Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
doronshadmi said:
It does not change as long as all you get is the amuont of distinct collections.
Click to expand...

...and it does not change if some narrow-minded individual only sees it as some uncertainty/redundancy tree thingy. It does not change.

k-Uncertainty x k-Redundancy tree's complexity is irreducible to distinct collections, which is something beyond your serial-only reasoning.
Click to expand...

And yet it can be by a very simple transform, a bi-directional transform at that, which is something beyond your inconsistent, contradictory reasoning.
 
jsfisher said:
...and it does not change if some narrow-minded individual only sees it as some uncertainty/redundancy tree thingy. It does not change.



And yet it can be by a very simple transform, a bi-directional transform at that, which is something beyond your inconsistent, contradictory reasoning.
Click to expand...

Again, pay attention that what was rejected by you in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4859277&postcount=4201 is now used in the basis of your method, which demonstrates your serial-only undertanding of Distinction, but even under your limited serial-only view you are unable to provide the general formula for your Redundancy-only method.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
It is typical to the rest of your post. You are like a religious person that read the holly scripts of his religion, instead of using your mind in order to get things beyond what is written.

For example: you say "it is called an interference pattern for a reason" where this reason is nothing but a step-by-step reasoning, which at its best, enables to deal with no more then “replacement under redundancy” among certain ids (for example: Wheeler–Feynman Time-Symmetric theory, which is based on ((A,B),(B,A)) “symmetry of certainty”) and can't deal with “symmetry of uncertainty” (Symmetry of superposition of ids (AB), known as Uncertainty).

Your "Nope, just more of your word salad Doron" demonstrates your religious attitude of the articles that you read.


This is another example of your asymmetric-only step-by-step only reasoning.

From a symmetrical view there is no impact on “replacement under redundancy” as observed in Interference Only (does not have a single silt envelope) if "in" and "out" are exchanged.
Click to expand...

Doron this is your religion and you are just making up your “holly scripts” by stringing words together as you go and pretending that your religion gives them some significance.
 
doronshadmi said:
Again, pay attention that what was rejected by you in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4859277&postcount=4201 is now used in the basis of your method, which demonstrates your serial-only undertanding of Distinction, but even under your limited serial-only view you are unable to provide the general formula for your Redundancy-only method.
Click to expand...

What are you babbling about now? The post you cited isn't now, and certainly wasn't then, my basis for the generation for your trivial kXk collections.

The post you cited is merely one of many posts pointing out inconsistencies and contradictions in how you used your sacred term, distinction.

You really, really need to work on your reading skills. Here is what I wrote:

No. That would violate the definition laid out [by you] for distinction. I know you don't worry about consistency, but it is one of those important aspects fo Mathematics.
Click to expand...
 
jsfisher said:
What are you babbling about now? The post you cited isn't now, and certainly wasn't then, my basis for the generation for your trivial kXk collections.

The post you cited is merely one of many posts pointing out inconsistencies and contradictions in how you used your sacred term, distinction.

You really, really need to work on your reading skills. Here is what I wrote:
Click to expand...

Distinction is a general name for certain distinction, redundant distinction or uncertain distinction, so the one who babbling here is you.
 
So, how are those corrections coming, then? Still can't figure out what's wrong, can you? Still can't even figure out how many cases you should have, can you?

Something so trivial, and you can't figure it out at all. That must really suck.
 
jsfisher said:
No. That would violate the definition laid out [by you] for distinction.
Click to expand...

You sill do not understand my definition of Distinction.

Distinction is a general name for certain distinction, redundant distinction or uncertain distinction which is also refers to the amount of the distinct levels of a thing (see http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4856162&postcount=4165), but all you get is the amount of one and only one level, the level of certain distinction, an by doing that you are missing my definition of Distinction, which is parallel and serial.
 
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
So, how are those corrections coming, then?
Click to expand...

Where is your formula that is nothing but a partial case of the algorithm that draws the Distinct States of a given k-Uncertainty x K-redundancy tree?

When are you going to demonstrate your easy method, by drawing all the distinct cases of 4x4, which are actually a partial case of
F (1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0) of 16x16 tree?


Do you need other to do your job, as I did in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5957646&postcount=9921?
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
Doron this is your religion and you are just making up your “holly scripts” by stringing words together as you go and pretending that your religion gives them some significance.
Click to expand...
The Man, serial-only reasoning is your religion, and probably that all you are going to get for the rest of your life.
 
doronshadmi said:
Where is your formula that is nothing but a partial case of the algorithm that draws the Distinct States of a given k-Uncertainty x K-redundancy tree?
Click to expand...

I've already presented how to calculate the number of cases for your kXk collections.

And why are you so focused on this claim of yours it is "nothing but a partial case" of something else? Whether it is or not aside, why does it matter as long as it produces the correct result?

When are you going to demonstrate your easy method, by drawing all the distinct cases of 4x4, which are actually a partial case of
F (1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0) of 16x16 tree?
Click to expand...

You still have no concept of how many there are, do you? Be that as it may, I've already presented an easy method to generate all the cases for your kXk collections.

And why are you so focused on this claim of yours it is "actually a partial case" of something else? Whether it is or not aside, why does it matter as long as it produces the correct result?
 
jsfisher said:
And why are you so focused on this claim of yours it is "actually a partial case" of something else? Whether it is or not aside, why does it matter as long as it produces the correct result?
Click to expand...

Because a correct result of a partial case, is, well, partial, and in this case, a partial case of the amout of distinct forms of k-Uncertainty x k-Redundancy trees (which are based also on redundancy only as internal property, and by ignoring uncertainty both as internal and external (global) property) , and there is no something else here!
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Because a correct result of a partial case, is, well, partial, and in this case, a partial case of the amout of distinct forms of k-Uncertainty x k-Redundancy trees (which are based also on redundancy only as internal property, and by ignoring uncertainty both as internal and external property) , and there is no something else here!
Click to expand...


You didn't come even close to answering the question.

You have rejected a way to calculate something only because you don't like the method. So what? The result it produces is still correct whether you approve or not.
 
jsfisher said:
I am not responsible for correcting your blunders.
Click to expand...

So you are actually don't know if they are wrong or not.

In that case you can't also know if your method is correct or not, because there must be a 1-to-1 correspondence between my DS and your partial DS of greater kxk tree.

What a poor mathematician you are, and I mean poor according to your own definiton of right and wrong, that is based on serial-only reasoning.
 
doronshadmi said:
The Man, serial-only reasoning is your religion, and probably that all you are going to get for the rest of your life.
Click to expand...


Doron, I have no religion, while your "direct perception" religion has failed you yet again as it has done for the past 20 years and will continue to fail you "for the rest of your life".


Have you found that “additional experiment” you referred to before?

doronshadmi said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
The Man said:
Doron, I have no religion, [iquote]
Ho, yes you have. It is called a serial-only reasoning.

Have you found that “additional experiment” you referred to before?
Click to expand...

I am going for a 10 days vacation.

If you are really interested in an experiment that tries to find through what silt some photon passes before it hits the screen detector -by using other photons, with different levels of energy- and how the different levels of energy change the pattern on the screen detector, you can find it in the internet.

Bye.
 
doronshadmi said:
Your serial-only logic failes you, all along this thread.
Click to expand...

Ok, so this thread has again degenerated into your if-you-can't-defend-it-you'll-just-insult-everyone mode. Let's ignore that for a moment, and reconsider what you have provided so far:

  • You tried to recycle inconsistent and contradictory ideas of yours that were shredded a while ago.
  • You cling to this kXk uncertainty/redundancy collection idea as super-significant, yet you have failed to correctly produce something as trivial as the complete 3X3 collection.
  • You cannot calculate the number of cases you would find in a kXk collection.
  • You have offered no way to manipulate these objects. The only thing that can be done is enumerate the cases, but even that you cannot do correctly. You have provided no functions of any kind than can be applied to uncertainty/redundancy objects.

Got anything you want to add that might make these things have some significance, or will you be continuing with the "you don't get it" mantra? Other than your baseless claim these things are really important, why should we consider them to be anything more than trivial if even that?
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
I am going for a 10 days vacation.

If you are really interested in an experiment that tries to find through what silt some photon passes before it hits the screen detector -by using other photons, with different levels of energy- and how the different levels of energy change the pattern on the screen detector, you can find it in the internet.

Bye.
Click to expand...

It's your claim Doron, you support it.

ETA:

doronshadmi said:
Ho, yes you have. It is called a serial-only reasoning.
Click to expand...

Who are you calling a “Ho”?

Still just your religion Doron, that a key aspect of your religion is simply ascribing some part of it to others still doesn’t make it anything other than just your religion.
 
Last edited:
This thread is massive.

Just want to say hi to any future historians who are unlucky enough to have the job of reading this thread. Sucks to be you. :p
 
Not to worry Limbo, they’ll breeze through it in almost no time if they just use “parallel non-local understanding” and “strong simultaneity among non-distinct/distinct and unordered values that stand at the basis of any non-localized form (the simultaneity of (AB…) Uncertainty is more symmetric and therefore stronger than the simultaneity of (A,A,…) Redundancy).” Even less time if they understand English and math.
 
Yes! A vacation!
Take a vacation from this stuff, Doron.
And when you get back you can slap down my most recent comment on OM as follows in this post.

Foggy Logic

Most regulars here are acquainted with "Fuzzy Logic."
It acknowledges that in nature cut and dried, hard edged, either-ors are the exception rather than the rule.
It mimics nature's analogical procedures to give us "fuzzy" or "smart" appliances.

The "Organic" in Doron's "Organic Mathematics" intends to assert much the same about nature's messiness or "complexity."
Except OM has a special device of the form X/~X Interaction (or Complement) (or Linkage) (or Bridging) (or Combination) (The subject matter actually requires lots of different words.)

You've seen:
Local/Non-Local
Parallel/Serial
Uncertain/Redundant
Element/Collection
Part/Whole
Particular/Universal
Finite/Infinite
Point/Line

And you know a new pair gets into the picture like every other day.

Doron has characterized at least the most basic of these as pairs of ontological principles.
To me this was confusing and became the root of why Doron has to scrap much of modern mathematics.

So I've re-framed it as a matter of perspective or focus of attention.
You may place attention on the whole or the part, the individual or the collective, the tree(s) or the forest. But you don't have them both in focus at the same time. There's a dance between and too and from.

Quantity is a result of a shifting of focus back and forth from individual element to collective sum. Counting grasps an individual element and embraces it in the collective.

Start counting the number of trees in the forest, and you see the shifting perspective.

It's a little more subtle than that in Doron's OM.
One focus of a pair, he calls an "Element," distinct of itself, "parallel" to other elements of their own unique identity but not necessarily sharing a common identity or class with them.
The other focus, he calls "Redundancy," to mean that the elements are seen as non-unique instances of a common identity or classification. The redundants are in collection and have a quantity.

Arriving at a count, a quantity, a sum, designated by a number assumes a common identity for the purpose of a common class containing countable items.
But Doron also assigns number to those raw elements when a unique individual can only be no more than one. (And that nevertheless involves a collective perspective.)
This really confuses things, for he has quantity where an element is merely uniquely parallel, so that all numbers he expresses can't but help be regarded serially.
It's no wonder that he finds people not getting the Element Level as opposed to the Collection Level, or not getting the Parallel as opposed to the Serial. Or seeing number only through the lens of Redundancy.
When numbers are used to designate Element Level quantities, who can escape the latent Redundancy of counted elements?

But I'm going to gloss over this now, because I'm being to0 picky, anal, or whatever for Doron's intentions with all this.
Let's get to the Uncertains.

Items on the Element Level, not bridged, linked, or collected into countability as redundants, are also said by Doron to be "Uncertain."
That is uncertain to the collective count, uncertain of inclusion or exclusion, and in his concept of Organic Number embracing both the Element and Collection Levels, they are at one in the same time both in membership of the collective and outside membership of the collective.
The two focal points of Doron's Organic Numbers that enable the concept of number are "Redundancy" and "Uncertainty."
So the excuse is that number always involves an Element aspect and a Collective aspect, an aspect of certain count, and an aspect of uncertain count. This is the point of going to all this trouble.

Let's talk about the forest and the trees.
There is the proverbial pair of Forest/Trees, as in "can't see the forest for the trees."
You want to count the trees in the forest, your perspective swings between collection forest and individual tree(s).

Let's go to the coastal redwood forests of Oregon (what's left of them).
Actually just the thought of these majestic trees saps away any motivation I had to count them. I just want to lean my back against one of those massive trees and rest my mind in its presence.

But let's proceed acknowledging each tree and classifying it into a countable collective. (Yes, Doron, Memory/Element Linkage.)

Then we come to a smaller tree with a different colored bark.
It's a Douglas Fir.
Does it count?
There's the uncertainty. It's there. It's even a tree. Is it Redundant though?
Redundant enough?
We might just have to leave the matter undecided and give a quasi count for these elements of uncertain inclusion.
It's a little fuzzy, but many forests contain a variety of tree species.
So we count the fir trees in toward our desire for a definite figure.

Oh, this is odd. Atop a cleared hill, we find something that looks like a small redwood, but it's made of metal.
It's a cellphone tower, an artfully disguised cellphone tower.
We have these in America. And here in Metro-Phoenix (and in LA), there are ones made to look like desert palm trees. Perhaps they have them in Haifa too.
Well? Is it tree. Is there enough redundancy to include it in the count?
I can hear children arguing about this. Some of them say count it as a tree.
Others say it's a fake.
We've got some Redundancy. We've got some Uncertainty.

Something obvious will happen here. Those seeking a definite count of the tress in the forest, for whatever scientific purpose, will tighten the definition of "tree" to the exclusion of the cellphone tower. That's how science generally deals with the uncertain: by definition and qualification.
(Please note that this is not about Heisenberg's uncertainty which is a different matter and a different meaning of the word "uncertainty" in a different context.)
Of course tightening things up can come to splitting hairs and unnatural exclusions. Is Pluto a planet? Are birds dinosaurs?
But that's what scientists must suffer. In other areas of life we don't always seek to minimize uncertainty.

Anyway in Organic Mathematics, fine-tuned definition isn't the answer.
The answer is to let complexity be in the ever complexifying tree of Redundancy/Uncertainty combinations.
Perhaps there's a way to chart the number of cellphone towers in the Forest/Tree, Redundancy/Uncertainty Complex. I don't think Doron has shown that technique yet.

But what about Sylvia?
We come to another odd sight in the forest.
A young woman is standing still as if rooted to the ground.
Her arms are outstretched, and her dreadlocked head is gazing upward.
She has a joint in one hand. Takes a puff, sticks out her arm again, and declares,
"I'm a tree!"

Do we count Sylvia?
She's of uncertain tree identity, yet she claims a redundancy.
At the moment our Sylvia feels one with the forest.

We can't be cruel and say Sylvia is a "no-count," as flaky as she may be.
She's a "Hippy Goddess," on the Internet!

In a Mahayana Buddhist, radical empiricist, sort of way, we are inseparable from what we perceive.
But Science would say "that kind of redundancy and uncertainty isn't our department."

But for Organic Mathematics, on the Element Level, her uncertainty of treeness, nevertheless affords her an addition and not an addition to the number of trees in the forest.

Disclaimer One:
Of course these examples of uncertain identities that OM recognizes as counting and not counting in the land of Non-Locality, are cartoonish and absurd. There's no better way to pull a point into sharp relief.

Disclaimer Two:
My interpretation of Doron here may be bollocks.
I always just get him up to a certain point, and then when I try to expand that into something coherent with other aspects of his OM, he smacks that down or even takes back a point I thought we'd come to an understanding about.
I'll say that sometimes the above is what Doron is driving at.
Other days he's driving a different direction.
So I look for his intent, which in this context is much the same as the goals pf Fuzzy Logic, except his is more a fog.
A foggy logic I get lost in.
 
Apathia,

I believe you are trying too hard (again) to facilitate Doron's communication. I do very much enjoy reading your philosophical insights, but I fear what you have written is mostly you re-interpreting pockets of order that appear at random in his ocean of chaos then trying to link them into a meaningful whole.

He continually introduces new words, but not to expose subtle nuances in his ideas. He does it as a substitute for content. He gives his notions meaningful-sounding names believing he's thereby defined them, which he didn't, and they are established as important, which they are not.

I predict if and when Doron responds to your post, he will pat you on head for a couple of your points and rap you on the nose with a rolled-up newspaper for the rest. He won't recognize much of what you write has his, mostly because it isn't his. It is not Doron's insights you are exposing, but your own.
 
Apathia said:
Disclaimer Two:
My interpretation of Doron here may be bollocks.
I always just get him up to a certain point, and then when I try to expand that into something coherent with other aspects of his OM, he smacks that down or even takes back a point I thought we'd come to an understanding about.
I'll say that sometimes the above is what Doron is driving at.
Other days he's driving a different direction.
So I look for his intent, which in this context is much the same as the goals pf Fuzzy Logic, except his is more a fog.
A foggy logic I get lost in.
Click to expand...


Well that seems to be the rub of it Apathia, the fogginess is deliberate. To get something that is coherent means that some of the non-coherent aspects must be cast away. That does not appear to be Doron’s intent or much to his liking. His goal simply seems to be direct contradiction and considering such contradiction as valid thus every aspect of his OM remains valid. Of course the problem that I’ve tried to relate to him is that then the contradiction of his valid OM being invalid also becomes valid. He seems quite willing to accept and basically ignore contradiction as long as it can appear to validate his OM but considers invalidation of his OM to be immutably, well, contradictory.
 
jsfisher said:
Apathia,

I believe you are trying too hard (again) to facilitate Doron's communication.
Click to expand...

I don't know entirely why I do it. It's the same sort of thing as other people carrying on with him in this thread. sometimes I just like to throw an angle of what he says at the wall and see if it sticks, or how long it sticks, or just the splat it makes.

I'm not under the illusion that I'll somehow change him, yet my responses might give him a less hard nosed position.
Or on other occasions impel him to dig in deeper with very unfortunate assertions.

I've tried to interpret for him as well. Just so other posters can give him a more useful critique than just saying it's all gibberish and word salad.
But in the least it is a salad with some identifiable chunks, rather than a mush.

Even if I had not been a player, Doron would have gotten more mileage here than anywhere else he has posted these many years.

I do very much enjoy reading your philosophical insights,
Click to expand...

Well, there's a telling reason. Doron provides opportunities for me to say stuff.
And sometimes it's stuff that if I were to post it in any other thread context or make a thread of my own with it, I'd be the crank.

but I fear what you have written is mostly you re-interpreting pockets of order that appear at random in his ocean of chaos then trying to link them into a meaningful whole.
Click to expand...

Yes. I've tried to get at some basic positions of his, or at least the intent of those idea But I always cone to grief when I try to fit them into a consistant picture.
The one truly consistent reply Doron has given me is "That's what you get with Complexity."
But I've relaxed a little in expecting his stuff to have a rational coherence and realized that one needs to lighten up the rigor and not look to closely to get the drift of Doron. But by that time my points of agreement with him are just bland platitudes.
(It's all so Unitarian-Universalist, of which I'm a member.)


I predict if and when Doron responds to your post, he will pat you on head for a couple of your points and rap you on the nose with a rolled-up newspaper for the rest.
Click to expand...

A safe prediction.

There's a situation comedy aspect to all this.
And a situation tragedy aspect as well.
Being someone who has a taste for the works of David Lynch, it's not really a surprise I come back for more.

I'm not just playing with Doron. I respect him for his desires for a world where we aren't crammed into marketable categories but are respected as persons.

Ah, the ways each of us pursue respect and acceptance, and maybe a little objective immortality. We're all so comedic and tragic.

He won't recognize much of what you write as his, mostly because it isn't his. It is not Doron's insights you are exposing, but your own.
Click to expand...

I can't refute that charge.
Certainly in my previous post, I made an offer of an heretical variation on the Doron theme.
A kind of X/~X Interaction that I don't think would gut Mathematics, but just soften those edges out where nature takes leave of our common sense.

But I don't think I'm going to be presenting my own new paradigm.
I still toy with using some of this Doronesque stuff as part of a back drop in a future novel. But I'm busy with another writing project at the moment.

This is deja vu all over again, as are so many elements in this thread. :wackybiglaugh:
 
Well, you are deriving some pleasure from this thread -- as are we all -- so carry on!

;)
 
The Man said:
Well that seems to be the rub of it Apathia, the fogginess is deliberate. To get something that is coherent means that some of the non-coherent aspects must be cast away. That does not appear to be Doron’s intent or much to his liking. His goal simply seems to be direct contradiction and considering such contradiction as valid thus every aspect of his OM remains valid. Of course the problem that I’ve tried to relate to him is that then the contradiction of his valid OM being invalid also becomes valid. He seems quite willing to accept and basically ignore contradiction as long as it can appear to validate his OM but considers invalidation of his OM to be immutably, well, contradictory.
Click to expand...

I agree that there is an intentional fogginess.
Not in the sense of a troll in pursuit of lulzs.
but that Doron tolerates and even values a much greater amount of ambiguity and imprecision than a mathematician can.
And it's a matter of personal philosophy for him.

I spent the bulk of my young adulthood living in different countries in Asia.
First off I found that what I thought the human way of thinking, and my own American mental culture wasn't universal.
I got pleasure in picking through the puzzle of how, for example, the Japanese think. It's not a surprise to me that their "logic' is disjointed and asymmetrical in flavor. And that they found Fuzzy Logic immediately intuitive and put it to work.
(I'm not saying Japanese scientists and mathematicians use a different formal logic than the west. There is an international scientific culture now, but people still have cultural variations on the street.

So that's a part of why I find some fascination in posting in this thread.

But, as I said in the previous post, this is deja vu all over again.
 
Exactly Apathia and I see nothing wrong with that. We are after all not logic machines and fuzzy logic seems to be the best fit to what our brains actually do (even as far as directly contradicting ourselves). As I have said many times before, if Doron would present and profess this as simply his own opinions and philosophy I doubt that I would be here to debate it.
 
This time please read my all of my first post (not part here and part there), and try to get it by using a general viewpoint that enables you to see how it can be used as a common framework to research Entropy in terms of both Thermodynamic and Information by a one framework.
Click to expand...

I am really truly fascinated by this topic but the only way to really give people a chance of having a debate that flows is to work together and provide information in a give and take manner rather than constantly frustrating what could be a fruitful process.

All points of view are valid but responses have to address people's needs in order to move forward. Isn't withholding answers a form of 'information entropy' itself?

well that's just my creative interpretation of the term, it certainly does hinder discussion.

Can we start again? ha! Or least move forward with some equality for all parties in debate. Openness and transparency is really the only way to go if you want to reach all different types of people in a process of learning!

In the meantime I will read about both forms of entropy
Thanks (-:

:crowded:
 
Last edited:
I'd like to be able to get to the bones of the Doron matter.
Not the whole skeleton.
Just the skinny of the morality of it.

The introductory ethical theme that Doron presents his OM as relevant to is Us vs. Them and the tendency to clump ourselves into exclusive, rival groups.
We treat people by class and category, resulting in separation and discrimination.

Doron strikes at the root of this by pointing out that reality is more complex than our classes and categories.
At that washed out level of the discussion, we all agree.
But he goes about it a unique way.

He tries to tackle it mathematically by asserting that there is a "Non-Local" point of view under which no set is complete, because any element can be or not be, and both is and isn't, a member of whatever set is presented.
In Non-Local Reality there is no exclusion.

Another way he puts this is to speak of the certain, collective members of a set, and the uncertain, "element level" members, where combinations of "Redundancy" and "Uncertainty" male up a "Complexity" that is a more fundamental, or beyond the ordinary concept of collection.

Going back to the beginning of the thread:
10 tries to crash the Prime Numbers Club.
He's barred entrance because he isn't a prime number.

But 10 declares he's no traditional 10, he's an Organic Number, the Organic Number 10. As such he is "deeper than primes." He encompasses all aspects of count, and includes all levels, or linkages, of membership.

Trivially it's like US Citizens vs, undocumented immigrants, in the State of Arizona.
"Them Illegals ain't welcome!"
Only citizens count.
But in the Census, all residents are counted.
The difference being the set of citizens and the set of residents.
But distinguishing sets is not enough to address the issue for Doron.
It's that in Complexity membership the set of American citizens is inexclusive.

The Prime Numbers Club bouncer tells 10 to go away and come back on Real Numbers night. All the primes and 10 are members of the Real Numbers Club.
That's the way most people frame it. There is always a more general set that includes everyone. "The Brotherhood of Man."
But that's serial, local-only thinking in Doron's book which isn't about more general classes but non-local being.

We are all "deeper" than any race, ethnic group, or nationality we conventionally belong too.

There's a sense of "deeper" I wholeheartedly agree with.
Most times I encounter people as primarily individuals, as who they are as their unique person.
At first I thought that that was what Doron was driving at with his "element level" as opposed to "collection level." But I see now that's not the idea upon which he basis his "Complexity." It's not that these class or group differences are put at second place in a personal encounter, but that all those classifications are still upfront, but are blunted in their effect by overlapping.

As I see it, the root of ethics is that we are deeper still than "Complexity."
We are deeper than number.

Again I've given my own take on one aspect of the intention behind Doron's Organic Mathematics.

If it fits, good. I hope to understand.
If it's wrong I hope for Doron to tell me where I've missed it.
But perhaps this is sometimes the way of it and sometimes not.
There seems to be a flux to "Complexity," so that the point is not to try to pin it down but take the ride.
 
Apathia said:
I'd like to be able to get to the bones of the Doron matter.
Click to expand...
Apathia! Hi, sweet. :)

I don't want to be unnecessarily suggestive, but would you consider solving easier tasks, such as to evidence the existence of additional 13 universes in the space, before taking on the "Doron matter?" The Space is three-dimensional with the master universe appearing as one dimension continuous being local ad modulare to others. But there are still open questions of anagramic nature . . .

1. Randi Doh Oms
2. Randi Hod Oms
3. Randi Dohs Om
4. Randi Hods Om
5. Randi Shod Om
6. Randi Mod Hos
7. Randi Mod Ohs
8. Randi Mods Oh
9. Randi Mods Ho
10. Randi Do Mosh
11. Randi Do Ohms
12. Randi Sod Ohm
13. Randi Dos Ohm

One of the questions regards the coalescent form of those 13 universes. In other words, the idea of 1 universe created out of 13 universes described in a coalescent form 113 becomes semi-local to 1+1=3, which is counter-intuitive
and falsely dead ends on attempted continuum:

number 13 is a prime
can't go on, for there's no rhyme
 
Last edited:
Apathia said:
Perhaps there's a way to chart the number of cellphone towers in the Forest/Tree, Redundancy/Uncertainty Complex.
Click to expand...

Hi Apathia,

Jsfisher clearly demonstrated that the number of given things cannot fully capture the non-trivial meaning of what Number is, simply because the traditional meaning of Number is based only on clear distinction of the involved.

By using Non-locality/Locality linkage as the qualitative foundation of Number, clear distinction is simply one of the options, for example:

Quantity 2 (and it does not matter if it is a whole number or two places of some 0.xx fraction) can't be used unless there is at least connector/connected linkage, where the connector has non-local quality and the connected has local quality.

From this qualitative foundation, Uncertainty and Redundancy are the fabric of the mathematical space that enables:

1) Strong symmetric observation of the linkage, which is resulted by superposition of identities (uncertain ids, for example: (AB)).

2) Weak symmetric observation, which is resulted by non-distinct replacement among clear ids (redundant ids, for example: (A,A), (B,B), (AB,AB) (in the last case AB superposition is ignored and taken as 'AB' notation for clear id of superposition representation)).

3) Asymmetric observation, which is resulted by clear ids (for example: (A,B))

By the way, the ( 1) , 2) , 3) ) explanation above uses the Asymmetric observation (3), but again, no one of the options above has any privilege and we as participators (and not only observers) of this mathematical universe actually design it for our purpose.

The coherence of this mathematical universe is guaranteed by its Non-local/Local linkage qualitative foundation, where Non-locality and Locality complement each other into a one fabric.


Apathia said:
We are deeper than number
Click to expand...

We are able to manipulate the fabric of this mathematical universe exactly because we are also beyond it.

The Man said:
…if Doron would present and profess this as simply his own opinions and philosophy I doubt that I would be here to debate it.
Click to expand...

The one who claims that a wave pattern is more local than a particle pattern, has no meaningful thing to say about this subject.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Hi Apathia,

Jsfisher clearly demonstrated that the number of given things cannot fully capture the non-trivial meaning of what Number is, simply because the traditional meaning of Number is based only on clear distinction of the involved.

By using Non-locality/Locality linkage as the qualitative foundation of Number, clear distinction is simply one of the options, for example:

Quantity 2 (and it does not matter if it is a whole number or two places of some 0.xx fraction) can't be used unless there is at least connector/connected linkage, where the connector has non-local quality and the connected has local quality.

From this qualitative foundation, Uncertainty and Redundancy are the fabric of the mathematical space that enables:

1) Strong symmetric observation of the linkage, which is resulted by superposition of identities (uncertain ids, for example: (AB)).

2) Weak symmetric observation, which is resulted by non-distinct replacement among clear ids (redundant ids, for example: (A,A), (B,B), (AB,AB) (in the last case AB superposition is ignored and taken as 'AB' notation for clear id of superposition representation)).

3) Asymmetric observation, which is resulted by clear ids (for example: (A,B))

By the way, the ( 1) , 2) , 3) ) explanation above uses the Asymmetric observation (3), but again, no one of the options above has any privilege and we as participators (and not only observers) of this mathematical universe actually design it for our purpose.

The coherence of this mathematical universe is guaranteed by its Non-local/Local linkage qualitative foundation, where Non-locality and Locality complement each other into a one fabric.




We are able to manipulate the fabric of this mathematical universe exactly because we are also beyond it.



The one who claims that a wave pattern is more local than a particle pattern, has no meaningful thing to say about this subject.
Click to expand...

Since your reply didn't set about to correct me for misrepresenting things but to my reading reinforced my take on at least one aspect of your Organic Mathematics, I feel I do have some bones to rattle.

Allow me to make another simplistic statement in my quest to bring your way into clear contrast.

I'll call it "Organic Mathematics Rule One."

No collection is complete.
For any collection (Substitute "set" if you like.) must be open to the inclusion of all the myriad elements (or numbers) the definition of the given collection excludes.
 
Apathia said:
I'll call it "Organic Mathematics Rule One."

No collection is complete.
For any collection (Substitute "set" if you like.) must be open to the inclusion of all the myriad elements (or numbers) the definition of the given collection excludes.
Click to expand...


"Must be open to the inclusion"? I would interpret that to mean "may include", no? So, the set of just the prime numbers may include all the composites (among other things).

How is this "nothing is what you say it is" concept useful?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom