.... 1/2

Therefore:

2* fog 0.000.... 1/2 = fog 0.0000..... 1/2

But if 2X=X, then obviously X=0, that is:

fog 0.000000... 1/2 = 0

Which would make Doron's definitions mean:

1 – (1/2+1/4+1/8+1/16+…) > 0 by 0

2 - (1/1+1/2+1/4+1/8+...) > 0 by 0

Or:

1 – (1/2+1/4+1/8+1/16+…) = 0

2 - (1/1+1/2+1/4+1/8+...) = 0

...which is what we're trying to tell you all along, Doron!

In other words, if Doron wants to define "fog 0.0000.....1/2" or "fog 0.0000....1" or "fog 0.0000.....10^100", his way, he is quite free to do so, but -- to be consistent with his very own definitions -- all these "fogs" must be all = 0, and are, in other words, just a fancy way of writing the number "0".

Doron has many more definitions of "0" than the rest of us -- infinitely more, in fact. I suppose that's another way of saying he has infinitely more holes in his head than the average mathematician does?

The Man · May 8, 2010

doronshadmi said:
The right term is coherent-activity, and not just coherent.

‘Coherrent’ is the operative word that you have a demonstrative difficulty with. Again their being no left frontal activity is coherent with their being no right frontal activity. Your own "example" clearly demonstrates that.

doronshadmi said:
Again your branch-only reasoning can't get the trunk (the atomic self-state as the foundation of any branch).

Again your bad analogies do nothing to alleviate your directly contradicting statements.

doronshadmi said:
You still do not get the meaning of coherent-activity, if you need a published paper that researches the coherent-activity of tissue's decomposition.

You made the claim; it is up to you to support it. Please show where ‘tissue decomposition’ or the “coherent-activity of tissue's decomposition” is represented on the EEGs and coherence charts of your “example”. However a lack of left frontal activity corresponding to a lack of right frontal activity maintaining a coherence of around 100% is clearly visible in your “example”.

doronshadmi said:
Again you ignorance of Non-locality is shown because you get it in terms to the members (the Localities) and not in terms of the linkage among the members.

“because it is not any of the linked elements” was your claim not mine, if you don’t want it “in terms to the members” then don’t put it in those terms, just as “in terms of the linkage among the members” is “terms to the members”. As usual Doron you just don’t know what you want to claim and end up simply contradicting yourself.

doronshadmi said:
So isn’t it about time you stopped wasting extra hours, days, weeks, months, years and decades without any ability to get Non-Locality?

Doron I have explained non-locality to you in different contexts many times (as have others). You are the only one who claims you can not explain your notion of non-locality and your insistence on directly contradicting yourself demonstrates that. The wasted hours, days, weeks, months, years and decades, remain entirely yours.

doronshadmi said:
Like for example that your local-only reasoning of Non-locality is the cause of why you get it as a contradiction.

Nope, again it is just your loco-only “reasoning” that simply insists upon contradicting itself.

The Man · May 8, 2010

Skeptic said:
You are, as usual, confusing symbols or words -- in this case, a definition ("infinite sum") that defines no new mathematical elements but is merely used as a verbal shortcut -- with reality, that is, you think that people using the words "infinite sum" or "the sum of an infinite series" means that they are actually summing (using the addition operation) an infinite number of times "at once". They're not.

Basically the reasoning (if you could call it that) behind all of Doron's infinite list types of strawman augments. Not realizing that the utility comes from understanding and employing the relations of the elements in the set or collection or its characteristics (such as cardinality) and not from actually listing or adding elements an infinite number of times.

doronshadmi · May 9, 2010

Skeptic said:
Er, Doron, we all know the sum of the series is NOT a sum of an infinite number of elements, but the LIMIT of an infinite SEQUENCE of partial -- finite -- sums.

It's just that it's often convenient to speak of the "infinite sum" 1+1/2+1/4+... instead of being precise and saying what this colloquial term really means, namely, that it's the limit of the sequence {1, (1+1/2), (1+1/2+1/4),...}.

Open any Freshman's math textbook and you'll find the "sum" (or "infinite sum") of an infinite series defined in the way I just gave. There is no infinite summation.

So according to any Freshman's math textbook a limit is the sum of an infinite series, which is not the result of infinite summation.

Very consistent.

Skeptic said:
Quite apart that it isn't clear what on earth Doron means when he put the "1/2" at the "end" of an infinite sequence of zeroes -- which is the equivalent of putting a point at the "end" of a line

And this is where you fail because the …1/2 part of the expression 0.000…1/2 is exactly the invariant proportion upon infinitely many scale levels (known also as self similarity over scales), which is the non-local linkage between the all infinitely many added convergent values, and the limit point, where 0.000…1/2 > 0.

By your local reasoning, you are unable, for example, to understand that 0.999…[base 10] is not a numeral that represents 1, but it is a number of its own, called non-local number or a fog.

1-0.999…[base 10]=0.000...1[base 10]=0.000...1/10, where ...1/10 is an invariant proportion upon infinitely many scale levels (known also as self similarity over scales).

Skeptic said:
For example, let's take the first line:

1 - (1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + ...) = fog 0.00000......1/2

Multiply both sides by 2:

2*1 - 2*(1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + ...) = 2* fog 0.0000 .... 1/2

Or:

2 - (1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 ....) = 2* fog 0.000000.... 1/2

But, according to Doron's own definition (2nd line):

2 - (1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 ...) = fog 0.0000.... 1/2

Therefore:

2* fog 0.000.... 1/2 = fog 0.0000..... 1/2

But if 2X=X, then obviously X=0, that is:

fog 0.000000... 1/2 = 0

By invariant proportion the difference between 1 - (1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + ...) and 2 - (1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 ...) is the same as the difference between 1/2 and 2/4.

The self similarity over scales clearly shown also by the following diagram, where the values 1,2,4,8,16,32,… etc. are not reached, ad infinituum, exactly because of the …1/2 part of the expression 0.000…1/2, which is the invariant proportion upon infinitely many scale levels (known also as self similarity over scales):

You are using incorrect methods to analyze an invariant proportion, which is the self-similarity of some fractal upon infinitely many scale levels, where (1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + ...) or (1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 ...) is actually the same fractal that can be expressed also by 0.111…[base 2], 1.111…[base 2] etc… ad infinitum (the left diagram, in this case):

Skeptic said:
...which is what we're trying to tell you all along, Doron!

In other words, if Doron wants to define "fog 0.0000.....1/2" or "fog 0.0000....1" or "fog 0.0000.....10^100", his way, he is quite free to do so, but -- to be consistent with his very own definitions -- all these "fogs" must be all = 0, and are, in other words, just a fancy way of writing the number "0".

Doron has many more definitions of "0" than the rest of us -- infinitely more, in fact. I suppose that's another way of saying he has infinitely more holes in his head than the average mathematician does?

Again: By invariant proportion the difference between 1 - (1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + ...) and 2 - (1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 ...) is the same as the difference between 1/2 and 2/4.

doronshadmi · May 9, 2010

Apathia said:
1. I see the model. I also see that the model is a very poor cartoon figure for reality.

Since when direct perception is a very poor cartoon of reality?

Apathia said:
Even if you insist that Quality remains quality in its self state and Quantity remains quantity in its self state.

You have missed it. I say that quantity is the result of the linkage between opposite qualities.

I also claim that your little story of cutting fingers in order to be enlightened has nothing to do with compassion, so if this is your complex reality, I am not a participator of it.

doronshadmi · May 9, 2010

Apathia said:
Take 1 + -1 = 0
It's a simple mathematical statement.

Where 1 , -1 are the local aspect and + , = are the non-local aspect of this statement, so?

Apathia said:
Take two elements: The Point and The Infinite Line.
Make combos, multifacited combos, deep combos, so-called fractal combos.

But reality is actually much more complex than that simple device.
Especially if you are wanting to express the analogical natures of things and values.

Again you force Standard Math notions on OM.

OM's tables, diagrams, symbols are nothing but tools that help us to get the essence of things by direct perception.

In other words OM's tools can fundamentally be changed by direct perception, exactly because some tool of X is not X, exactly as a lecture about silence is not silence.

Apathia said:
I see what meaning you are investing, but I see that you are the sorce of that meaning.

So you get only the local aspect of direct perception.

In other words, you still do not get OM.

Skeptic · May 9, 2010

doronshadmi said:
By invariant proportion the difference between 1 - (1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + ...) and 2 - (1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 ...) is the same as the difference between 1/2 and 2/4.

You know something? For the first time in his life, probably, Doron actually made a correct mathematical claim...

jsfisher · May 9, 2010

doronshadmi said:
So according to any Freshman's math textbook a limit is the sum of an infinite series, which is not the result of infinite summation.

Perhaps if you actually worked on your reading comprehension skills you'd find out that you are wrong yet again.

doronshadmi · May 9, 2010

Skeptic said:
You know something? For the first time in his life, probably, Doron actually made a correct mathematical claim...

Which means that by invariant proportion fog 0.000...1/2 > sum 0, or in other words, for the first time of your life you get fogs, unless you are using 1/2-2/4=0 and miss again the fact that fog 0.000...1/2 > sum 0.

By invariant proportion the difference between 1 - (1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + ...) and 2 - (1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 ...) is the same as the difference between 1/2 and 2/4, where in both cases we deal with a value > 0.

Please see http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5914757&postcount=9762 .

Deeper than primes

Penultimate Amazing

Philosopher

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Philosopher

Philosopher

Unbanned zombie poster

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Banned

Unbanned zombie poster

Unbanned zombie poster

Nitpicking dilettante, Administrator

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Mafia Penguin

Penultimate Amazing

Nitpicking dilettante, Administrator

Philosopher

Philosopher

Unbanned zombie poster

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Philosopher

Philosopher

Banned

Unbanned zombie poster

Unbanned zombie poster

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

ETcorngods survivor

Penultimate Amazing