Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
Context.

doronshadmi said:
[qimg]http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4115/4776840900_299396df36.jpg[/qimg]​
Click to expand...


Father Totti had a big excuse in the fact that he had never investigated a paranormal event. He knew that The Church does look into weird stuff now and then, but the sole purpose of the detailed investigation is to avoid an embarrassment when the Vatican considers upgrading the event into the miracle category. In other words, the tears that appeared on the statue of Virgin Mary could have come directly from the water hose of a caretaker and from the wishful attitude of the believers, instead of from the Heavens. Father Totti suspected that if God had decided to personally address the issue of his existence, the country of Italy would have become ungovernable within 24 hours. Why to peanut with statues of the saints, then?

The Heavens didn't expect Father Totti to find and follow the main argument, but provided for the likely alternatives. Totti made the right and logical move to focus on the circle of the Venn diagram in his attempt to reason out the assumption that God said something by burning the copy of it. He was correct in taking into account the similarity between the shape of the circle and the letter O - the last letter of DIO, which is the Italian word for God. He did the comparison with the hypothetical source of the alternative; he compared DIO with DIAVOLO and counted the "circles," but the designated alternative of the main path wasn't the devil; it was UFO -- the three-letter international acronym that is used in Italy as well. By comparing DIO with UFO, Father Totti would have learned much more about the symbolic structure of the language that God designed to utter a wordt about the Venn diagram, but Totti was a priest and was naturally biased toward favoring God as the source of the paranormal event that took place in the monastery. Despite that, he was doing remarkably well. Especially the link between the defining three points of a unique circle and the word DIO and GOD based on the Bible/Elements comparison was very good. And it becomes better when Father Carlo Totti hits the Bible -- as he is about to do right now . . .

God didn't say much about Himself in the Scriptures, but it was enough for Father Totti to recognize something that he couldn't notice before.

Revelation 22:13 (International Version)
I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.

Taking into account the defining three points of a circle, Father Totti divided God's self-description into three parts:

Code: 
D. I am the Alpha and the Omega
I. I am the First and the Last
O. I am the Beginning and the End

God was clearly into the opposites, but also possibly into the "unlike any other" questions that litter various IQ tests.

The "logical" conjunction AND favored the O (circle) relation with the point of origin being also the point of destination. We begin the journey at the North Pole, walk south and end the sightseeing tour at he same point. The proof that the earth is not flat and doesn't have the end is complete.

But things were not that easy with the English version:

Code: 
G. I am the Alpha and the Omega
O. I am the First and the Last
D. I am the Beginning and the End

Father Totti could never explain the logic that made him to realize that Dio and God are two different words with the same meaning and that the question should be formatted accordingly.

Code: 
GOD: I am the Alpha and the Omega; I am the First and the Last; I am the Beginning and the End.

(The switch from the parallel to the serial view was questionable by scientific standards -- it smelled after a manipulative speculation in order to reach the desired conclusion -- but the shuffling occurred within the pages of the Bible, not in some PhD thesis, and there was a permissible argument after all.)

But the view change that re-formulated the question didn't make it easier. To which opposites out of the three does the word GOD relate the best?

Father Totti didn't know. He could see similarity between a geometric figure called "the circle" and the letter O with its application to the word GOD and DIO, but for some reason, he couldn't relate the circle to another symbol that folks use for communication: the number 0. The change from GOD to G0D was essential for kicking the door to the Heavens open. Father Totti clearly needed more time to organize his thoughts.


Next: God knows what.
 
doronshadmi said:
Please do not force on me your reasoning.
Click to expand...
Then how about you don't force your reasoning on others.

See http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6142770&postcount=10750.
Click to expand...
Ok then. Define Relation, define Element, define Local, define Non-Local, define Linkage, define aspect. Explain "the fundamental condition that enables meaningful things" and "not closed under any particular meaning".

The whole expression is ~A. There's no relation between ~ and A.

doronshadmi said:
I clearly claim that OM is based on Direct perception, which is a pre-definition framework.
Click to expand...
Yes, you say that several times, but you haven't proven it with anything. All you have done is claim.

doronshadmi said:
Definitions are based on Direct perception but not vice versa.
Click to expand...
If I never saw a wat before, someone would have to describe it. Once I see that structure matches the definition of a wat, I could then say, "Look at that wat."

doronshadmi said:
What enables to name a few things?
Click to expand...
Your inability to define.
 
Little 10 Toes said:
doronshadmi said:
I clearly claim that OM is based on Direct perception, which is a pre-definition framework.
Click to expand...
Yes, you say that several times, but you haven't proven it with anything. All you have done is claim.
Click to expand...

Indeed Little 10 Toes, and all he is claiming is that his “OM” and "Direct perception" are just meaningless nonsense as it “definition” that specifies meaning as well as some “framework”.
 
Context

doronshadmi said:
Please do not force on me your reasoning.
Click to expand...

The Heavens didn't ask that much from Father Carlo Totti; just to complete the set:

DIO(Ita.), GOD(Eng.): O is a letter
DIO(Ita.), GOD(Eng.): O is a number (zero)
DIO(Ita.), GOD(Eng.): O is a circle

Totti was only aware of the letter/circle connection through the rendition of the burned negation Venn diagram where the circle was the point of interest. The idea that the letter O in DIO could be interpreted also as a circle was supported through

Q: DI........? O
A: DIameter O

But Father Totti wasn't aware of this coincidental arrangement even though the translation of "diameter" into Italian returns very similar word: "diametro." He didn't fully understand the meaning of Revelation 22:13 to see that arrangement.

The clue to interpret the circle as number zero wasn't observable but analytic within Revelation 22:13. Father Totti couldn't handle the serial view of this particular chapter and verse, and so the observable option to compare a circle to number zero had to be implemented . . .

The next day, after finishing his duties, Father Totti washed his hands, sat on his chair by the window and began to stare at his copy of the negation Venn diagram. He could feel his age; he was getting tired sooner than he was used to and his eyelids went south for a moment.

A loud sound from the yard brought him back from the twilight. The setting sun yawned its rays on the diagram and the clueing was on . . .

Father Totti wanted to get up and prepare for the dinner, but all of sudden, a sledgehammer hit his mind when he looked at the diagram illuminated by the sun rays: Given the immediate circumstance, the circle, as a symbol, stood for the sun, but given the broader context, the circle also stood for something that Father Totti had in his drawer.

The association was standing tall: the sun + the magnifying glass + the paper = the mysterious burning of the copy of the Venn diagram.

Father Totti convinced himself that this momentary coincidental arrangement was meaningful; that God was well aware of it as well and that it was a parameter magnum in His intention to create a paranormal event in the monastery by burning a copy of the negation Venn diagram left on a small table bellow the crucifix by Father Luciani. But Father Totti was supposed to go further . . .

Come on, Carlo. Go ahead. If the sun ignites the paper through the magnifying glass, then it will burn. Ashes to ashes, dust to dust - yaknowhatimean? There would be no copy of the Venn diagram -- zilch, nothing, zero. Come on! NOTHING = N0THING.

But Father Totti wasn't thinking "nothing" but "something," mainly because NIENTE doesn't include letter O. Instead, he took a pencil and drew a straight line into the Venn diagram.


magnifyingglass.png


By drawing the straight line into the diagram, he completed the symbolic rendition of the magnifying glass, which focused on ~A. As it turned out later, the straight line became indispensable in interpreting the symbol ~A, which was very particular to the question why the Heavens burned the Venn diagram.

By drawing the straight line, Father Carlo Totti didn't succeed in transforming GOD into G0D, but managed another O transformation: G:)D.


If 'A'=1 and 'E'=5, then 'AE' = 15 = 'O' = "Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.”

Next: Zero means Something.
 
Last edited:
If a thread is drailed where the track has already been lost, has there been any derailment?
Rails are serial. Ties are parallel.
Carry on!
 
Apathia said:
Ties are parallel.
Carry on!
Click to expand...
lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll

burrito is para llevar
railroad tracks are para llel
those who live down in the cellar
feel the heat of burning hell

lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllocalize me not.
 
The Man said:
Doran your simple lack of reasoning prevents you from understanding that “not limited by any particular context” makes your “Universality” meaningless,
Click to expand...
The Man thank you for supporting again my claim about your local only reasoning, that can get “meaning” only under context-dependent isolated frameworks, that have nothing in common, and indeed your “universal” principle is “context-dependent isolated frameworks”.
The Man said:
meanings depend on context.
Click to expand...

As a result you can’t get real Universality, which it’s meaning is exactly “not limited to any particular context“ that represents it.
 
Last edited:
Little 10 Toes said:
Then how about you don't force your reasoning on others.
Click to expand...
Direct perception can't be forced. Definitions can be forced.
Little 10 Toes said:
Ok then. Define Relation, define Element, define Local, define Non-Local, define Linkage, define aspect. Explain "the fundamental condition that enables meaningful things" and "not closed under any particular meaning".
Click to expand...
Again you force definitions on Direct perception.
Little 10 Toes said:
The whole expression is ~A. There's no relation between ~ and A.
Click to expand...
In that case ~ is totally isolated from A, and you can't talk about "The whole expression is ~A".
Little 10 Toes said:
Yes, you say that several times, but you haven't proven it with anything. All you have done is claim.
Click to expand...
Direct perception does not need any proof. You can use words to describe it but it does not depend on its descriptions.
Little 10 Toes said:
If I never saw a wat before, someone would have to describe it. Once I see that structure matches the definition of a wat, I could then say, "Look at that wat."
Click to expand...
If you see wat, the fact that you see it does not depend on any definition of it.
Little 10 Toes said:
Your inability to define.
Click to expand...
Your inability to get Direct perception, as it is, directly, by using your memory as a relation among elements, whether they are abstract or not.

Direct perception is the universal condition for any possible research, abstract or not,. The "bla bla bla ..." level of definitions is based on it, but not vice versa.
 
Last edited:
Little 10 Toes said:
So then, your OM is a big waste of time and pointless because no one will know what they are looking at.
Click to expand...

No. By OM one knows what enables him to get something as the basis of any definition.


EDIT:

Let us take for example The Man's claim that (A ~= ~A) = (A = A).

By using The Man's reasoning-by-definition, we say:

"(A ~= ~A) if and only if (A = A)"

or

"(A = A) if and only if (A ~= ~A)"

The Man looking only on A and ignores ~, = and ~=

As a result he totally misses this fact:

A = T

~A = ~T = F

(we can use A = F ; ~A = ~F = T, but it does not matter)

4149358437_87f574fa79_o.jpg


T = T or F = F are ture self referential comparisons, where T ≠ F is a true non self referential comparison.

(we can use also false self referential comparisons like T ≠ T , F ≠ F or false non self referential comparison like T = F:
4153069414_3abcabc22e_o.jpg

, but it does not matter)

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

By using his "bla bla bla ..." reasoning, The Man simply can't get this Direct perception fact.
 
Last edited:
Little 10 Toes said:
So then, your OM is a big waste of time and pointless because no one will know what they are looking at.
Click to expand...


Think of it more as a boost to the No Child Left Behind program in math. Whatever the pupil directly perceives for the correct answer must be correct. We'll be 100% math-proficient in the schools almost immediately.
 
jsfisher said:
Think of it more as a boost to the No Child Left Behind program in math. Whatever the pupil directly perceives for the correct answer must be correct. We'll be 100% math-proficient in the schools almost immediately.
Click to expand...

jsfisher said:
No, I didn't. I wrote: (A ≠ B) = ~(A = B). That expresses, formally, what I already understand.
Click to expand...
What you already understand (before using some expression (formal or not))?
 
jsfisher said:
Perhaps if you actually read what I wrote, you'd see that your badly phrased question was already answered.
Click to expand...
Already answerd ? What enables you to know that you Already answerd ? (the fact is that you did not answer to my question, so I will ask it again:
doronshadmi said:
jsfisher said:
No, I didn't. I wrote: (A ≠ B) = ~(A = B). That expresses, formally, what I already understand.
Click to expand...
What you already understand (before using some expression (formal or not))?
Click to expand...
)
 
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
Your sophomoric attempts at being clever bore me. Please move on.
Click to expand...

Jsfisher, the fact is that you did not answer to my question, so I will ask it again:
doronshadmi said:
jsfisher said:
No, I didn't. I wrote: (A ≠ B) = ~(A = B). That expresses, formally, what I already understand.
Click to expand...
What you already understand (before using some expression (formal or not))?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
The question was very explicitly answered in the text you cited. Answered even before you asked it.
Click to expand...
I am not talking about answers, I am talking about using Direct preception for fundamental questions.


So:

jsfisher said:
No, I didn't. I wrote: (A ≠ B) = ~(A = B). That expresses, formally, what I already understand.
Click to expand...
What you already understand (before using some expression (formal or not))?
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
I am not talking about answers, I am talking about using Direct preception for fundamental questions.
Click to expand...

If you don't want answers, then don't ask questions. Simple as that.

So:

What you already understand (before using some expression (formal or not))?
Click to expand...

See that punctuation mark at the end? It's a question mark. If you don't want answers, stay away from sentences that end in question marks.
 
jsfisher said:
If you don't want answers, then don't ask questions. Simple as that.



See that punctuation mark at the end? It's a question mark. If you don't want answers, stay away from sentences that end in question marks.
Click to expand...

You still miss the use of Direct perception as a tool for fundamental questions.

Again you are looking at the symbols without understand what I write, because "what enables me to already understand?" is not a fundamental question of your reasoning.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
You still miss the use of Direct perception as a tool for fundamental questions.

Again you are looking at the symbols without understand what I write, because "what enables me to already understand?" is not a fundamental question of your reasoning.
Click to expand...


Perhaps, then, you should have asked that question directly rather than the badly phrased, "What you already understand (before using some expression (formal or not))?"

No matter. Time to move on. Make a point if you have one.
 
jsfisher said:
Perhaps, then, you should have asked that question directly rather than the badly phrased, "What you already understand (before using some expression (formal or not))?"

No matter. Time to move on. Make a point if you have one.
Click to expand...

So you have missed: "what enables me to already understand?" is not a fundamental question of your reasoning.
 
jsfisher said:
No, not at all you missed my response to it.

If you have a point, please move to it.
Click to expand...
Well I see that we can't jump on baby steps in your case.

"what enables me to already understand?" is not a fundamental question of your reasoning.
 
jsfisher said:
I will ask this one last time: If you have a point to make, please move to it. Your sophomoric attempts at cleverness still bore me.
Click to expand...
"what enables me to already understand?" is not a fundamental question of your reasoning, is an argument and you did not reply to it.
 
doronshadmi said:
"(A = A) if and only if (A ~= ~A)"
Click to expand...


Obviously, Father Totti wasn't aware of many things including the simple concatenation of Albert Einstein's initials that returns another vowel, letter O -- a letter whose shape is very similar to the shape of the circle and number zero. But even if he were through rather difficult "God doesn't play dice with the universe," that wouldn't help him to modify GOD into G0D, which is an indispensable catalyst in forming the theory explaining the mysterious burning of the negation Venn diagram.

He didn't mention anything about Revelation 22:13 to Father Luciani. He had good reasons not to. Both priests occasionally discussed the paranormal event that took place in the monastery in a general manner, and, on one occasion, Father Totti instilled an idea in Father Luciani's mind while discussing a rather small number of official miracles of the 20th century. Father Totti pretentiously viewed this state as very positive: God is surely aware of the high degree of faith in Him and so there is no reason for Him to further support the belief in His existence by initiating multitude of plainly observable phenomena of a religious character. That pleased far less liberal Father Luciani who decided to make this a subject for his next essay. He couldn't finish his previous writing on theism and atheism due to the "advice" of bishop Cannavari who became intuitively protective and decided to draw a precautionary line between Father Luciano's activities and the mysterious burning of the copy of the Venn diagram.

Father Totti was more analytic in concluding that the mysterious burning of the Venn diagram could be somewhat connected with Father Luciani's essay for which he made a copy of the diagram. The diagram included variable A where the symbol '~' negated whatever value was assigned to A. Father Totti wasn't mentally blind though; he knew that given the circumstance, the "whatever value" could have been restricted to

Ateo
~Ateo

where ~Ateo didn't have any other option but to join the population of theists.

But unrelated coincidences do happen frequently and there were no other arguments in the plain view that would tie the knot between Father Luciani's essay and the mysterious burning, which turned also A and ~A into ashes. The idea that God tossed the match just to say that He disapproves the occasional bickering between theists and atheists -- an idea likely to be born in the head of a cardinal -- didn't even cross Father Totti's mind. God's mind could have worked "mysterious ways," but in Father Totti's eyes, the real God was an intelligent person.

But this all didn't concern the Heavens that much. The Heavens had a job to do. Namely, to create the circumstances under which Father Totti would be able to modify GOD into G0D in non-arbitrary way. The modification was particular in solving the mystery of the burning copy of the Venn diagram. The type of solution will satisfy to some extent Father Totti, but he will never know the true reason why the copy of the Venn diagram went up in smoke, coz the reason involved realities that were, are, and will remain unknown to mankind forever and ever. Actually there is nothing super mysterious in what the Heavens wanted to do. The turning of GOD into G0D and the following transformations of other related symbols involves a brain performance that the Heavens needed to monitor.


Next: Before you switch it on . . .
 
doronshadmi said:
Little 10 Toes said:
You no talk right. He show you wrong talk. You learn use English. You go back when you done.
Click to expand...

zooterkin said:
Your command of maths is matched only by your facility with the English language.
Click to expand...

So, "Whet enables me to understand?" is not a fundamantal question also in your case.
Click to expand...


This one is just so ironically amazing, I just had to preserve it before Doron feels compelled to edit it.
 
jsfisher said:
This one is just so ironically amazing, I just had to preserve it before Doron feels compelled to edit it.
Click to expand...

Jsfisher, it does not need any editing , "Whet enables me to understand?" is not a fundamental question of your reasoning.

As a result you have a vary limited understanding of real mathematical science.
 
doronshadmi said:
The Man thank you for supporting again my claim about your local only reasoning, that can get “meaning” only under context-dependent isolated frameworks, that have nothing in common, and indeed your “universal” principle is “context-dependent isolated frameworks”.
Click to expand...

Doron thank you again for showing that lacking any “support” for your “claim” you will simply claim support for your “claim”.

doronshadmi said:
As a result you can’t get real Universality, which it’s meaning is exactly “not limited to any particular context“ that represents it.
Click to expand...

Then it doesn’t ‘represent’ “it”. Once again you claim that the “meaning” of your “Universality” is “exactly” that it is meaningless. Again you simply can’t get that you just claiming “Universality” does not imbue or demonstrate any “Universality” and your “not limited to any particular context“ that represents it” is just a poor excuse for you simply inserting whatever nonsense suits you at that time.
 
doronshadmi said:
No. By OM one knows what enables him to get something as the basis of any definition.


EDIT:

Let us take for example The Man's claim that (A ~= ~A) = (A = A).

By using The Man's reasoning-by-definition, we say:

"(A ~= ~A) if and only if (A = A)"

or

"(A = A) if and only if (A ~= ~A)"

The Man looking only on A and ignores ~, = and ~=

As a result he totally misses this fact:

A = T

~A = ~T = F

(we can use A = F ; ~A = ~F = T, but it does not matter)

[qimg]http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2554/4149358437_87f574fa79_o.jpg[/qimg]

T = T or F = F are ture self referential comparisons, where T ≠ F is a true non self referential comparison.

(we can use also false self referential comparisons like T ≠ T , F ≠ F or false non self referential comparison like T = F:
[qimg]http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2731/4153069414_3abcabc22e_o.jpg[/qimg]
, but it does not matter)



By using his "bla bla bla ..." reasoning, The Man simply can't get this Direct perception fact.
Click to expand...

Still trying to force your “Direct perception fact” nonsense onto others, even though you claim…

doronshadmi said:
Direct perception can't be forced.
Click to expand...

Again stop trying to force your lack of reasoning and purported “Direct perception” onto others.
 
The Man said:
Once again you claim that the “meaning” of your “Universality” is “exactly” that it is meaningless.
Click to expand...
Once again you show that your meaning is context dependent.

For example: a particular kind of plant represents ground's fruitfulness, but ground's fruitfulness is not limited to any particular kind of plant.

Furthermore, the meaning to the word "context" is based on two words: "connection" and "text", so Non-locality (connector, or memory)\Locality (connected, or text) Linkage is the foundation of "context".

See http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/context :

Main Entry: con-text
Pronunciation: \ˈkän-ˌtekst\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, weaving together of words, from Latin contextus connection of words
Click to expand...
 
The Man said:
Still trying to force your “Direct perception fact” nonsense onto others, even though you claim…



Again stop trying to force your lack of reasoning and purported “Direct perception” onto others.
Click to expand...

Direct perception is the most basic state of mind, and therefore can't be forced.

On the contrary "bla bla bla ..." reasoning is not the most basic state of mind, and when some context dependent "bla bla bla ..." reasoning is taken as Universality, then we really get a forced reasoning.

The sad joke in your case, The Man, is that you even do not understand the universal principle that enables you to use a word like "context".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom