Doron Doron, do you mean that "local" is synonymous to "without context" and "non-local" is synonymous to "having context," like when you declare local variables in a block? They can't be seen by the main program, and so there is no "context," or something like that. You should explain the meaning of your terms by examples, like what ingredient is local or non-local when you make potato pancakes or anything but that . . . I mean . . . geesus! Stop it, Doron Doron! LOL.
epix, asking questions and then providing the answers, make your questions rhetoric.
Again you get only the text (word) aspect of con-text and ignore the connection aspect of con-text.The Man said:
Another example of your weak reasoning. In this case you can’t get that simultaneity is possible only in no time.The Man said:
"What enables me to understand?" are you able to answer to this question?
Doron, the perception of time is change-based, where the movement supplies the physical aspect (the earth orbiting the sun, or the movement of electrons). If there is no time, there is no movement, coz there is absence of objects. If there is absence of objects, then there is nothing to observe -- be it a serial glance or not -- and compare. That's why cosmologists say that time started with the Big Ben. ( Localize me not
)Did you mean "con-text" or "cont-ext?" There is a huge difference, coz the latter term is a short for CONTinuous EXTinction (of hyphenated species).
Finally some lucid explanation from you that I, the simple man, can understand: Potato pancakes can be Non-local or Local depending on how the recipe come by. If you make Non-local potato pancakes, then the recipe comes from your memory -- "connection or memory," as you put it -- whereas the Local potato pancakes are made according to a cookbook -- the "text or words" linkage. Can you confirm my rhetoric; like am I right?
The term "self-comparison" is used in psychology: it describes the comparison of real and imaginary and takes effect in the process of introspection where a person contemplates his or have achievements. Some folks overestimate their abilities and set their career goals accordingly just to face the reality later. The term is not really used outside the domain of psychology for obvious reasons. Forcing in it to live with your scheme just obscures your ideas further.
No I didn't. It was so rife with errors I hoped you wouldn't refer back to it. But since you asked ....
So because of OM I know what enables me to get something as the basis of any definition? Oh noes!!!! How were millions of people for tens of thousands of years able to get something as the basis of any definition? Easy. It's a combination of brains and comprehension.
If The Man is only looking at A, why does he even include ~, =, and ~=?
If it doesn't matter, why do you bring it up? Does the price of tea in China matter to your topic? Oh, the whole self referential comparison has already been "invented". It's called the Reflexive Property. X=X. Once again, you use too many words.
What "fact"?
Please tell me what the "particular kind of plant represents ground's fruitfulness" is. How does a plant represent "ground's fruitfulness"?
Your error of "connection" and "text" has already been pointed out.
Where?
Welcome AliDimayev, please do not start by rhetoric questions ("meaning rubbish" …?)
It, OM, is now the ability blahblahblah. If it is, why have you wasted over 10,000 posts to tell us? Why, I only remember a few post ago that you claimed OM
Define complex system. There is no difference between the two logical statements since they both logically equal True, just like 2+2 has the same result as 3+1 and 4+0
Please show that a fox and a rabbit can do logical statements. If a rabbit is A then Godzilla is ~A, along with everything else you can think of.
A rabbit does not have springs unless it's a wascally wabbit. But wait, if a carrot cannot distinguish itself from a rabbit, does a rabbit eat it? No, since according to your logic, the carrot eats the rabbit. Why? The rabbit is A and you just said ~A eats A.
Nope. Mom and Dad had sex. That's why I am here. Why I'm here on this forum is that sinsanity2006 believed that machines can be alive. I responded to this thread back at post 899, showing you that your definitions were wrong.
There is no morality in math. Counting the dead, whether it be humans, bugs, or flowers, is no different then counting newborns, gold ingots, or concepts that you try to force people to accept as true. For example
No it's not. I replied to you trying to force an origin/definition on context.
Another demonstration of how you get things only locally, by ignoring, for example, "+" that represents the non-local aspect of "2+2", "3+1" etc… expressions.
And they succeed to do it because Mon knows the difference between herself and Dad, and Dad knows the difference between himself and Mam.
They do better, they are using the logical reasoning of survival, which is not limited to "bla bla bla ...".
Again a reasoning of disjoint domains is used.
This statement does not translate into understandable English. Try again.
Well, it's been working fine for the rest of the world (and you) for thousands of years.
Please refresh your screen and read it again.
It's been working fine for the rest of the world (and you) for billons of years, exactly because non-locality and locality are used even if non-locality is not explicitly expressed by the local-only "bla bla bla …" reasoning.