Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Man said:
Even for quantum superposition (again based on the superposition principle) a single photon does interfere (a superposition of phase differences) with itself (see single photon double slit experiments)
Click to expand...

A quantum phenomena is not a single and certain object, as we get it in the macro level.

For example, the momentum AND place of a macro level object are well known (certainly known).

This is not the case with a quantum phenomena, where momentum AND place are in a superposition that has to collapse in order to get one and only one certain result (momentum or place, but never simultaneously both of them).

Your "single photon does interfere (a superposition of phase differences) with itself" is based on the wrong model of macro objects, where the certain momentum AND place are simultaneously well known (certainly known).

In other words, you do not understand superposition and how it is related to uncertain information.

Organic Numbers are exactly the mathematical tool that defines the linkage among uncertain AND certain information under a one comprehensive model, by providing the included middle forms between uncertainty and certainty, which enable to define the linkage between micro and macro levels of a given complex.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
In order to demonstrate the weakness of a serial-only quantitative-only approach, approach to capture the real Complexity of k-Uncertainty x-Redundancy tree.
Click to expand...


Even in your backpedaling, you fail.


How are those corrections coming for the 3X3 case?
 
jsfisher said:
How are those corrections coming for the 3X3 case?
Click to expand...

By using frames F (k,...) to F (0,...) in order to reduce the room for Uncertainty/Redundancy forms, which is nothing but a serial representation of Organic Numbers.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Please tell us why do I have to fix my 3x3 presentation.
Click to expand...

"Us"? Every except you knows why: Um, because it has multiple errors in it. Don't you think your position would benefit by having fewer blunders? Why should we take what you post as even a little bit important when it is riddled with such obvious wrongness?
 
Just for emphasis of the point, in response to me asking him why he'd asked a question if it was the wrong question, Doron wrote:

doronshadmi said:
In order to demonstrate the weakness of a serial-only quantitative-only approach, approach to capture the real Complexity of k-Uncertainty x-Redundancy tree.
Click to expand...

The original question follows. Doron's weak attempt to rewrite history is obvious. He asked the question because he does not know the answer, nothing more, and certainly not to demonstrate anything.

doronshadmi said:
By following 0x0,1x1 and 2x2 detailed examples, can you define 3x3 and 4x4 and then the general formula that returns the number of any KxK where K=0 to n, where n is a natural number?
Click to expand...
 
doronshadmi said:
A quantum phenomena is not a single and certain object, as we get it in the macro level.
Click to expand...

Doron a “quantum phenomena” is not anything other than just a couple of words you stuck together apparently without even understanding the meaning of either.

doronshadmi said:
For example, the momentum AND place of a macro level object are well known (certainly known).
Click to expand...

Nope, the uncertainty principle still applies. It is just that the change in momentum and/or location can be negligible compare to the size and total momentum of the “object”

doronshadmi said:
This is not the case with a quantum phenomena, where momentum AND place are in a superposition that has to collapse in order to get one and only one certain result (momentum or place, but never simultaneously both of them).
Click to expand...

Doron it wasn’t the case with your “macro level object” either. Would this be your “superposition” where you claim you “do not use” superposition or an actual superposition?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

In quantum physics, a particle is described by a wave packet, which gives rise to this phenomenon. Consider the measurement of the absolute position of a particle. It could be anywhere the particle's wave packet has non-zero amplitude, meaning the position is uncertain – it could be almost anywhere along the wave packet. To obtain an accurate reading of position, this wave packet must be 'compressed' as much as possible,meaning it must be made up of increasing numbers of sine waves added together. The momentum of the particle is proportional to the wavelength of one of these waves, but it could be any of them. So a more accurate position measurement–by adding together more waves–means the momentum measurement becomes less accurate (and vice versa).
The only kind of wave with a definite position is concentrated at one point, and such a wave has an indefinite wavelength (and therefore an indefinite momentum). Conversely, the only kind of wave with a definite wavelength is an infinite regular periodic oscillation over all space, which has no definite position. So in quantum mechanics, there can be no states that describe a particle with both a definite position and a definite momentum. The more precise the position, the less precise the momentum.
The uncertainty principle can be restated in terms of measurements, which involves collapse of the wavefunction. When the position is measured, the wavefunction collapses to a narrow bump near the measured value, and the momentum wavefunction becomes spread out. The particle's momentum is left uncertain by an amount inversely proportional to the accuracy of the position measurement. The amount of left-over uncertainty can never be reduced below the limit set by the uncertainty principle, no matter what the measurement process.
Click to expand...

Bolding added

Too bad Doron, quantum mechanics and the uncertainty principle actually uses superposition which is something you claim you “do not use” in your “superposition”.

doronshadmi said:
Your "single photon does interfere (a superposition of phase differences) with itself" is based on the wrong model of macro objects, where the certain momentum AND place are simultaneously well known (certainly known).
Click to expand...

No Doron it is based on actual experimentation. Try looking up the Path integral formulation to see just how wrong you are.

doronshadmi said:
In other words, you do not understand superposition and how it is related to uncertain information.
Click to expand...

Sure I do, the uncertainty of your information has got entirely confused about quantum mechanics and has you claiming that in your “superposition” you “do not use” superposition.

doronshadmi said:
Organic Numbers are exactly the mathematical tool that defines the linkage among uncertain AND certain information under a one comprehensive model, by providing the included middle forms between uncertainty and certainty, which enable to define the linkage between micro and macro levels of a given complex.
Click to expand...

Nope, as clearly demonstrated above you have no idea what you are talking about and just string words together that you think sound important without realizing that others actually understand those words and the subjects they relate to. The sad part is Doron that you could understand them as well, but you simply do not seem interested in anything but your own imagination.
 
Doronshadmi - I've given you sufficient time to answer and you have declined to do so.

As you were warned, your failure to respond has resulted in your choice being made for you.

Your work has no importance, not even to you, and no one should waste another moment on it.

I won't visit this thread again, or any other thread that you start.

Thank you for having wasted 9968 posts.
 
Complexity said:
Doronshadmi - I've given you sufficient time to answer and you have declined to do so.

As you were warned, your failure to respond has resulted in your choice being made for you.

Your work has no importance, not even to you, and no one should waste another moment on it.

I won't visit this thread again, or any other thread that you start.

Thank you for having wasted 9968 posts.
Click to expand...

His work is important to him because he has been spending more than 20 years on it, to an extent that it had become an inseparable being within him. It is true that his work has very little mathematical substance. His "revelations" are in fact trivial to anyone with basic mathematical skills. He is desperately trying to ascribe a higher meaning to trivial arithmetic properties of natural numbers.

The reason we are all tuned in is probably because we want to witness that glorious moment when he admits his ramblings are not math; that his understanding of mathematical concepts as limit, infinity, sets, etc is seriously flawed, and that he is actually willing to learn math or abandon it altogether. I am willing to bet this moment will never arrive but deep down hoping it will.
 
The Man said:
Nope, the uncertainty principle still applies. It is just that the change in momentum and/or location can be negligible compare to the size and total momentum of the “object”
Click to expand...

Uncertainty and Certainty are two opposite aspects of the same measured framework, or in other words, they are mutual independent of each other, where mutuality is characterized by the simultaneity of more than a one identity, known as a superposition of identities, and independency is characterized by the simultaneity of no more than a one identity, known as a uniqueness of identities.

AB is a notation for a superposition of identities.

A,B is a notation for a uniqueness of identities.

Another state is Redundancy which can be found among several superpositions of identities (for example (AB,AB)) or among several unique identities (for example (A,A) or (B,B)).

(AB,AB) is the room for (AB,A),(AB,B),(AB),(A,A),(B,B),(A,B),(A),(B),() where this room, with all of its forms can be taken simultaneously (in parallel), linearly (in serial or step-by-step), or in any possible mixture of parallel/serial linkage.

Linear measurement of given identities (A,B,C,D), is not a simultaneous measurement of more than one identity (ABCD).

Additivity (also called Superposition property by Standard Math) which is a fundamental property of Linear measurement, is represented, for example, by Algebra (f(x + y) = f(x) + f(y)) or Number theory (f(a∙b) = f(a) + f(b)) , where no simultaneity of more than a one identity is used (no real superposition of ids is used).

So we see again how Standard Math uses words (Superposition, in this case) without any real understanding of their real meaning.

We, can add this wrong use of "Superposition" that is related to distinct ids, to the wrong use of "Limit" that is related to infinite collections.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle said:
So a more accurate position measurement–by adding together more waves–means the momentum measurement becomes less accurate (and vice versa).
Click to expand...

In other words, any attempt to summaries (adding together) ids, is actually the attempting to localize the measured phenomena by reducing it into a unique position (a unique id).

On the contrary, any attempt to get momentum , is actually the attempting to not localize the measured phenomena by allowing it to be in a non unique position (a non unique id).

The Man, you simply have no clue with what you are dealing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function_collapse is not so trivial, as you try to represent it (see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decoherence).

The Man said:
No Doron it is based on actual experimentation.
Click to expand...
No experiment helps to someone that does not have the understanding of its results.

Since you are using the word "Superposition" without understanding it, you can't understand the results where real superposition is involved.
 
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
Just for emphasis of the point, in response to me asking him why he'd asked a question if it was the wrong question, Doron wrote:



The original question follows. Doron's weak attempt to rewrite history is obvious. He asked the question because he does not know the answer, nothing more, and certainly not to demonstrate anything.
Click to expand...

jsfisher, as I said in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5930007&postcount=9808 Moshe already wrote a general formula do define the amount of DS of some k-Uncertanty x k-Redundancy tree.

I asked you to find such a formula exactly because I wished to show that the answer to "how many?" question is too weak in order to deal with ONs complexity.
 
doronshadmi said:
Uncertainty and Certainty are two opposite aspects of the same measured framework, or in other words, they are mutual independent of each other, where mutuality is characterized by the simultaneity of more than a one identity, known as a superposition of identities, and independency is characterized by the simultaneity of no more than a one identity, known as a uniqueness of identities.

AB is a notation for a superposition of identities.

A,B is a notation for a uniqueness of identities.

Another state is Redundancy which can be found among several superpositions of identities (for example (AB,AB)) or among several unique identities (for example (A,A) or (B,B)).

(AB,AB) is the room for (AB,A),(AB,B),(AB),(A,A),(B,B),(A,B),(A),(B),() where this room, with all of its forms can be taken simultaneously (in parallel), linearly (in serial or step-by-step), or in any possible mixture of parallel/serial linkage.

Linear measurement of given identities (A,B,C,D), is not a simultaneous measurement of more than one identity (ABCD).
Click to expand...

Did anyone here order this word salad?

doronshadmi said:
Additivity (also called Superposition property by Standard Math) which is a fundamental property of Linear measurement, is represented, for example, by f(x + y) = f(x) + f(y) or f(ab) = f(a) + f(b) , where no simultaneity of more than a one identity is used (no real superposition of ids is used).
Click to expand...

Would that be your “real superposition” where you claim you “do not use” superposition? Please show the time dependent relation to support your claim of “no simultaneity”. Is it actually your ridiculous and demonstrably wrong argument that the superposition principle refers to results separated in time?


Again from the article on the superposition principle.

The net response at a given place and time caused by two or more stimuli is the sum of the responses which would have been caused by each stimulus individually.
Click to expand...
*Bolding added

Once again your “direct perception” has failed you again, where simply reading the article cited and quote given before clearly demonstrate your error.

doronshadmi said:
So we see again how Standard Math uses words (Superposition, in this case) without any real understanding of their real meaning.

We, can add this wrong use of "Superposition" that is related to distinct ids, to the wrong use of "Limit" that is related to infinite collections.
Click to expand...

No Doron once again the lack of understanding is entirely yours. We have already added “Superposition” to the list of words you deliberately misrepresent.



doronshadmi said:
In other words, any attempt to summaries (adding together) ids, is actually the attempting to localize the measured phenomena by reducing it into a unique position (a unique id).

On the contrary, any attempt to get momentum , is actually the attempting to not localize the measured phenomena by allowing it to be in a non unique position (a non unique id).

The Man, you simply have no clue with what you are dealing.
Click to expand...

In the same words used time and time again Doron it is demonstrably you that has no clue what you are talking and that is exactly what I am, and everyone else here is, dealing with.

Learn the meaning of the words and concepts Doron, just trying to substitute your own personal inferences is a poor excuse for you not actually understanding those words and concepts. Complexity’s request was spot on target in this regard, your use or words should be...

Complexity said:
….in accord with www.Dictionary.com.
Click to expand...
 
The Man said:
Is it actually your ridiculous and demonstrably wrong argument that the superposition principle refers to results separated in time?
Click to expand...
No, it is not less than Non-locality(momentum)/Locality(place).



The Man said:
at a given place and time
Click to expand...
PlaceTime is exactly a framework where the measured phenomena is not individual-only, as your poor Math forces by sum.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
jsfisher, as I said in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5930007&postcount=9808 Moshe already wrote a general formula do define the amount of DS of some k-Uncertanty x k-Redundancy tree.
Click to expand...

As I already mentioned, this whole current thread derail is a retread of year-old material. Just as you have forgotten about the same blunders you made back then, you have forgotten, too, that Moshe's formula was a medley of mistakes.

You really, really should learn from your mistakes.

I asked you to find such a formula exactly because I wished to show that the answer to "how many?" question is too weak in order to deal with ONs complexity.
Click to expand...

Keep on backpedaling. No matter how unlikely, maybe someone will believe you. Still, the facts remain that (1) you didn't and still don't know "how many", and (2) you have failed to show any such thing.


By the way, now are those 3X3 corrections coming?
 
jsfisher said:
As I already mentioned, this whole current thread derail is a retread of year-old material. Just as you have forgotten about the same blunders you made back then, you have forgotten, too, that Moshe's formula was a medley of mistakes.

You really, really should learn from your mistakes.
Click to expand...
You really have to learn to read all the post befor you reply, becuse yuo have missed this:
doronshadmi said:
Moshe has another generator that defines the amount of ONs that is based on your correction
Click to expand...
 
doronshadmi said:
Your trivial Math can't deal with this:

The Man, you simply have no clue with what you are dealing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function_collapse is not so trivial, as you try to represent it (see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decoherence).
Click to expand...

Doron I’m quite familiar with those topics. You should try actually reading and understanding those articles, but you will find they actually involve math and the superposition principle. Aspects you can not escape simply by stringing words you apparently do not understand together and deliberately misrepresenting concepts.

Got that time dependent relation yet to support your claim of “no simultaneity”?
 
doronshadmi said:
You really have to learn to read all the post befor you reply, becuse yuo have missed this:
doronshadmi said:
Moshe has another generator that defines the amount of ONs that is based on your correction
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Nope, wrong again, still, perpetually, doron. I didn't miss it. Moshe's revised generator didn't pass review, either. He left in disgrace right after, too.



How are those corrections coming?
 
The Man said:
“no simultaneity”
Click to expand...
No simultaneity is anything that is based on serial (step-by-step or linear) reasoning.

In "Pure" Math, where time is not involved, a step-by-step form is characterized by certain distinction and/or certain order of distinct things.

These cases are distinct forms of Frame (1,…) of ON (0-Uncertanty x 0-Redendancy, which is notated as (A,B,C,D,…)).

Simultaneity is anything that is based on parallel reasoning.

In "Pure" Math, where time is not involved, a parallel form is characterized by uncertain distinction (Uncertainty) and/or uncertain order of distinct things (Redundancy).

These cases are non-distinct forms of Frames like F (2,…) of ON (for example:1-Uncertanty x 0-Redendancy, which is notated as (AB,…)) and/or non-distinct forms of Frames like F (1,…) of ON (for example: 0-Uncertanty x 1-Redendancy, which is notated as (A,A,…)).

In general Frame F (k,…) of k-Uncertainty x k-Redundancy tree (where k>0) is the room for both parallel and serial forms, and any mixture of them.

Now back to PlaceTime framework:

The single silt case of the the double-slit experiment is derived from the distinct form of Frame F (1,…) of ON (0-Uncertanty x 0-Redendancy, which is notated as (A,B,C,D,…)).

The double-slit case of the the double-slit experiment is derived from the non-distinct forms of Frames like F (2,…) of ON (for example:1-Uncertanty x 0-Redendancy, which is notated as (AB,…)) and/or non-distinct forms of Frames like F (1,…) of ON (for example: 0-Uncertanty x 1-Redendancy, which is notated as (A,A,…)).

By gradually change the energy (which is actually a serial case of ON) of the photons that are used to measure the photons that passed the double-slit barrier, we actually moving between non-distinct forms of Frames and the particular case of the distinct form of Frame F (1,…) of ON (0-Uncertanty x 0-Redendancy).

Organic Numbers are Non-locality(momentum)\Locality(place or position) linkage, which is the complex manifestation of that has no id.
 
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
Nope, wrong again, still, perpetually, doron. I didn't miss it. Moshe's revised generator didn't pass review, either. He left in disgrace right after, too.
Click to expand...

You did not see his new formula, so you have nothing to say about it.

But we can clearly say the you did not provide any formula, yet, that is based on your redundancy-only case.
 
doronshadmi said:
You did not see his new formula, so you have nothing to say about it.
Click to expand...

Oh, wow! So he has a new, new formula? Given that the first two were defective, I think we an assume this one is as well. Still, whether it is or is not, you, doron, are totally unqualified to tell.



ETA: Oh, and how are those corrections coming? You aren't going to just let your blunders stand, are you?
 
doronshadmi said:
And yes, I am totally qualified to tell...
Click to expand...


Really? History says otherwise. Why, then, if you are "totally qualified to tell" did you bother to repost the same bogus formula from before?

Please don't go for the excuse you were just testing the rest of us. You used that one already, and it failed.
 
Excellent evidence that highly organized and dynamic structures can arise over time with no theoretical framework as a necessary fundament is Microsoft. Bill Gates left school probably due to intuitive reasoning that illuminated a canvas showing the carnage that purely abstract reasoning can unleash in a purely practical environment. Abstract reasoning that attempts to formalize a procedure to deliver a fool-proof, theorems-driven package without receiving a go-ahead from a failure-stricken system is an unnecessary mental exercise encoded in an unimaginative, non-responsive symbolism that fills the bucket of redundancy up to the rim.
Friedrich Arnost von Burgenheim


Hi guys! How is it going?
:)
 
doronshadmi said:
No simultaneity is anything that is based on serial (step-by-step or linear) reasoning.
Click to expand...

Ok so you just don’t understand the time dependence of simultaneity.

doronshadmi said:
In "Pure" Math, where time is not involved, a step-by-step form is characterized by certain distinction and/or certain order of distinct things.
Click to expand...

1:00 pm EST is followed by 1:01pm EST by one minute on the same day (1:01pm EST - 1:00pm EST = 1 minute)

Eastern Standard Time (EST) is four hours less than Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) so 1:00pm EST is simultaneous with 5:00pm UTC (1:00pm EST + (UTC-EST) = 5:00 pm UTC).

Clear examples of math involving time “certain distinction and/or certain order of distinct things” demonstrating simultaneity of 1:00pm EST with 5:00pm UTC.

As usual Doron you have no idea what you are talking about.

doronshadmi said:
These cases are distinct forms of Frame (1,…) of ON (0-Uncertanty x 0-Redendancy, which is notated as (A,B,C,D,…)).

Simultaneity is anything that is based on parallel reasoning.

In "Pure" Math, where time is not involved, a parallel form is characterized by uncertain distinction (Uncertainty) and/or uncertain order of distinct things (Redundancy).

These cases are non-distinct forms of Frames like F (2,…) of ON (for example:1-Uncertanty x 0-Redendancy, which is notated as (AB,…)) and/or non-distinct forms of Frames like F (1,…) of ON (for example: 0-Uncertanty x 1-Redendancy, which is notated as (A,A,…)).

In general Frame F (k,…) of k-Uncertainty x k-Redundancy tree (where k>0) is the room for both parallel and serial forms, and any mixture of them.
Click to expand...

No Doron your “general Frame F (k,…) of k-Uncertainty x k-Redundancy tree” is just undefined nonsense.

By the way an “uncertain order of distinct things” does not infer anything is repeated or duplicated “(Redundancy)” . While a certain “order of distinct things” can in fact be a result of a repetition and/or duplication (“Redundancy” in the particular ordering). (A,A,A,A,A…) has redundant ordering (always A after A). (A,B,A,B,A,B) and (A,B,A,A,B,B,B,A,B,A,A,B,B,B,A,B,A,A,B,B,B) also have their own redundant ordering.


doronshadmi said:
Now back to PlaceTime framework:

The single silt case of the the double-slit experiment is derived from the distinct form of Frame F (1,…) of ON (0-Uncertanty x 0-Redendancy, which is notated as (A,B,C,D,…)).
Click to expand...

Nope, it is just “derived” from there being one slit, hence the name “The single silt case”.


doronshadmi said:
The double-slit case of the the double-slit experiment is derived from the non-distinct forms of Frames like F (2,…) of ON (for example:1-Uncertanty x 0-Redendancy, which is notated as (AB,…)) and/or non-distinct forms of Frames like F (1,…) of ON (for example: 0-Uncertanty x 1-Redendancy, which is notated as (A,A,…)).
Click to expand...

Nope, again it is just “derived” from there being two slits, hence the name “the double-slit experiment”.



doronshadmi said:
By gradually change the energy (which is actually a serial case of ON) of the photons that are used to measure the photons that passed the double-slit barrier, we actually moving between non-distinct forms of Frames and the particular case of the distinct form of Frame F (1,…) of ON (0-Uncertanty x 0-Redendancy).
Click to expand...

What “photons that are used to measure the photons that passed the double-slit barrier” are you referring to? You do understand the relationship between the energy and wavelength of the photon as well as the dependence of the distance between the slits on that wavelength, don’t you? Your assertions above indicate that you simply do not understand the double-slit experiment and simply want to ascribe your imaginary undefined nonsense as being somehow related to such experiments.


doronshadmi said:
Organic Numbers are Non-locality(momentum)\Locality(place or position) linkage, which is the complex manifestation of that has no id.
Click to expand...


What? So now your “Organic Numbers” have “(momentum)”? Well it must be angular momentum as you and your ““Organic Numbers” just keep going around in circles.
 
epix said:
Excellent evidence that highly organized and dynamic structures can arise over time with no theoretical framework as a necessary fundament is Microsoft. Bill Gates left school probably due to intuitive reasoning that illuminated a canvas showing the carnage that purely abstract reasoning can unleash in a purely practical environment. Abstract reasoning that attempts to formalize a procedure to deliver a fool-proof, theorems-driven package without receiving a go-ahead from a failure-stricken system is an unnecessary mental exercise encoded in an unimaginative, non-responsive symbolism that fills the bucket of redundancy up to the rim.
Friedrich Arnost von Burgenheim


Hi guys! How is it going?
:)
Click to expand...

Same as always epix.
 
jsfisher said:
Really? History says otherwise. Why, then, if you are "totally qualified to tell" did you bother to repost the same bogus formula from before?

Please don't go for the excuse you were just testing the rest of us. You used that one already, and it failed.
Click to expand...

The older formula did its job very well, by calculate the amount of a partial case of k-Uncertainty x K-Redundancy tree.

The main thing here is not the "how many?" question, but what actually enables the terms to ask that question.

Since ONs are a linkage between Non-local and Local qualities, it is the fundamental term that enables Quantity, where Quantity is the basis of the "how many?" question.

"How many?" question is usually based on distinction between different ids that are added to each other in order to define a sum, which answer to this question.

But Non-locality\Locality Linkage is not limited to distinct ids, and in this case the "How many?" question is extended beyond the different ids that are added to each other in order to define a sum.

By this extension the "How many?" question can't capture the complexity of the parallel/serial linkage of k-Uncertainty x k-Redundancy tree, where each part of it is both global AND local case of it, because of the qualitative principle that stands at the basis of Quantity.

k-Uncertainty x k- Redundancy are nothing but finite cases of a one and only one complex ∞-Uncertainty x ∞-Redundancy tree, yet they are based on the same principle of the ∞-Uncertainty x ∞-Redundancy tree, where this principle is the qualitative linkage between Non-locality and Locality.

The reasoning of the past 3,500 did not developed the understanding of the qualitative principle that stands at the basis of Quantity.

Organic Mathematics does exactly this, it discovers the qualitative foundations of Quantity, and not step-by-step reasoning can't get that, because a step-by-step reasoning takes Quantity as a fundamental term for its development (by avoiding the understanding of its qualitative foundations) .

This is exactly the reason why Superposition is understood, for example as the sum over histories (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_integral_formulation) of the paths of a quantum element from position A to position B, and by doing that it totally misses the qualitative linkage between Non-locality and Locality, that actually enables this sum, because a sum (which is a caused by liner addition of each stimulus individually) is nothing but some partial case of a framework that also deals with fogs and any possible mixture of sums/fogs.

This is also exactly the reason why infinite convergent elements are taken as sums and not as fogs, and this is how words like Superposition or Limit are used without any under-standing (where the under-standing is exactly the qualitative foundations of Quantitiy).
 
The Man said:
No Doron your “general Frame F (k,…) of k-Uncertainty x k-Redundancy tree” is just undefined nonsense.

By the way an “uncertain order of distinct things” does not infer anything is repeated or duplicated “(Redundancy)” . While a certain “order of distinct things” can in fact be a result of a repetition and/or duplication (“Redundancy” in the particular ordering). (A,A,A,A,A…) has redundant ordering (always A after A). (A,B,A,B,A,B) and (A,B,A,A,B,B,B,A,B,A,A,B,B,B,A,B,A,A,B,B,B) also have their own redundant ordering.
Click to expand...
Again order is a direct result of your serial reasoning among distinct ids (and redundancy is among distinct ids. For example: you take the uncertain AB as a certain element and then define the redundancy of (AB,AB), but by doing that you are missing the uncertainty of AB, which is based on parallel reasoning.

The is no order under parallel reasoning exactly because there is a superposition of ids, which is a symmetric form, that if collapsed it enables the asymmetric form of ordered distinct ids.

The Man said:
1:00 pm EST is followed by 1:01pm EST by one minute on the same day (1:01pm EST - 1:00pm EST = 1 minute)

Eastern Standard Time (EST) is four hours less than Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) so 1:00pm EST is simultaneous with 5:00pm UTC (1:00pm EST + (UTC-EST) = 5:00 pm UTC).

Clear examples of math involving time “certain distinction and/or certain order of distinct things” demonstrating simultaneity of 1:00pm EST with 5:00pm UTC.
Click to expand...

You give different distinct ids to the time zone, but by doing that you are using a step-by-step asymmetric values that uses different quantities that have > or < between them, in order to get your requested "simultaneous" result.

But real simultaneity is symmetric by nature because the ids are is a superposition, which prevents any order ( < or >) that can be found only among asymmetric serial reasoning.

Real simultaneity can be found only under the parallel state of superposition of ids.

Any state that is not parallel, is less simultaneous, and less simultaneity is characterized by order (< or >) among distinct ids, like your 1:00pm EST with 5:00pm UTC.

A = 1:00pm EST

B = 5:00pm UTC.

If A=B then there is a one thing with different names, which is a simultaneity of a one thing, which is trivial.

If A≠B then there is an order (< or >) between distinct things, which is a weak and asymmetric version of simultaneity.

So real simultaneity is the AB superposition, which is parallel and no order can be found under a superposition of ids.

The simultaneity of the AB superposition is non-trivial.
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
What “photons that are used to measure the photons that passed the double-slit barrier” are you referring to? You do understand the relationship between the energy and wavelength of the photon as well as the dependence of the distance between the slits on that wavelength, don’t you? Your assertions above indicate that you simply do not understand the double-slit experiment and simply want to ascribe your imaginary undefined nonsense as being somehow related to such experiments.
Click to expand...
I am talking about the photons that are used to define from what silt the measured photon passes the barrier.

When this measurement is done, the wave patterns of the detector are changed into a single silt pattern. We can gradually use more energetic photons, and by doing that we can move between the wave pattern that the non-wave (the single silt) pattern.

The DS if Organic Numbers are exactly these intermediate states, that are found between superposition of wave (non-localized) patterns and non-superposition of a single silt (localized) pattern.

A single silt pattern has a statistical dispersion of localization (a particle), where a double silt pattern has a statistical dispersion of non-localization (a wave).

So Non-locality/Locality Linkage stands at the basis of QM, exactly as it stands the the basis of many measurements as seen in the macro level.
 
doronshadmi said:
The older formula did its job very well, by calculate the amount of a partial case of k-Uncertainty x K-Redundancy tree.
Click to expand...

...except it didn't. It had errors.

Speaking of errors, how are those corrections coming for your 3X3 presentation?

...
the "How many?" question can't capture the complexity of the parallel/serial linkage of k-Uncertainty x k-Redundancy tree
Click to expand...

No, dah, Captain Obvious. The answer to the "how many" question provides the answer to the...wait for it...wait for it...the "how many" question. If you wanted an answer to a different question, well, then, perhaps you should have asked that question rather than grip about the question you did ask.


Still, you should work on fixing your blunders in the 3X3 presentation. It is a fairly simple example, and if you can't get even the simple stuff correct, how can people expect any better from you for anything complicated?
 
doronshadmi said:
Any state that is not parallel, is less simultaneous, and less simultaneity is characterized by order (< or >) among distinct ids
Click to expand...


Were there any doubt, doron has now demonstrated (again) his lack of understanding of order relationships.
 
doronshadmi said:
Again order is a direct result of your serial reasoning among distinct ids (and redundancy is among distinct ids. For example: you take the uncertain AB as a certain element and then define the redundancy of (AB,AB), but by doing that you are missing the uncertainty of AB, which is based on parallel reasoning.
Click to expand...

Again Doron you established “(AB,AB)” as one of your ‘redundancies’. You want me to give your quote again? That too would be redundant.

doronshadmi said:
The is no order under parallel reasoning exactly because there is a superposition of ids, which is a symmetric form, that if collapsed it enables the asymmetric form of ordered distinct ids.
Click to expand...


That would be a “superposition of ids” where you claim you “do not use” superposition? Your word salad is as wilted as usual today.


doronshadmi said:
You give different distinct ids to the time zone, but by doing that you are using a step-by-step asymmetric values that uses different quantities that have > or < between them, in order to get your requested "simultaneous" result.
Click to expand...

Are you claiming that 1:00pm EST is not simultaneous with 5:00pm UCT? If so then please show the time dependent relation to support such a claim.

doronshadmi said:
But real simultaneity is symmetric by nature because the ids are is a superposition, which prevents any order ( < or >) that can be found only among asymmetric serial reasoning.
Click to expand...

“real simultaneity”? If it’s anything like your “real superposition” then it must not involve, well, simultaneity. Again support your claims of “no simultaneity” by showing a time dependent relation. For example UCT = EST + 4 hours is a time dependent relation that shows the simultaneity between the two time zones.

doronshadmi said:
Real simultaneity can be found only under the parallel state of superposition of ids.

Any state that is not parallel, is less simultaneous, and less simultaneity is characterized by order (< or >) among distinct ids, like your 1:00pm EST with 5:00pm UTC.

A = 1:00pm EST

B = 5:00pm UTC.

If A=B then there is a one thing with different names, which is a simultaneity of a one thing, which is trivial.

If A≠B then there is an order (< or >) between distinct things, which is a weak and asymmetric version of simultaneity.

So real simultaneity is the AB superposition, which is parallel and no order can be found under a superposition of ids.

The simultaneity of the AB superposition is non-trivial.
Click to expand...

You have already asserted that you “do not use” superposition in your “superposition” and from your assertions above your “simultaneity” is anything but, well, simultaneous.
 
doronshadmi said:
I am talking about the photons that are used to define from what silt the measured photon passes the barrier.
Click to expand...

Those are the photons emitted on the other side of the barrier that pass through the barrier. Those are "the measured photon" of which you speak, there are no other "photons that are used to define from what silt the measured photon passes the barrier." What you are "talking about" simply demonstrate that you do not understand the double slit experiment.


doronshadmi said:
When this measurement is done, the wave patterns of the detector are changed into a single silt pattern. We can gradually use more energetic photons, and by doing that we can move between the wave pattern that the non-wave (the single silt) pattern.
Click to expand...

Nope, again you are clearly demonstrating that you have no idea what you are talking about. Again…

The Man said:
You do understand the relationship between the energy and wavelength of the photon as well as the dependence of the distance between the slits on that wavelength, don’t you? Your assertions above indicate that you simply do not understand the double-slit experiment and simply want to ascribe your imaginary undefined nonsense as being somehow related to such experiments.
Click to expand...


The Man said:
The DS if Organic Numbers are exactly these intermediate states, that are found between superposition of wave (non-localized) patterns and non-superposition of a single silt (localized) pattern.
Click to expand...

Again would this be your “superposition” where you claim you “do not use” superposition?

The Man said:
A single silt pattern has a statistical dispersion of localization (a particle), where a double silt pattern has a statistical dispersion of non-localization (a wave).
Click to expand...

A photon always interacts as a particle. In fact an interference pattern is more localized as a photon encountering certain areas on the screen becomes less probable than other areas. To try to put in words you might understand Doron “ A single silt pattern has a statistical dispersion” that is less localized (all parts of the screen are more equally probable) than the “double silt pattern” which is localized into specific bands. Please Doron, study something other than simply your imagination.

The Man said:
So Non-locality/Locality Linkage stands at the basis of QM, exactly as it stands the the basis of many measurements as seen in the macro level.
Click to expand...

Nope just your imagination and “direct perception” failing you again.
 
Last edited:
epix said:
bogus quotes and bogus names
just the stuff that feeds the flames
we must find the truth and prove it
otherwise nothing will rhyme

;)
Click to expand...



The pretence of “simultaneity”
Gives rise to such inanity.
Based on a “Superposition”
Removed from that condition.
Proclaiming some non-Locality
Devoid of all reality.
Invoking a “redundancy”
Lacking all consistency.
To stop is now the time
Since I have no other rhyme.
 
The Man said:
You have already asserted that you “do not use” superposition in your “superposition” and from your assertions above your “simultaneity” is anything but, well, simultaneous.
Click to expand...

I have already asserted that I do not use your asymmetric simultaneity (A,B) that is weaker than the strong superposition, which is symmetric simultaneity (AB).


The Man said:
there are no other "photons that are used to define from what silt the measured photon passes the barrier
Click to expand...
This is an additional experiment that uses the double slit experiment.

Aagain, by this experiment the wave patterns of the detector are changed into a single silt pattern. We can gradually use more energetic photons, and by doing that we can move between the wave pattern and the non-wave (the single silt) pattern.

The DS of Organic Numbers are exactly these intermediate patterns, that are found between superposition of wave (non-localized) patterns and non-superposition of a single silt (localized) pattern.

A single silt pattern has a statistical dispersion of localization (a particle), where a double silt pattern has a statistical dispersion of non-localization (a wave).

So Non-locality/Locality Linkage stands at the basis of QM, exactly as it stands the the basis of many measurements as seen in the macro level.
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
Are you claiming that 1:00pm EST is not simultaneous with 5:00pm UCT? If so then please show the time dependent relation to support such a claim.
Click to expand...
If the two time zones are in different locations, then each location is in the past time w.r.t of the other time zone, because of the constant of the speed of light.

In that case the measurement of a given time zone is Now and the other time zone is Before, which gives us the non-simultaneous Before < Now measurement.

If 1:00pm EST and 5:00pm UCT are different names of the same time zone, then we are dealing with the trivial case of a single time zone (you can add as many names as you wish, still it is the trivial case of a single time zone).

The third option is that the two different time zones are compared with the big-bang time of the universe. In this case we get the weak version of simultaneity, because there is an order (asymmetry) between two distinct time zones (A,B) that are not in a superposition of ids.

The fourth option is that the two time zones are compared with the big-bang time of the universe by superposition of ids, where no order is found because this simultaneity is symmetric, and symmetric simultaneity (AB) is stronger than asymmetric simultaneity (A,B).

Organic Numbers are the comprehensive framework of both strong symmetric simultaneity (AB) and weak asymmetric simultaneity (A,B), including any possible mixture of them.

The Man said:
Again Doron you established “(AB,AB)” as one of your ‘redundancies’. You want me to give your quote again? That too would be redundant.
Click to expand...

You still do not get the difference between 0-Uncertainty/1-Redundancy view of (AB,AB) (in this case AB superposition is ignored),
and 1-Uncertainty/1-Redundancy view of (AB,AB) (in this case AB superposition is not ignored).
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
To try to put in words you might understand Doron “ A single silt pattern has a statistical dispersion” that is less localized (all parts of the screen are more equally probable) than the “double silt pattern” which is localized into specific bands.
Click to expand...

Here is the result of a single silt pattern experiment:
Single_slit_intensity_distribution.png

muls1.gif



Here is the result of a double silt pattern experiment:

822%20Diffraction%20pattern.png

mulsi2.gif


As clearly be seen, a single silt pattern has a localized pattern, where a double silt pattern does not have a localized pattern.

Here you can learn about Diffraction and Interference (has a single silt envelop):
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/mulslid.html#c2

Here you can learn about Interference Only (does not have a single silt envelop):
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/mulslidi.html#c2

All these cases are described by Organic Numbers, which are used as their comprehensive framework.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom