Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
"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?

Here's where Doron would qualify with "deeper" or some such.
A set may be "Locally" complete. But "Non-Locally" incomplete.
It's "Non-Locally" speaking that the myriad is both within and without.

He's also used the analogy of a square. 2D it's an enclosed space, but 3D it's open.

So take your set of prime numbers.
For Doron, merely Locally speaking this is a restriction of thought.
Going "deeper" or "higher" the creativity of mind is free.
We are able to manipulate the fabric of this mathematical universe exactly because we are also beyond it.
Where mental freedom is seen in the ability to create and manipulate new defined catagories, Doron instead seeks creative flexibility in transcending defintions, or in a complex matrix where all the possible in and outs are spread open to view.
Where those cellphone towers that look like trees are included in the Tree/Forest matrix that encompasses beyond definitions, or includes the flux of definition.
Even Sylvia's there! (She's one of my fictional characters.)

The upshot of it, as you have seen, is not so much a "nothing is what you say it is" concept, but a
"anything is what I say it is" concept.

Doron doesn't object to bankers who dealing in finite sums restrict bank accounts in what he most recently called the "Asymmetric observation."
But when it comes to the non-finite, or when it comes to TM's Universal Consciousness, that's where he thinks Mathmatics must move beyond manipulating defined classes and analysis to a kind of intuition of open possibilities.

It's similar in intent to Nicholas of Cusa's "Coincidence of Opposites."
Though Doron's take involves a different view regarding Infinity.

As Doron sees it, traditional, "local only" mathematics, cannot address the paradoxes of the quantum realm or included consciousness.
He believes the answers are in his un-math kind of math.

But we're not getting from him applications of this "Organic Mathematics" because we're expecting the sort of local-only manipulations conventional math does.
Complexity isn't restricted to formulas and dirivations.
The use of Organic Mathmatics is esoteric.

However for Doron it does have some impact on the field of Mathmatics,
Much of the underpinning of modern Mathematics is philosophically untenable for him, so his major mathematical application of Organic mathematics is to critique and excise anything that makes an absolute completion, as the concept of Mathematical Infinity does.
Such a concept, to his thinking, is a tyranical jailor who locks minds into local-only thinking.

So, there's the use of it, as far as I've been able to learn.
 
There are flaws in my exercise of proxy fudging for Doron.

His use of Swiss cheese sets is not just for non-finite circumstances, but for anytime, as is often the case in nature, when class membership is uncertain.
Is Pluto a planet?
Are birds dinosaurs?

This again points out the contrast of Doron's approach to the "fuzzy."
Generally what mathematicians and scientists do is to adjust the definitions of classes: tighten them, broaden them.
What Doron does is declare them porous. Accommodate holes in them. Like holes in the set of prime numbers and holes in the set of real numbers.

So the drift of it is that definitions are left loose and encouraged to become looser.
 
Here's where Doron would qualify with "deeper" or some such.
A set may be "Locally" complete. But "Non-Locally" incomplete.
It's "Non-Locally" speaking that the myriad is both within and without.

He's also used the analogy of a square. 2D it's an enclosed space, but 3D it's open.

So take your set of prime numbers.
For Doron, merely Locally speaking this is a restriction of thought.
Going "deeper" or "higher" the creativity of mind is free.

No, I understand the fudging Doron likes to do with his shroud of non-locality. The question was how was this useful.

The 2D/3D analogy doesn't really cut it. The square remains a square in 3D, or in 4. The fact it is "2D-closed" and "3D-open" isn't really any sort of change, just different properties. However, a set right here being something, but over there being everything, that's quite a change.

At this point, of course, Doron would be retreating to his "You don't get it" defense, completely missing the point that I do get it, but the unanswered question remains: How is this useful?
 
The one who claims that a wave pattern is more local than a particle pattern, has no meaningful thing to say about this subject.

The one who obviously does not understand that both (single slit and double slit patterns) are “wave” patterns (probability distributions) as well as “particle” patterns (the pattern made by the interaction of the particles, photons in the cited example, with the screen) simply demonstrates they do not know what they are talking about, again.


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


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 one who obviously does not understand that both (single slit and double slit patterns) are “wave” patterns (probability distributions) as well as “particle” patterns (the pattern made by the interaction of the particles, photons in the cited example, with the screen) simply demonstrates they do not know what they are talking about, again.

Being wavicle does not mean that its local aspect (particle) = its non-local aspect (wave).

Being wavicle means that locality and non-locality complement each other into a one complex phenomenon, which is not totally local and not totally non-local.

Total Non-locality is the qualitative aspect that has no successor of this complementation and total Locality is the qualitative aspect that has no predecessor of this complementation, such that these qualities are identified opposite aspects of that is beyond any identification at its self-state (the un-identified, which is not local and not non-local or any other attempt to identify it).

Non-locality/Locality qualitative complementation, is the foundation of the Quantitative aspect of the researched Complexity, and Standard reasoning deals only with the identified quantitative result of this complementation, which misses the understanding of Uncertainty, Redundancy and incomplete aspects of real Complexity.
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
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.
Another example of how The Man's reasoning is closed under the dichotomy of disjoint and context-dependent view of knowledge, where in this example Philosophy and Mathematics are disjoint.

The Man's isolated context-dependent areas of knowledge is a fantasy, because by his method he simply can't know that there are many isolated context-dependent areas, without using also a non-local view of them.

jsfsher said:
but the unanswered question remains: How is this useful?
It is not useful to any one which ignores the use of non-local view of the obsereved.
 
Last edited:
Apathia said:
Here's where Doron would qualify with "deeper" or some such
By disjoint context-dependent view, no concept is "deeper" because the same concept is differently understood according to many isolated context-dependent views of it.

By this disjoint reasoning, things are put side by side without any method that enables to get a shared (non-local) deeper view of them, which is not context-dependent.

By this flat side-by-side analysis, the essence of evolution (which is not less than a mutation of already known things (abstract or not)), is not understood because it is ignored by this flat side-by-side analysis.
 
As always (and consistantly with the character of your OM), just when I think I'm beginning to move forward in undertanding the key ideas you want to communicate, you give me some completrely confusing post.

I don't know what to make of this.
It looks to say,
"Apathia, you are off track because you are using "context dependent thinking."

And anyway, except when thinking is "just thinking," all concepts are context dependent.

By disjoint context-dependent view, no concept is "deeper" because the same concept is differently understood according to many isolated context-dependent views of it.

By this disjoint reasoning, things are put side by side without any method that enables to get a shared (non-local) deeper view of them, which is not context-dependent.

By this flat side-by-side analysis, the essence of evolution (which is not less than a mutation of already known things (abstract or not)), is not understood because it is ignored by this flat side-by-side analysis.

I'm still having difficulty with the concept of "non-locality."
Sometimes you present it as the relation under which things are gathered together in a common (redundant) class.
Other times it means seeing beyond such classifying concepts.

But perhaps talk of "non-locality" is always in itself another Non-locality/l\Locality Linkage.
 
Last edited:
It is not useful to any one which ignores the use of non-local view of the obsereved.

And here is the truely useful non-local view:

"In the seen, there is just the seen; in the heard, there is just the heard; in the sense, there is just the sensed; in the thought, there is just the thought."

B.
 
Sometimes you present it as the relation under which things are gathered together in a common (redundant) class.
Other times it means seeing beyond such classifying concepts.

Non-locality is the qualitative property that enables Locality qualitative property to be a collection of more than a single id.

Both qualities are derived from that is beyond any definition (qualitative, quantitative, etc …).
 
And here is the truely useful non-local view:

"In the seen, there is just the seen; in the heard, there is just the heard; in the sense, there is just the sensed; in the thought, there is just the thought."

B.

It is indeed useful that you have also a non-local view beyond the "just" (local) , isn't it?
 
Last edited:
Have you found that “additional experiment” you referred to yet?


http://www.quantumango.info/double-slit-experiment-the-strangeness-of-quantum-mechanics/

It is well known that measurement has a significant influence on the measured at the quantum level.

It is also well known that photons have more than one level of energy, for example: "red" photon has less energy than "blue" photon.

By using photons with different levels of energy in order to discover, for example, from which silt some electron passed the barrier, we are changing the pattern on the screen detector, where "blue" photons measurement's results are more similar to single-silt pattern (particle), and "red" photons measurement's results are more similar to double-silt pattern (wave).

We can gradually change the pattern on the screen detector between wave pattern and particle pattern, by using photons with different energies between low "red" and high "blue".

Organic Number's DS (Distinct States) are used here as a model that describes the changes of the patterns on the screen detector, according to the energy of the photons that are used to measure the passed electrons.
 
Last edited:
http://www.quantumango.info/double-slit-experiment-the-strangeness-of-quantum-mechanics/

It is well known that measurement has a significant influence on the measured at the quantum level.

It is also well known that photons have more than one level of energy, for example: "red" photon has less energy than "blue" photon.

By using photons with different levels of energy in order to discover, for example, from which silt some electron passed the barrier, we are changing the pattern on the screen detector, where "blue" photons measurement's results are more similar to single-silt pattern (particle), and "red" photons measurement's results are more similar to double-silt pattern (wave).

We can gradually change the pattern on the screen detector between wave pattern and particle pattern, by using photons with different energies between low "red" and high "blue".

Organic Number's DS (Distinct States) are used as a model that describes the changes of the patterns on the screen detector, according to the energy of the photons that are used to measure the passed electrons.


I think you're in danger of getting bogged down in all that silt.
 
Organic Number's DS (Distinct States) are used as a model that describes the changes of the patterns on the screen detector, according to the energy of the photons that are used to measure the passed electrons.


And yet you cannot demonstrate that in any tangible way. The best you can do is allege it to be so, then claim the rest of the world doesn't get it.


By the way, how are those corrections coming, or have you given up?
 
Non-locality is the qualitative property that enables Locality qualitative property to be a collection of more than a single id.

Both qualities are derived from that is beyond any definition (qualitative, quantitative, etc …).

Thanks.
I confuse myself.

Of course:
In taking the Non-Local perspective, elements are gathered into localities of collection.
In taking the Local perpective, elements are liberated from non-local classification.

OK it's a bit complicated.
But Non-Locality enambles Locality and Locality enables Non-Locality, because everything hinges on the continual shift from and to each of these perspectives.
 
Being wavicle does not mean that its local aspect (particle) = its non-local aspect (wave).

Being wavicle means that locality and non-locality complement each other into a one complex phenomenon, which is not totally local and not totally non-local.

Total Non-locality is the qualitative aspect that has no successor of this complementation and total Locality is the qualitative aspect that has no predecessor of this complementation, such that these qualities are identified opposite aspects of that is beyond any identification at its self-state (the un-identified, which is not local and not non-local or any other attempt to identify it).

Non-locality/Locality qualitative complementation, is the foundation of the Quantitative aspect of the researched Complexity, and Standard reasoning deals only with the identified quantitative result of this complementation, which misses the understanding of Uncertainty, Redundancy and incomplete aspects of real Complexity.


Neither your assertion of “Being wavicle” nor the rest of your word salad changes the fact that you obviously still do not…


…understand that both (single slit and double slit patterns) are “wave” patterns (probability distributions) as well as “particle” patterns (the pattern made by the interaction of the particles, photons in the cited example, with the screen)...

By the way…

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


Another example of how The Man's reasoning is closed under the dichotomy of disjoint and context-dependent view of knowledge, where in this example Philosophy and Mathematics are disjoint.

Another example of how Doron simply likes to label people with some “reasoning” of entirely his own fantasy.

The Man's isolated context-dependent areas of knowledge is a fantasy, because by his method he simply can't know that there are many isolated context-dependent areas, without using also a non-local view of them.

Doron the fantasies remain entirely yours, including that one.

It is not useful to any one which ignores the use of non-local view of the obsereved.

No Doron your notions just aren’t useful period, except of course just to you for feeding your fantasies.
 
http://www.quantumango.info/double-slit-experiment-the-strangeness-of-quantum-mechanics/

It is well known that measurement has a significant influence on the measured at the quantum level.

It is also well known that photons have more than one level of energy, for example: "red" photon has less energy than "blue" photon.

By using photons with different levels of energy in order to discover, for example, from which silt some electron passed the barrier, we are changing the pattern on the screen detector, where "blue" photons measurement's results are more similar to single-silt pattern (particle), and "red" photons measurement's results are more similar to double-silt pattern (wave).

We can gradually change the pattern on the screen detector between wave pattern and particle pattern, by using photons with different energies between low "red" and high "blue".

Organic Number's DS (Distinct States) are used here as a model that describes the changes of the patterns on the screen detector, according to the energy of the photons that are used to measure the passed electrons.

The link you posted makes no reference to any “additional experiment” such as you referred to before and attempt to describe above. Again cite the specific experiment and we can discuss it, otherwise it remains just a figment of your imagination.


So again…

Have you found that “additional experiment” you referred to yet?
 
I see that this thread is still alive, but in the religion and philosophy section, where it should be.
 
I see that this thread is still alive, but in the religion and philosophy section, where it should be.
I shall take the liberty of rephrasing you comment to the effect of being fully understood: this thread became non-local to other board sections.
 
I see what you did there.
No, you don't.

For example, by your http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5958959&postcount=9925 reply to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5958767&postcount=9924 it is clearly seen that all you get from a given k x k tree is the method that calculates the Distinct States of it (which is limited to the "How many?" question) that clearly demonstrates your misunderstanding of k x k complexity.

Both The Man and you can't comprehend http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5949657&postcount=9889 because of your serial-only reasoning.

Now, are you clever enough to finally fix your mistakes in your 3X3 presentation?

Since you are the clever person in this case, then please show us the mistakes.

Again, if you want to shoot, shoot, don't talk.
 
Last edited:
Since you are the clever person in this case, then please show us the mistakes.


They are your mistakes, not mine, and they are your mistakes in presenting your grand notions, not mine. They are your blunders to correct. Your inability to do so speaks volumes.
 

I am familiar with the experiment cited in that article and here is the abstract of that experiment.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/318/5852/949

You will note “Interference fringes observed in the angular distribution of a single electron are lost through its Coulomb interaction with a second electron, though the correlated momenta of the entangled electron pair continue to exhibit quantum interference.”

It’s a trade off Doron (as I have been trying to explain to you), The more localized the position the less localized the momentum and the more localized the momentum the less localized the position. That is the uncertainty principle and it has nothing to do with your nonsensical notions.


Now all you have to do is to use the levels of energy between the two examined cases and get the intermediate patterns.

“Now all you have to do”? So the experiment you are referring to (with your “intermediate patterns” based on your “levels of energy”) is just a figment of your imagination.

Oh wait you have claimed…


Organic Number's DS (Distinct States) are used here as a model that describes the changes of the patterns on the screen detector, according to the energy of the photons that are used to measure the passed electrons.

So show that “model that describes the changes of the patterns on the screen detector, according to the energy of the photons that are used to measure the passed electrons”. As well as the corresponding experimental data that supports your “model”.


ETA: Some more details on the experiment cited.


http://www.atom.uni-frankfurt.de/web/research/atomic/photonmolecule/H2_double/3_double_slit/#science
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
The more localized the position the less localized the momentum and the more localized the momentum the less localized the position.
As I claim, your reasoning is limited to Local-only view of the observed.

But the fact is that momentum is the signature of Non-locality and Position is the signature of Locality, and both (Non-locality and Locality) are the qualitative foundations of the observed.

The Man said:
(as I have been trying to explain to you)
In other words, you have no case to explain here.

The Man said:
That is the uncertainty principle and it has nothing to do with your nonsensical notions.
The Uncertainty Principle of Heisenberg is derived from the complementation of the two qualities, known as Non-Locality and Locality, which are mutually independent w.r.t each other under a one phenomenon called wavicle.

The Uncertainty Principle of Heisenberg is not the Uncertainty of ids under Superposition, which is something that your linear_serial view of the observed simply can't comprehend.

The Uncertainty of ids under Superposition is exactly the wave pattern (the signature of Non-locality) and the Certainty of ids under no Superposition is exactly the particle pattern (the signature of Non-locality).

The different energy levels are the serial transition from Non-locality (wave pattern and superposition) to Locality (particle pattern and non-superposition) and vice versa, such that Non-locality and Locality complement each other and therefore do not derived from each other.

Again, it is impossible to measure Total Non-locality or Total Locality because they are mutually independent and a wavicle is a consistent result of this mutual independency, which is the essence of any consistent axiomatic framework.
 
Last edited:
But the fact is that momentum is the signature of Non-locality and Position is the signature of Locality, and both (Non-locality and Locality) are the qualitative foundations of the observed.


You've disproven Heisenberg! That's great. Do let the people in Sweden know.
 
They are your mistakes, not mine, and they are your mistakes in presenting your grand notions, not mine. They are your blunders to correct. Your inability to do so speaks volumes.

In other words, you have no case here, and this is my last reply to you about your "By the way, how are those corrections coming, or have you given up?" bla bla ...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom