Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
without this straight line, ~A;A are non-comparable, simple as that.
Click to expand...

Indeed, if that line is a symbol of comparison itself.
But that wouldn't be a geometric object.

Doron, how is it that that line is the avatar of non-locality and not the field upon which the venn diagrams are drawn?
The two contents are already demarked therein.

Or is the line merely representing the mental capture and crossing between the two demarked regions?

Does the line have content of it's own, non-local to the diagramed regions?
If it does, does this content include the contents of the two regions?
 
doronshadmi said:
Exactly, you simply ignore your memory (represented by the straight line) as the non-local aspect, which enables you to compare A with ~A (the local aspects) and get the conclusion that they are different.

Your framework is based on Non-locality\Locality Linkage.
Click to expand...
This is a grossly embarrassing moment for my head, but you are right: There is a non-local view of the negation Venn diagram taken from a certain angle that obscures it's meaning -- it's like a blind spot -- and the straight line must be added to explain the meaning.

When I say non-local view, then I mean that the term is kind of comparable to the way an alien might observe our activities. That means, "non-local" is slightly synonymous to "not familiar."

Now imagine the dynamic aspect of the Venn diagram, which is bound by a rectangle. Let's suppose that the white circle becomes larger and larger. It's area expansion is limited by the shorter sides of the rectangle though and that prevents a part of the white population to become "anything but that." That means the white pixels that make the area of the circle are "slaves" to the red pixels. In other words, the white area is always less then the red area. That's the local view.

But when the white area becomes larger than the red area, the Venn diagram can't look the same as it does in the local-view snapshot. The change has to be interpreted, and that's not possible without drawing the straight line into the original diagram - the line that connects both differently colored areas. The function of the line is to "keep together" the Venn diagram after the transformations are made. The straight line is particular to the explaining of the transformed diagram.

During the transformation, the Venn diagram loses its "third dimension" -- the color -- but preserves the straight lines/curve composition.

Before the transformation starts, the diagram must be turned by 90 degrees. It is during this turning when the diagram loses its colors. So here is the initial position:

lol1eo.png


Now remove the straight line -- it doesn't play any role in the transformation.

The circle expansion cannot proceed indefinitely; the limit to the diameter is the length of the longer side of the rectangle.

There is only one way that permits the circle to expand and that's accomplished by cutting the rectangle in two parts whereby the vertices are the points of separation. Then, these two parts must be re-oriented to become congruent. After the circle expands, the figure looks like this:

lol2j.png


It's obvious that the figure cannot be understood by an alien . . .


What does that LOL mean?

That's hard to explain to you. You need to add a straight line to the figure.

Like this?

lol3i.png


Like that.

It doesn't make the meaning any clearer. What is LOL?

No. You got that syntax wrong; you need to render it this way: LOL

Aha. What do they say?

Well, nothing. They make a sound. Humans are advanced mammals who can compare and conclude beyond an instinct, and they react to some of their conclusions by making all kind of noises.

I want to do it too.

Be my guest.

HC-HRN-HDR . . .

Nooo. It doesn't go like that. Watch my mouth: HE-HE-HE.

HUXR-HIRD-HRU . . .

Nooooo. Not that way. Forget it.


I hope that I got your drift right.
 
The Man said:
Two domains (you will note the plural) can be disjoint or “non-disjoint”.
Click to expand...
Not if the domains are A and ~A.
The Man said:
you still just want to go around in circles claiming the same nonsense (like “(A ~= ~A) ~= (A = A)”) ...
Click to expand...
you still just want to go around in circles claiming the same nonsense (like “(A ~= ~A) = (A = A)”)

In order to be clear, I am not talking about the fact that the true value of (A ~= ~A) or (A = A) is T.

I am talking about the fact that (A ~= ~A) is different than (A = A).
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
Doron the relation between A and ~A is explicit. You’re the only one who requires some ‘comparison’ between them.
Click to expand...
Really? Please demonstrate how you can get A and ~A, without any comparison between them.

I am all ears.
 
epix said:
This is a grossly embarrassing moment for my head, but you are right: There is a non-local view of the negation Venn diagram taken from a certain angle that obscures it's meaning -- it's like a blind spot -- and the straight line must be added to explain the meaning.

When I say non-local view, then I mean that the term is kind of comparable to the way an alien might observe our activities. That means, "non-local" is slightly synonymous to "not familiar."

Now imagine the dynamic aspect of the Venn diagram, which is bound by a rectangle. Let's suppose that the white circle becomes larger and larger. It's area expansion is limited by the shorter sides of the rectangle though and that prevents a part of the white population to become "anything but that." That means the white pixels that make the area of the circle are "slaves" to the red pixels. In other words, the white area is always less then the red area. That's the local view.

But when the white area becomes larger than the red area, the Venn diagram can't look the same as it does in the local-view snapshot. The change has to be interpreted, and that's not possible without drawing the straight line into the original diagram - the line that connects both differently colored areas. The function of the line is to "keep together" the Venn diagram after the transformations are made. The straight line is particular to the explaining of the transformed diagram.

During the transformation, the Venn diagram loses its "third dimension" -- the color -- but preserves the straight lines/curve composition.

Before the transformation starts, the diagram must be turned by 90 degrees. It is during this turning when the diagram loses its colors. So here is the initial position:

[qimg]http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/2298/lol1eo.png[/qimg]

Now remove the straight line -- it doesn't play any role in the transformation.

The circle expansion cannot proceed indefinitely; the limit to the diameter is the length of the longer side of the rectangle.

There is only one way that permits the circle to expand and that's accomplished by cutting the rectangle in two parts whereby the vertices are the points of separation. Then, these two parts must be re-oriented to become congruent. After the circle expands, the figure looks like this:

[qimg]http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/8532/lol2j.png[/qimg]

It's obvious that the figure cannot be understood by an alien . . .


What does that LOL mean?

That's hard to explain to you. You need to add a straight line to the figure.

Like this?

[qimg]http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/7260/lol3i.png[/qimg]

Like that.

It doesn't make the meaning any clearer. What is LOL?

No. You got that syntax wrong; you need to render it this way: LOL

Aha. What do they say?

Well, nothing. They make a sound. Humans are advanced mammals who can compare and conclude beyond an instinct, and they react to some of their conclusions by making all kind of noises.

I want to do it too.

Be my guest.

HC-HRN-HDR . . .

Nooo. It doesn't go like that. Watch my mouth: HE-HE-HE.

HUXR-HIRD-HRU . . .

Nooooo. Not that way. Forget it.


I hope that I got your drift right.
Click to expand...

You write LOL, but also in this case your memory is used as the non-local aspect that connect the forms into a one meaningful word.

Let us notate memory as an underscore line, and we indeed get LOL if non-locality is not ignored.
 
Apathia said:
Indeed, if that line is a symbol of comparison itself.
But that wouldn't be a geometric object.
Click to expand...
Wrong.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6134247&postcount=10713

Apathia said:
Does the line have content of it's own, non-local to the diagramed regions?
Click to expand...
Apathia, we have been there over and over, the line is a non-composed thing, and being non-composed enables its non-locality w.r.t a given region (it is included AND excluded w.r.t it).
 
Apathia said:
Indeed, if that line is a symbol of comparison itself.
But that wouldn't be a geometric object.

Doron, how is it that that line is the avatar of non-locality and not the field upon which the venn diagrams are drawn?
The two contents are already demarked therein.

Or is the line merely representing the mental capture and crossing between the two demarked regions?

Does the line have content of it's own, non-local to the diagrammed regions?
If it does, does this content include the contents of the two regions?
Click to expand...

Nevermind.
The scratch across the venn doesn't represent Non-Locality.
It stands for the Non-Local/Local Linkage, the bridging, the crossing of two localities.
In this case it's A and ~A.

When you talk about a Parallel/Serial Linkage,
It's not that the Parallel is the non-local partner while the Serial is the local partner, but that Parallel and Serial are two localities that are linked or bridged.
In both regions there can be definite quantity.
(Though the Parallel has uncertain identities. That means diverse identities that aren't brought into a collection of common class identity.)

The scratch isn't an additional locality that contains both A and ~A.
To regard it as such is to fall into a bottomless pit.
It's a relation, not a region not a container, not a geometric element.

"Element/Relation Linkage"
"Local/Non-local Linkage
The meaning here is not a link between the element or local region and the relation non-local region.
"linkage" here is the cooperation of the two relational qualities that results in the linkage of two localities of elements.

The relational linkage between A and ~A doesn't mean that A is ~A but that they are seen in relation.
Gestalt again?
The regions are there already as figure and ground, so I wonder if the "Linkage" is about more than creating the regions that are already present.
It seems to me that the desired purpose of that scratch is to relate their contents beyond class or regional identities.

We return to the reason why a set cannot be regarded as complete.
The Local/Non-local Linkage sees beyond and includes regional boundaries.

But there I have the difficulty, for inclusion assumes the creation of an embracing locality.
An additional locality.
I'm pushed right up to the edge of that bottomless pit.
 
doronshadmi said:
Wrong.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6134247&postcount=10713


Apathia, we have been there over and over, the line is a non-composed thing, and being non-composed enables its non-locality w.r.t a given region (it is included AND excluded w.r.t it).
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply.
See above what I was writing while you were replying.
Ah, yes, the line (scratch) has no content (no composition). It is relation. It's a comparison.
"Included AND excluded"

And Non-Locality includes AND excludes.
But the Local-Non-Local Linkage does not create some additional embracing locality.
It merely relates in "Complexity" the localities present. In this case, A and ~A.
It's not about a new locality that contains A and ~A.

I know Doron. We've been over it again and again.
It's easy for me to misread you on this. And it really does seem at times that you go ahead and treat the Non-local Line as a container.
The point is not that the Locality/Non-Locality Linkage has content to be excluded or included. It's that it enables inclusion and exclusion beyond class locality restrictions.
 
Last edited:
Well, Let's again see how close I can get to the bottomless pit, and if Doron will kick me into it again.

I interpreted that line or scratch on the Venn diagram as Doron's Non-Locality/Locality Linkage.
Pure relation. Not a geometric object, not an additional range of elements, not an additional locality.

Doron replied that the line is a geometric object, but it is "non-composed," meaning it has no separable content.
It's his Line of Non-Locality that represents Qualitative Infinity.
That it's not purely relation, not the Relating Linkage as I thought,
but an Infinity Doron intends to mathematize, pushes me close to the edge of the pit.

But be that as it may, I am moved to comment again on the intent of that line.
If Doron had merely intended "Non-Locality" to be a super class, an infinite class that embraces and includes all sets, all contents, his better expression would be the all embracing class of everything with its circumference at infinity, and including all sets.
This however terms the Infinite into a locality and a container.
Non-Locality then becomes a super locality.
Scratch that!

Nestling sets within Russian Doll class containers is "local-only" manipulation.
He wants to think outside the boxes within boxes.
The scratch isn't an act of inclusion. It's exclusion as well and at the same time, as far as classes go. It steps outside thinking in terms of common classification.

Of course it's difficult to communicate, especially to an adult, letting go of linear thinking and wandering beyond the boundaries of classification.
But it's a losing battle for Doron, because he has chosen to try incorporating it into Mathematics and talk about it using Mathematical terms and objects.
Everybody here is bound to take every word he says within the assumptions and contexts of the kind of linear, logical, class thinking math does with all those terms. Add to that that he often using them metaphorically to express qualities, and disaster follows.

I really have no quarrel against non-linear thinking. It's a part of what our amazing in spite of emotional obstacles brains do.

Doron wants to bring linear and non-linear thinking under the same roof with the same language.
It's tough though. All those mathematical terms and objects assume linear thinking in progress.

For ordinary business, Organic Mathematics lets you proceed as usual summing up things by classes.
But it's in the mathmatizing of certain qualitative concepts that math as we know it gutted.

Qualitative Infinity vs Mathematical Infinity.
Qualitatively speaking no set is "complete." it's always a finite locality, a fragment in the face of The Infinite.

The Real Line symbolizes The Infinite, so cannot be said to be composed of elements or individual numbers. (Getting painfully close to falling over the edge here because he calls it the line of real numbers.) So Analytic Geometry upon which much of Modern mathematics is based is verboten.

The mathematical consistency that allows .99999999 ........ to equal 1 is smashed.

Of course there are mathematicians who have taken Lars Von Trier sorts of approaches, but all of them are doing local-only, linear, context dependent, deductive only, mathematics.
Only Doron is trying to express the "out of the box" in terms that ordinarily are only found in the box.

In ordinary language we often get out of the box via juxtapositions of incongruous metaphors.
I believe I can credit Doron with doing that in mathematical language.

Again, I get fall into that bottomless pit if I look to closely at the project,
For example what a "parallel" number is supposed to be, as opposed to a "serial" number.

Yes, the Relation/Element Linkage both creates quantities of common classes, and scratches their distinctions all at the same time.
(A scratch is non-composed.)

We have all asked Doron to create and define his own terminology so this confusion can be avoided, somewhat.
But really that's counterproductive for him, isn't it? Since he intends to break outside definitions?

It's better he just let us fall over the edge, or give us a solid nudge.

We keep mistakenly asking him for applications and formulas. (What we'd expect if this were math and science.)
But these things are all based on the manipulation of classes and local-only results.
Except for "serial" results OM has no such formulations. It's not how "complexity" is done.

I asked him how OM elucidates the process non-linear thinking.
Mostly there was no answer to this. It's not a logical process.
I seem to remember Doron saying there was no process to it.
It's not "serial."
Indeed! I get a non-serial observation, even if Doron's attempt to attach that to logic (which is damned serial) confuses me again and again.

But forget the confusion.
The fun is in jumping into the bottomless pit.
http://movieclips.com/watch/alice-in-wonderland-2010/down-the-rabbit-hole/
 
doronshadmi said:
Not if the domains are A and ~A.
Click to expand...

Are you now claiming that “if the domains are A and ~A” then they are something other than “disjoint or “non-disjoint””? Please identify why those domain are neither disjoint nor “non-disjoint”.

doronshadmi said:
you still just want to go around in circles claiming the same nonsense (like “(A ~= ~A) = (A = A)”)
Click to expand...

It is not a claim Doron. It is a simple fact of the distributive aspect of negation, again look it up.

doronshadmi said:
In order to be clear, I am not talking about the fact that the true value of (A ~= ~A) or (A = A) is T.
Click to expand...

In order to be more clear, it does not matter if you are “not talking about the fact that the true value of (A ~= ~A) or (A = A) is T” Again it is a simple fact of the distributive aspect of negation, look it up. What you simply are not talking about, and apparently want to ignore, is that distributive aspect of negation.

doronshadmi said:
I am talking about the fact that (A ~= ~A) is different than (A = A).
Click to expand...

The only difference is the inclusion of a double negation which gives it the same meaning. Again it is just a different representation of the fact that A = A.




doronshadmi said:
The Man said:
Doron the relation between A and ~A is explicit. You’re the only one who requires some ‘comparison’ between them.
Click to expand...
Really? Please demonstrate how you can get A and ~A, without any comparison between them.
Click to expand...

As stated “the relation between A and ~A is explicit”.

doronshadmi said:
I am all ears.
Click to expand...

Evidently no eyes though.
 
doronshadmi said:
You write LOL, but also in this case your memory is used as the non-local aspect that connect the forms into a one meaningful word.

Let us notate memory as an underscore line, and we indeed get LOL if non-locality is not ignored.
Click to expand...

A = A________?

:confused:



If Domain = LOCAL and

A = CA
~A = LOL

then

A_______? = Alzheimer


If LOL becomes non-local to LOCAL things get funny. True or False?
 
doronshadmi said:
I am all ears.
Click to expand...
Doron, we must meditate on all the aspects of the negation Venn diagram in order to arrive at the Serene Conclusion. Once again, a straight line has appeared in the negation Venn diagram . . .

There is a story that only documents the minute nuances that may render a particular Venn diagram wrong -- something that may go unnoticed to the eye aided by the PhD monocle.

The story took place in 1990 in Italy. Father Paolo Luciani was writing an essay on theism and atheism. He soon realized that if you categorize the domain People as A=Males and ~A=Females, then the distinction isn't the same as in the case of B=Theists and ~B=Atheists, coz the degree of faith varies. This variability led him to consult the Venn diagrams. He went to the town library and made a copy of the negation Venn diagram and brought it to the monastery. Two days later, Father Luciani sits in the study pondering the negation Venn diagram when someone knocks on the door. He invites the visitor in, they sit and talk, and then the visitor leaves. Father Luciani goes back to his pondering but can't find the copy of the Venn diagram. He realizes that he might have taken the piece of paper with him when answering the door and put it aside someplace on his way. So he goes back to the door looking around. Sure enough, there is a table in the short hallway -- the only place he could put the copy on. As he approaches the small table, his mind goes ???????

The sheet of paper was partially burned; where was once the rendition of the diagram, there was a hole!

There was nothing else on the small table, yet there was something directly above the table; something that gave Farther Luciani an urge to discuss this paranormal event with bishop Cannavaro.

During his long phone conversation with the bishop, Cannavaro suggested that Father Luciani brings his essay to the bishop's office.

A week later when Father Luciani met again with bishop Cannavaro, the bishop told him that he couldn't find anything in the essay that would upset the Heavens, but recommended to Father Luciani to find other subject for his writings. "Let's play it safe, so to speak," said the bishop and saw Father Luciani to the door.

About three weeks later, Father Luciani meets Father Carlo Totti, who was just released from the hospital, in the monastery garden. They talk health, weather, and so on. Then, Father Totti becomes curious about Father Luciani's essay whose topic they often discussed. Both men have known each other since the seminary, and so Father Luciano tells him the story -- what happened when Father Totti was in the hospital, and Totti is all ears. But he is not happy with the bishop's conclusion and his recommendation . . .

Paolo, if the Heavens had found something at fault with your essay, don't you think that some hard-to-explain burn marks would have appeared on the paper you wrote your essay on, instead of on the copy of that diagram?

I suppose so.

Where is the burned copy? Can I see it?

No. The bishop has it. Actually it may be in the Vatican as we speak.

Where did you get the copy from?

I went to the town library. Do you have a pen? Here, that's the title of the book. That diagram is captioned with A and ~A. Carlo, you don't suppose that the Heavens found something at fault with that diagram?

It's a possibility.

What are you saying, Carlo? No one ever found a hard-to-explain instance of burned pages of "Mein Kampf." What's so super-evil about a copy of the Venn diagram that it had to burn?

That only proves that the bishop was wrong. Or is your mind more twisted than Adolf Hitler's? Listen, I have to attend to the lilies -- they got undisciplined while I was in the hospital. The day after tomorrow, I need to go to the town, so I'll stop by the library and make another copy of that diagram.

Father Carlo Totti. Age: 62. Occupation: priest. What he is about to discover will become the most guarded secret in the history of the Roman Catholic Church . . .
 
The Man said:
As stated “the relation between A and ~A is explicit”.
Click to expand...

Yes it is explicit by your memorey that enables you to compare A with ~A in order to conclude that they are different domains.

So Relation (memory)\Elment (A;~A) Linkage is indeed explicit.

The Man said:
The only difference is the inclusion of a double negation which gives it the same meaning. Again it is just a different representation of the fact that A = A.
Click to expand...

Yes why not, (~A ~= A) is a different representation of the fact that (~A=~A).

But by not taking ~A or A only separately of each other we get (~A=~A) ~= (A=A) exactly because ~A and A are disjoint and comparable (mutual-independency framework).
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Yes it is explicit by your memorey that enables you to compare A with ~A in order to conclude that they are different domains.

So Relation (memory)\Elment (A;~A) Linkage is indeed explicit.
Click to expand...

Again there is no 'comparison' or 'conclusion' "that they are different domains". That NOT A (~A) is, well, NOT A is explicitly expressed in and as NOT A. Again that you require some 'comparison' or even just the "memory" of some ‘comparison’, as you allude to above, in addition to the explicit expression of NOT A (~A) is simply and only your problem.
 
epix said:
If LOL becomes non-local to LOCAL things get funny. True or False?
Click to expand...
In memory is not ignored then LOL or LOCAL are a nice demostration of Relation (Non-locality of your memory)\Element (Locality of each symbol) Linkage
 
The Man said:
Again there is no 'comparison' or 'conclusion' "that they are different domains". That NOT A (~A) is, well, NOT A is explicitly expressed in and as NOT A. Again that you require some 'comparison' or even just the "memory" of some ‘comparison’, as you allude to above, in addition to the explicit expression of NOT A (~A) is simply and only your problem.
Click to expand...

Still "NOT" is compared with "A" by your memory, in order to get a meaningful expression like "NOT A".

Again, you are invited to demonstrate how your memory (even if it is used by a computer as your agent) is not a factor of a meaningful expression like "NOT A".
 
By the way Relation\Element Linkage is there even if there are meaningless expressions,for example: s55lk&*( au--rafsda;vr
 
epix said:
The story took place in 1990 in Italy. Father Paolo Luciani was writing an essay on theism and atheism.
....
Father Carlo Totti. Age: 62. Occupation: priest. What he is about to discover will become the most guarded secret in the history of the Roman Catholic Church . . .
Click to expand...

Nominated!
Parody of the week!

And if that writer in Exeter, NH ever sees and makes something of this, Meister Eckhart will become a shadowy figure in a cheap thriller. :wackyidea:
 
doronshadmi said:
Still "NOT" is compared with "A" by your memory, in order to get a meaningful expression like "NOT A".
Click to expand...

No, Doron it is not "compared with "A"".

doronshadmi said:
Again, you are invited to demonstrate how your memory (even if it is used by a computer as your agent) is not a factor of a meaningful expression like "NOT A".
Click to expand...

Again you are invited to demonstrate where anyone (other than you) has ever claimed "memory (even if it is used by a computer as your agent) is not a factor of a meaningful expression like "NOT A"". That memory is required to recall the meaning of symbols in no way entails ""NOT" is compared with "A"" or that one must “compare A with ~A in order to conclude that they are different domains.” as you have asserted and required.
 
The Man said:
By the way, a fine demonstration and admission Doron that your “Relation\Element Linkage” ascriptions are in fact meaningless.
Click to expand...

The Man said:
That memory is required to recall the meaning of symbols in no way entails ""NOT" is compared with "A""
Click to expand...

Relation(memory)\Element(symbols or forms) Linkage is there, whether there is or there is no meaning to the memorized symbols.

Once again we see your inability to get the universality of Non-locality\Locality Linkage, which is not limited to any particular meaning, but without it, no meaning can be defined, and form's comparison is fundamental for any definition.

You simply can't get the formal universality of Non-locality\Locality Linkage, where real formalism is first of all form's comparison, which is the fundamental condition for any meaningful framework.

For example: without Non-locality\Locality Linkage "~" is totally isolated from "A" and vice versa, so if there is meaning to "~A", it can't be accomplished without the non-local property (memory) that enables these forms' comparison.

In other words Non-locality must be openly used as a factor for any formal or non-formal language, and you are doing your "best" in order to avoid this factor all along this thread.
 
Last edited:
Is this bit of trivia regarding memory leading to anything significant, or is this just more entanglement of the irrelevant with the incorrect?
 
AvalonXQ said:
Has anyone figured out what he's trying to say yet?
Click to expand...

He doesn't like infinity very much, and I think from there he has backed up into a whole mess of other concepts trying to make sense of things (quite unsuccessfully).

Although he denies it, he imposes a sort of process view on things. He'll accept that there are infinitely many integers, but not that there can be a set of all of them. The process of adding each successive integer to the set can never be completed, and so the set of all integers cannot exist.

That rules out the upside-down A ("for all") since all and infinity don't get along. Backwards E ("there exists") is ok in Doronetics, but the fact backwards E and a few strategically placed negations are equivalent to upside-down A is something Doron will deny and/or ignore depending on the day.

Line segments would have been a problem for his view of infinity had Doron not declared them indivisible elements. He's called them UR-elements and non-composed at various times, but he means indivisible. He can then disregard any issue with infinitely many points completely covering a line segment; he's declared them indivisible.

Unfortunately, line segments have a property, namely length, that guarantees their divisibility. This is where the local/non-local mumbo-jumbo comes in in a stunningly contradictory but meaningless way. Doron seems happy with it, though.


And so on....Each new threat to his reality is countered with some other reinterpretation, usually with inconsistencies and contradictions in tow for comic relief. A basic misunderstanding of most things mathematical adds to the excitement.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Relation(memory)\Element(symbols or forms) Linkage is there, whether there is or there is no meaning to the memorized symbols.

Once again we see your inability to get the universality of Non-locality\Locality Linkage, which is not limited to any particular meaning, but without it, no meaning can be defined, and form's comparison is fundamental for any definition.

You simply can't get the formal universality of Non-locality\Locality Linkage, where real formalism is first of all form's comparison, which is the fundamental condition for any meaningful framework.

For example: without Non-locality\Locality Linkage "~" is totally isolated from "A" and vice versa, so if there is meaning to "~A", it can't be accomplished without the non-local property (memory) that enables these forms' comparison.

In other words Non-locality must be openly used as a factor for any formal or non-formal language, and you are doing your "best" in order to avoid this factor all along this thread.
Click to expand...

But according to you, one must formally define something before we can understand it. YOU have not provided a clear definition of local (local, locality, etc.) how can we understand it? Better yet, since you have not provided a clear definition of local, how can YOU understand it?

Since you can't define non-locality/locality, how do you know that no meaning can be defined? How do you know that you need to have it to make a definition?

Now you are saying "Relation(memory)\Element(symbols or forms) Linkage". If relation is memory, and element is symbols or forms, why are you using relation and element?

So far, you can't define things, you use too many words, and doronomics hasn't been applied to anything, just to name a few things.
 
doronshadmi said:
I am all ears.
Click to expand...
In Part 1, a copy of the negation Venn diagram left on a small table positioned right bellow a cross with Jesus nailed to it mysteriously burns. It happened in an Italian monastery, and Father Carlo Totti together with Father Paolo Luciano, who made a copy of the diagram, are trying to make sense of the event.

* * *

When Father Carlo Totti came back from the town, he had in his briefcase not only a copy of the Venn diagram, but also two books whose content dealt with proposition logic. He spent some time in the town library browsing through those two books, reading and comparing. When he knocked on Father Luciano's door, his mind was already armed with an argument - an opening salvo that sends the investigation of the mystery of the burning Venn diagram on its way and beyond the point of return . . .

Oh, it's you, Carlo. Come on in. Excuse the mess, please. Take a seat anywhere you can. How are things in the town? Have they already repaired the flood damage?

I don't know, Paolo. I went to the pharmacy and then walked right to the library. I borrowed two books and made a copy of that diagram. When I looked at it, something struck me strange: Look, in this book, the diagrams are rectangular, because they must usually accommodate two circles. But the copy of the negation Venn diagram is a square. But what struck me strange the most was that the white circle seemed to be disproportionately larger in comparison with the circles rendered in the other book. Here, look at it.

venn1.png


Yes, I see. That's the copy I made. But you are not suggesting that the Heavens created a fire hazard due to an unusual proportion between two areas?

Father Totti was slightly taken aback by Father Luciano's sarcasm; he expected more enthusiasm from his friend. But he knew that without an opposition, a rosy road may lead to a city dump site and turned the negative into the positive.

It is a possibility, if you understand what lies behind the word "unusual" in this case. I borrowed a plastic ruler from the librarian and did some measuring and comparing. And guess what . . . The area of the white region turned out the same as the area of the red region. See the implication?

I got you. If A=RedArea and ~A=WhiteArea and WhiteArea=RedArea in square milimeters, then A= ~A, which is a contradiction - you can't sit in my room and at the same time sit in the town library, right? But still, does this unintentional logical irregularity warrants the intervention of the Heavens the way it happened?

That is what I don't understand, Paolo. Imagine someone borrowing the book from the library. That person finds the page with that diagram burned. Was the cause Our Almighty God rolling his eyes or a heavy smoker? It happened here in the monastery and there are the circumstances which may be particular to the explaining of this sign from the Heavens. There is also a chance that the diagram is regarded as symbolic by the Heavens. There maybe some larger implication stemming from this A= ~A nonsense. Paolo, I feel that your essay about atheism and theism may play a role in this event. I also believe that the Heavens symbolically condemned something that we know about. But what in particular?

Father Carlo Totti had the mystery surrounded, but couldn't yet find the "weak spot in the defenses." He was a priest his whole life and was affected by the doctrine. He just didn't suspect that the Heavens can be hard analytic as much as very, very imaginative.


Coming next . . . Breakthrough: The Indictment.
:jaw-dropp
 
doronshadmi said:
Relation(memory)\Element(symbols or forms) Linkage is there, whether there is or there is no meaning to the memorized symbols.
Click to expand...

You have already asserted before, as you do here, that your “Relation(memory)\Element(symbols or forms) Linkage” is simply meaningless, as you do again below


doronshadmi said:
Once again we see your inability to get the universality of Non-locality\Locality Linkage, which is not limited to any particular meaning, but without it, no meaning can be defined, and form's comparison is fundamental for any definition.
Click to expand...

Once again we see your inability to get that you simply sticking your preferred dichotomies everywhere you can does not give them any “universality”. We also see you claiming your “Non-locality\Locality Linkage” has no “particular meaning”, thus is meaningless. By your own assertions Doron “no meaning can be defined” for your “Non-locality\Locality Linkage” as that would give it some “particular meaning”. Once again we see your inability to get that your notions simply fail when just applied to themselves.

doronshadmi said:
You simply can't get the formal universality of Non-locality\Locality Linkage, where real formalism is first of all form's comparison, which is the fundamental condition for any meaningful framework.
Click to expand...

Once again we see your inability to get that you simply sticking your preferred dichotomies everywhere you can does not give them any “universality”. Doron you can’t have any “form's comparison” until you first have a “formalism” so “formalism is” not “first of all form's comparison” as you claim, since without “formalism” there are no “forms” to compare and again it is only you requiring this “form's comparison”. So if you can’t do it “first of all”, that is still simply and only your problem. “meaningful framework”, Doron? Your “Non-locality\Locality Linkage” “framework” “is not limited to any particular meaning” by your own assertions. So your “framework” is, by your own assertions, meaningless.

doronshadmi said:
For example: without Non-locality\Locality Linkage "~" is totally isolated from "A" and vice versa, so if there is meaning to "~A", it can't be accomplished without the non-local property (memory) that enables these forms' comparison.
Click to expand...

Once again your meaningless (even as you assert them to be) ascriptions like “Non-locality\Locality Linkage” can’t even accomplish bringing any “particular meaning” to itself or your notions. “so if there is meaning to "~A"” it is not a result of your meaningless (even as you assert them to be) “Non-locality\Locality Linkage” ascriptions. The fact remains Doron that you don’t want “any particular meaning” for your “Non-locality\Locality Linkage” ascriptions, as you think this permits you to simply insert whatever nonsensical meaning (like “the non-local property (memory) that enables these forms' comparison”) you see fit as you see fit. However, it simply makes your “Non-locality\Locality Linkage” ascriptions meaningless, by your own assertions.

doronshadmi said:
In other words Non-locality must be openly used as a factor for any formal or non-formal language, and you are doing your "best" in order to avoid this factor all along this thread.
Click to expand...

Nope, the fact that you now simply want to claim “(memory)” as some “non-local property” is still simply meaningless, by your own assertions, “and you are doing your” absolute worst “to avoid this factor all along this thread”, since it is you that keeps asserting your deliberate lack of “any particular meaning”.
 
The Man said:
We also see you claiming your “Non-locality\Locality Linkage” has no “particular meaning”, thus is meaningless
Click to expand...

No, it is the fundamental condition that enables meaningful things, but it is not closed under any particular meaning.

OM is universal also because it enables any context without being limited by it.

Under "~A" formal expression "~" is the Relation aspect and "A" is the Element aspect and it is not possible unless both aspects are compared by linkage.

"~A" expression has a formal meaning under some particular context, but even if "A~" expression does not have any, so called, formal meaning it is based on the same Non-locality\Locality Linkage that enables "~A" meaningful formal expression.

So Non-locality\Locality Linkage is the universal condition of comparison, which enables both "~A" and "A~" expressions, whether they have formal meaning or not.

The Man, Your context dependent reasoning simply can't get Universality, because Universality is naturally not limited by any particular context.
 
Last edited:
epix said:
He spent some time in the town library browsing through those two books, reading and comparing.
Click to expand...
Exactly… reading and comparing.
epix said:
I borrowed a plastic ruler from the librarian and did some measuring and comparing.
Click to expand...
Exactly… measuring and comparing.
 
jsfisher said:
He doesn't like infinity very much, and I think from there he has backed up into a whole mess of other concepts trying to make sense of things (quite unsuccessfully).

Although he denies it, he imposes a sort of process view on things. He'll accept that there are infinitely many integers, but not that there can be a set of all of them. The process of adding each successive integer to the set can never be completed, and so the set of all integers cannot exist.

That rules out the upside-down A ("for all") since all and infinity don't get along. Backwards E ("there exists") is ok in Doronetics, but the fact backwards E and a few strategically placed negations are equivalent to upside-down A is something Doron will deny and/or ignore depending on the day.

Line segments would have been a problem for his view of infinity had Doron not declared them indivisible elements. He's called them UR-elements and non-composed at various times, but he means indivisible. He can then disregard any issue with infinitely many points completely covering a line segment; he's declared them indivisible.

Unfortunately, line segments have a property, namely length, that guarantees their divisibility. This is where the local/non-local mumbo-jumbo comes in in a stunningly contradictory but meaningless way. Doron seems happy with it, though.


And so on....Each new threat to his reality is countered with some other reinterpretation, usually with inconsistencies and contradictions in tow for comic relief. A basic misunderstanding of most things mathematical adds to the excitement.
Click to expand...

Yet you can't get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6134247&postcount=10713.
 
Little 10 Toes said:
But according to you, one must formally define something before we can understand it.
Click to expand...

Please do not force on me your reasoning.

See http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6142770&postcount=10750.

I clearly claim that OM is based on Direct perception, which is a pre-definition framework.

Definitions are based on Direct perception but not vice versa.

Little 10 Toes said:
just to name a few things
Click to expand...
What enables to name a few things?
 
Last edited:
AvalonXQ said:
Has anyone figured out what he's trying to say yet?
Click to expand...

Let me bo so bold , and comedic, as too give my evolving take on the matter of Organic Numbers.

Organic Number is an attempt to quantify what is not by Traditional Logic present in, or a member of, a given set, or sets in general.
The set of all numbers that are the square root of four does not, by ordinary logic contain the number three,
However Doron seeks to remedy this exclusion.

He presents a new logic based on "Local/ Non-Local Interaction" where all that isn't there by ordinary logic, is present in a "fog" of being both excluded and included beyond the defintion of traditional logic, but ever present in a Non-Linear, non-catagorical way of thinking.

Organic Number with it's "parallel" and "uncertain" modes of quantity is an attempt at a quantification that can include what is in "fog" along with definite fixed quantities.

"Local" is just what is set membership by the logical definition of the catagories to be contained in that set.
Non-Local" is that fog of what OM regards as in it's ur-logic (I can use "ur" too!) both member and non-member.
(It's a range of content, but it isn't content.)

I know this doesn't help.
 
doronshadmi said:
No, it is the fundamental condition that enables meaningful things, but it is not closed under any particular meaning.
Click to expand...

So again it is meaningless, primarily because you just what to insert some nonsensical meaning at your whim.

doronshadmi said:
OM is universal also because it enables any context without being limited by it.
Click to expand...

Which again makes it meaningless, meanings depend on context. With any context as valid any and all meanings are also valid, thus no meaning is or can be intended.

doronshadmi said:
Under "~A" formal expression "~" is the Relation aspect and "A" is the Element aspect and it is not possible unless both aspects are compared by linkage.
Click to expand...

Once again this requirement for ‘comparison’ “by linkage” is yours and yours alone.


doronshadmi said:
"~A" expression has a formal meaning under some particular context, but even if "A~" expression does not have any, so called, formal meaning it is based on the same Non-locality\Locality Linkage that enables "~A" meaningful formal expression.
Click to expand...

Well here you demonstrate quite clearly (as most of us already know) that it is context which “enables” “meaningful formal” or even informal “expression”. Your “Non-locality\Locality Linkage” is just superfluous meaningless nonsense. Let my try to put it more succinctly for you. You claim “even if "A~" expression does not have any, so called, formal meaning it is based on the same Non-locality\Locality Linkage”. Thus your “Non-locality\Locality Linkage” asscriptions are not based on any meaning inherent in that expression, thus they are simply meaningless ascriptions that you just assign at your own whim to pretend the expression is “based” on you preferred “Non-locality\Locality Linkage” dichotomy.

doronshadmi said:
So Non-locality\Locality Linkage is the universal condition of comparison, which enables both "~A" and "A~" expressions, whether they have formal meaning or not.
Click to expand...

Nope, a simple lack of any particular meaning or context “enables” a meaningless expression (you’re a prime example of that fact) and it is a given context that “enables” a meaningful expression.

doronshadmi said:
The Man, Your context dependent reasoning simply can't get Universality, because Universality is naturally not limited by any particular context.
Click to expand...

Doran your simple lack of reasoning prevents you from understanding that “not limited by any particular context” makes your “Universality” meaningless, just like the rests of your superfluous nonsense. Evidently you just like to perceive it as a blank check to write in whatever nonsensical meaning or claim of “Universality” that suits your fancy.
 
doronshadmi said:
Exactly… reading and comparing.

Exactly… measuring and comparing.
Click to expand...
Part 1 and Part 2 describes a paranormal event that took place in an Italian monastery and its investigation by two resident priests. That means the investigation is allowed to go on under the assumption that the Heavens caused the paranormal event - it goes on unhindered by an assertion that God is not real, coz someone somewhere managed to dig up a fossilized skeleton of a Tyrannosaurus rex.

* * *

Father Carlo Totti waited till late and then quietly unlocked the door to the monastery study and placed his copy of the Venn diagram on the table situated right below the crucifix. Would it burn again? He didn't disclose his intention to his friend Father Paolo Luciano who found his copy partially burned in the same place about a month ago: Father Luciano didn't become a priest in order to experiment with the Heavens. Neither did Father Totti, but he was more liberal in this respect and wanted to check on

A = the same circumstance
~A = not the same circumstance

Around 1 a.m., Father Totti came back to the study and found the piece of paper on the small table intact. But he wasn't ready to draw a definite conclusion from the outcome of the logical negation -- there was still a chance that the proposition "God's mind works mysterious ways" was true.

He went back to bed and locked out the Venn diagram from his mind before falling asleep.

The next day, Father Totti attended to his duties as usual without allowing himself to think about all the aspects of the mystery. Later, before the dinner, he went to his room, sat on his bed and closed his eyes. He imagined the colorless version of the diagram:

A(square) = rational explanation to the burning
~A(circle) = not rational explanation to the burning

This example of the applicable interpretation of the negation Venn diagram selects the circle as a symbol of the case where the mysterious burning doesn't have a rational explanation. But there are option to the cause: Did the devil breath upon the Venn diagram hoping that the burning paper ignites the crucifix and burns the devil's foe Jesus?

Father Totti knew that if the "other side" can think straight, then the circle must be the clue to the identity. So he considered two tentative options to the cause: God did the burning or the devil did. The question was: Does God relate to a circle or is it the devil that does? Or is it neither?

The comparison turned out slightly inconclusive:

DIO <---> DIAVOLO

Why would the comparison be slightly inconclusive? It's obvious that God did the burning due to

DIO is to 1 circle as DIAVOLO is to 2 circles

and what burned was this:

venn1.png


Even though letter O and a circle are very similar, the letter is not an exact circle. Proofs are not made of similarities but identities, and Father Totti wanted to get as close to the proof as possible. But the number of O's in each word built a special bridge between religion and geometry on which only Father Totti was allowed to walk on at the moment.

O(1), OO(2):
Euclid's Elements is the most successful and influential textbook ever written. Being first set in type in Venice in 1482, it is one of the very earliest mathematical works to be printed after the invention of the printing press and is estimated to be second only to the Bible in the number of editions published, with the number reaching well over one thousand.
Click to expand...

That prompted Father Totti to use geometric means to finalize the distinction. In other words: What is the minimum number of points necessary to define a unique circle?

Three points on a plane define a unique circle. Here's the logic and some code to determine the locations and size of the circle.
Click to expand...

That's all Father Totti needed to know. Given three points D, I, O, God can draw a unique circle - and burn it, if needed. It also occurred to him that if The Almighty sticks with the logic of three points, His circle making would be restricted: He can draw circles in Italy (points D, I, and O), as well as in English-speaking countries (points G, O, and D). That means He can draw geometric circles with his name attached only in countries where the word "god" comprises of three different letters.

This realization was immediately followed by this question: If God wants to draw three points that define a unique circle in one country and there are more than one country where the word "god" comprises three different letters/points, then how does He decide which country to bless with His divine compass? If He uses a random choice, then he flanks the "unlike any other" test, which is not possible, coz God is said to be omniscient.

But is this question even particular to the negation Venn diagram?

It is when the number of possibilities narrows to only two: circle-defining points D, I, O, in Italy and circle-defining points G, O, D in England, for example.
Code: 
A = in Italy
~A = not in Italy

A = in England
~A = not in England

(At that time, Father Totti wasn't aware of the enormous significance of the contradiction A = ~A that the identical areas of the burned Venn diagram implied. To support the contradiction, God began to draw circles in England as well as in Italy.)

Father Totti's view became obscured by the invading hordes of possibilities; he could no longer see the traffic signs. But the question whether the three imaginary points that defined the circle of the burned Venn diagram were points D, I, O or points G, O, D was very important to him. So he decided to test the options the next day. He almost missed the dinner doing all the thinking -- and missed a little coincidence of three as well: DIo, DIavolo, DInner. That because "dinner" is "pranzo" in Italian.


Next: "God" is a simple word, so is God. The Breakthrough is near, so is the Indictment.
 
Last edited:
epix said:
No spoilers, please. (Rev. Bull is a leading character in Part 258 who rescues Father Luciani taken hostage by The Circle of Composite Primes.)
Click to expand...

A little backstory won't hurt.
The Rev. Bull discovered God in his youth when one day he was chasing his tail in a circle and caught it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom