Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
jsfisher said:
providing useful and meaningful results continually.
Click to expand...

These results are only context-dependent (get only x), and therefore are doomed to continually miss "[Nothing] < 0 < x ≤ ∞ < ∞ = [Fulness]" and the Unity beyond it.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
These results are only context-dependent (get only x), and therefore are doomed to continually miss "[Nothing] < 0 < x ≤ ∞ < ∞ = [Fulness]" and the Unity beyond it.
Click to expand...
infinityloop_unity360x.jpg


You must not venture beyond Unity!


Chaos+Field.jpg
 
doronshadmi said:
These results are only context-dependent (get only x), and therefore are doomed to continually miss "[Nothing] < 0 < x ≤ ∞ < ∞ = [Fulness]" and the Unity beyond it.
Click to expand...

So, is this the moment when you'll finally share some of the results of OM, and let us know in what context they are useful?
 
jsfisher said:
...hand-waving.
Click to expand...
Hand-waving is profound if it is understood as an expression of the same body.

By this organic insight both cross-contexts (the whole) and parts (context-dependent) are unified.

You take "hand-waving" as non-useful model exactly because by using only context-dependent reasoning you are doomed to miss the Organic realm of the unified cross-contexts (the whole) and parts (context-dependent) as a one comprehensive realm, where by this awareness no waving hand harms the other waving hand.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Hand-waving is profound if it is understood as an expression of the same body.

By this organic insight both cross-contexts (the whole) and parts (context-dependent) are unified.

You take "hand-waving" as non-useful model exactly because by using only context-dependent reasoning you are doomed to miss the Organic realm of the unified cross-contexts (the whole) and parts (context-dependent) as a one comprehensive realm, where by this awareness no waving hand harms the other waving hand.
Click to expand...
Organic realm is a region where an expression of the same body is the same as the expression of not the same body.

prosthetic-hand225.jpg
 
epix said:
Organic realm is a region where an expression of the same body is the same as the expression of not the same body.

[qimg]http://www.topnews.in/files/prosthetic-hand225.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...
In other words, you are unable:

1) To grasp Unity, which is beyond any expression.

2) To grasp the Organic realm, where Unity is the common source of different expressions, such that no expression is destructive w.r.t the other expressions.

3) Your used picture is an example of the ignorance of (1) and (2), which is indeed resulted by an artificial hand that exits exactly because one hand of the same body destroyed the other hand of the same body.
 
Last edited:
zooterkin said:
So, is this the moment when you'll finally share some of the results of OM, and let us know in what context they are useful?
Click to expand...
You simply can't get it beyond context-dependent reasoning (where only context-dependent reasoning is understood by you as useful).

This is another example of your inability to get cross-contexts reasoning in addition to context-dependent reasoning, as one organic realm, where context-dependent reasonings are not destructive w.r.t each other.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
In other words, you are unable:

1) To grasp Unity, which is beyond any expression.
Click to expand...
If there is no expression that could describe Unity, how do you suppose anyone can grasp its concept? It's like attempting to solve an equation which cannot be written down.
:rolleyes:

3) Your used picture is an example of the ignorance of (1) and (2), which is indeed resulted by an artificial hand that exits exactly because one hand of the same body destroyed the other hand of the same body.
Click to expand...

Speaking of ignorance . . . You assert that the dude in the pic simply chopped his hand off, as if there were no other options to the cause. This is the reason why you arrived at your conclusion.
 
epix said:
Speaking of ignorance . . . You assert that the dude in the pic simply chopped his hand off, as if there were no other options to the cause. This is the reason why you arrived at your conclusion.
Click to expand...
In order to get my reply, please generalize "the dude" to Unity, "hand" to "expression" , and the resulted "artificial hand" as the ignorance of the Organic nature of Unity\expression(s).
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Maybe http://www.fa9el.net/video/0bb4351b2200877003a can help.
Click to expand...

According to the video, Emptiness = Fullness & therefore LOVE.

Fullness implies completeness and it is the opposite to Emptiness. So the statement is illogical.

Proof:

1) Emptiness is to Incomplete and LOVE, as Fullness is to Complete and EVOL.

2) Therefore Fullness cannot be Complete as EVOL is not complete, coz UTION is missing.

A long time ago, there was a tree on which monkey lived. The monkey were so lazy that that they didn't bother to climb down when they needed to do what they needed to from time to time, and so they pooped from the branches. One nice day, God conceived another crazy idea of his and shook the tree. The monkeys fell to the ground into their own ****. God cut the tree into toothpicks so the monkey couldn't climb back. So they eventually learned to walk upright, but never got rid off smelling after **** even though God "noituLOVE" them all to these days.

Abort, just abort! It's never too late.


Edited by jhunter1163: 
Edited for Rule 10.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
doronshadmi said:
Is this all you got from it, the title and duality?

No wonder that you can't get OM.
Click to expand...
You fell asleep and didn't finish reading. There was a puzzle in tow.
So if Duality refers to large and small, then

a) 16 = 42
b) 16 = 24
Can you solve what you cooked up? Which answer is correct: (a) XOR (b)?
Click to expand...
If you solve it right, you rise on May 21; if you fail like the wienerschnitzel, you stay behind.

when 4 is large and 2 is small
grass is short, the tree is tall
when 2 is small and 4 is large
you'll be rising free of charge
where is bottle there is glass
you better think to save your ass

duality-1.jpg
 
epix said:
[qimg]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-oQ6gEoEJtr8/SxwBCgh8LzI/AAAAAAAAKt4/_UbT45CbVPc/s1600/duality-1.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...
By the organic approach both the duality of day/night AND their common ground, are considered (you get only the duality of day/night).
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
You simply can't get it beyond context-dependent reasoning (where only context-dependent reasoning is understood by you as useful).

This is another example of your inability to get cross-contexts reasoning in addition to context-dependent reasoning, as one organic realm, where context-dependent reasonings are not destructive w.r.t each other.
Click to expand...

That's a 'no', then? Pity, I thought we might have been on the verge of something. Never mind, I'm sure you'll get around to it eventually.
 
Let us learn how to get Unity as the source of all expressions, which is itself beyond expression, by understanding the following diagram:

5721561558_c5b78c3152_b.jpg


By this diagram Unity is represented by a 1-dim element, which stays 1-dim element, whether it is curved upon infinitely many frequencies or it has 0 frequency as a straight element.

The ups and downs of the 1-dim element represent the principle of dichotomy, which appears upon infinitely many frequencies and expresses the observed complexity.

The easiest way to be aware of Unity is to get the 1-dim element at its simplest state, which is straight.

By being aware of the simplest state, one enables to be aware of any possible complexity without losing the awareness of Unity (which is -by the provided analogy- the awareness of the 1-dim element that is not changed under the infinitely many possible complex expressions of it).
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
By the organic approach both the duality of day/night AND their common ground, are considered (you get only the duality of day/night).
Click to expand...
Day/night is not about duality but periodicity. Duality is not that easy to define.
In mathematical contexts, duality has numerous meanings, and although it is “a very pervasive and important concept in (modern) mathematics” and “an important general theme that has manifestations in almost every area of mathematics”, there is no single universally agreed definition that unifies all concepts of duality.
Click to expand...
But since your discourse concerns anything but the philosophy of mathematics, you can use Merriam Webster.
formal : the quality or state of having two parts
Click to expand...
According to this definition, day/night may be considered a dual distribution of 24 hours. The often-used symbol of duality is

yinyang50h.gif


But duality is not just about opposites, coz being composed of two parts doesn't necessarily imply that both parts are distinct opposites.

Your notion of "common ground" in duality comes from "fat" and "lean." When these meat qualities are combined in here

ground-beef_350(1).jpg


you get ground beef.

(How did you manage to fall in, Doron?)
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Let us learn how to get Unity as the source of all expressions, which is itself beyond expression, by understanding the following diagram:

[qimg]http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3296/5721561558_c5b78c3152_b.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...
Can we learn in 3D?

vanocka1.jpg
 
epix said:
Your notion of "common ground" in duality comes from "fat" and "lean."
Click to expand...

You mix between Ground as noun (my interpretation) and Ground as adjective (your interpretation).

So after you finish to show how "funny" you are, please use the noun.
 
doronshadmi said:
You mix between Ground as noun (my interpretation) and Ground as adjective (your interpretation).

So after you finish to show how "funny" you are, please use the noun.
Click to expand...

the adjective can't catch the noun
as 'funny' never catches 'clown'
before, after; lost and found
fat and lean is all around

beef is ground and pork is not
when it's cold than it's not hot
we all became excited
when Manchester got United.


man-united-win-european-cup.jpg
 
doronshadmi said:
A point is the minimal expression of locality under non-locality\locality co-existence, where a line segment is the minimal expression of non-locality under co-existence.
Click to expand...

That still does not constrict a location to only a point. Are you claiming your “line segment” has no location(s), either singular or multiple. Remember that your “non-locality” is in more than one location is a defining feature you have ascribed. It seems that you are considering the singular aspect of your “locality” to be a hidden assumption and in fact your negation is applied to that singular aspect and not the negation of location (since you define your “non-locality” as being in more then one location). So to be more precise it would be ‘non-singular locality\singular locality co-existence’. Of course that would make your “line segment” devisable into at least more than one location. So which is it Doron, your line segment is indivisible having no location or at most one location or is it at least more than one location thus divisible into those locations?

doronshadmi said:
Yet there are non-minimal expressions of non-locality\locality co-existence among smaller (localities under co-existence) and bigger (non-localities under co-existence) dimensions.
Click to expand...

“among smaller (localities”? You just said “A point is the minimal expression of locality”. What “smaller (localities” do you have now?

doronshadmi said:
The smallest dimension (notated by 0) is the immediate (and under non-locality\locality co-existence) successor of Nothing (which is non-existence and does not have notation) and bigger dimensions are non-immediate (notated by x (such that 0 < x ≤ ∞) and under non-locality\locality co-existence) predecessors of Fullness (notated by ∞ and beyond co-existence and non-existence).
Click to expand...

The lack of any dimension isn’t “The smallest dimension” because that would make it a dimension and thus not lacking in what it, by definition, lacks. That you indulge in and evidently thrive upon self-contradictory nonsense in no way imbues every notion with such a propensity.

Have you got that definition of your “successor” without ordering yet?

Please define your “predecessors” without ordering while you’re at it.

Just to give you a hint: “x (such that 0 < x ≤ ∞” is an expression of ordering.

“non-existence” “does not have notation”? How unfortunate for you that you just noted it, as usual simply proving yourself wrong.

So are you claiming there is “Nothing” “beyond” your “Fullness”?



doronshadmi said:
Beyond Nothing, Locality\Non-locality co-existence and Fullness there is the realm of Unity, where no degrees of any kind are expressible.
Click to expand...

Are you claiming there is “Nothing” “beyond” your “Unity”?

“Unity, where no degrees of any kind are expressible”? So there is no degree of “Unity” in your, well, “Unity”?

doronshadmi said:
If Complexity is considered, then in both cases, there must be co-existence of more than one thing, such that the co-exiting things save their ids under the co-existence, and therefore they are considered as the building-blocks, which are used as the agents of Unity that enable Complexity.
Click to expand...

Here you claim your “co-exiting things” to be your “agents of Unity that enable Complexity”. So does your “Unity” succeed or proceed your “Complexity” (perhaps both, and your “OM” ‘reasoning’ is just circular)?
 
The Man said:
“2 and 3” are not between to “2 and 3” so the interval specifically excludes anything between them. It could just as well be A and B in the alphabet, there is nothing between A and B. They are distinct because they are, well, different, that difference does not depend on any intervening (or between) “interval”.
Click to expand...
( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7115044&postcount=15223 )

According to The Man's reasoning "there is nothing between A and B" is equivalent to "there is difference between A and B"

His "reasoning" speaks for itself.
 
The Man said:
That still does not constrict a location to only a point.
Click to expand...
Yes it does. Only a point has the minimal needed term (exactly one location), which defines its exact position.

A line segment is non-local exactly because more than one location is used in order to define it.

X="local"

Furthermore, not-X is not necessarily the negation of X, not-X is "anything but X" where some of the possible cases is "the negation of X".

Your limited understanding of negation, is one of the reasons the you don't get an expression like "non-local".


The Man said:
“among smaller (localities”? You just said “A point is the minimal expression of locality”. What “smaller (localities” do you have now?
Click to expand...
It is not about points, but about smaller dimensions > 0 and bigger dimensions > 0, for example : 1-dim is local w.r.t 2-dim and 2-dim is non-local w.r.t 1-dim (and also w.r.t 0-dim).

0-dim is the smallest dim and it is local w.r.t to any other dim.


The Man said:
The lack of any dimension isn’t “The smallest dimension”
Click to expand...
In other words, you do not distinguish between 0-dim and nothing.
This distinction is clearly seen in what I wrote here:
doronshadmi said:
The smallest dimension (notated by 0) is the immediate (and under non-locality\locality co-existence) successor of Nothing
Click to expand...

The Man said:
Have you got that definition of your “successor” without ordering yet?
Click to expand...
Things that exist at the same level existence (for example distinct points) are not necessarily ordered by some common rule.

This is not the case between different levels of existence, which are necessarily ordered between two extremes, which are nothing (anything but a thing) and fullness (total thing).

The Man said:
Please define your “predecessors” without ordering while you’re at it.

Just to give you a hint: “x (such that 0 < x ≤ ∞” is an expression of ordering.
Click to expand...
As I said. In term of existence, things of the same level of existence are not necessarily ordered, and this is not the case about " < 0 < x ≤ ∞ < ∞"

The Man said:
“non-existence” “does not have notation”? How unfortunate for you that you just noted it, as usual simply proving yourself wrong.
Click to expand...

Try to get " < 0 < x ≤ ∞ < ∞"

The Man said:
So are you claiming there is “Nothing” “beyond” your “Fullness”?
Click to expand...
No, there is Unity beyond " < 0 < x ≤ ∞ < ∞"

The Man said:
Are you claiming there is “Nothing” “beyond” your “Unity”?
Click to expand...
No, there is Unity beyond " < 0 < x ≤ ∞ < ∞"

The Man said:
“Unity, where no degrees of any kind are expressible”? So there is no degree of “Unity” in your, well, “Unity”?
Click to expand...
You still do not comprehend Unity beyond " < 0 < x ≤ ∞ < ∞" expression.


The Man said:
Here you claim your “co-exiting things” to be your “agents of Unity that enable Complexity”. So does your “Unity” succeed or proceed your “Complexity” (perhaps both, and your “OM” ‘reasoning’ is just circular)?
Click to expand...
Unity is beyond complexity, where the complexity is expressed by at least two opposites, or any other form of interaction among distinct concepts (abstract or not).
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Let us learn how to get Unity as the source of all expressions, which is itself beyond expression, by understanding the following diagram:

5721561558_c5b78c3152_b.jpg


By this diagram Unity is represented by a 1-dim element, which stays 1-dim element, whether it is curved upon infinitely many frequencies or it has 0 frequency as a straight element.

The ups and downs of the 1-dim element represent the principle of dichotomy, which appears upon infinitely many frequencies and expresses the observed complexity.

The easiest way to be aware of Unity is to get the 1-dim element at its simplest state, which is straight.

By being aware of the simplest state, one enables to be aware of any possible complexity without losing the awareness of Unity (which is -by the provided analogy- the awareness of the 1-dim element that is not changed under the infinitely many possible complex expressions of it).
Click to expand...

You are a dreamscape mystic, Doron. What complexity are you talking about? Let me "uncomplex" it very quickly for you . . .

jointsemicircles.png


The source of your phantasmagorical discourse is a collection of joint semicircles -- it is a variation on Cantor set. There is nothing going on in there. The limit of the combined length of the spiralling semicircles whose number approaches infinity is

∞
∑ pi/2i-1 = 2pi
i=1

and the cumulative function that draws the curve that approaches the limit is

f(x) = pi (2x-1)/2x-1
limit2pi.png


That's about it. It's trivial anyway. That's why only a hemispheric mystic like you can raise it from the Abyss of Continuous Abandonment, turn it into the Seed of Incremental Knowledge and plant the Tree of Complex Unity, which no squirrel can ever climb.
 
epix said:
The source of your phantasmagorical discourse is a collection of joint semicircles
Click to expand...


1) epix gets only the analogy (he does not understand that 1-dim element is not Unity).

2) Even by analogy epix can't get 1-dim element (he get's the 1-dim as a collection of semi-circles, or in other words, he does not understand the word "element") as a representation of Unity , which is unchanged by the different frequencies of it.

Here is epix's model of "There is nothing going on in there":
epix said:
The limit of the combined length of the spiralling semicircles whose number approaches infinity is


∞
∑ pi/2i-1 = 2pi
i=1

and the cumulative function that draws the curve that approaches the limit is

f(x) = pi (2x-1)/2x-1
Click to expand...

Very "profound", isn't it?
epix said:
It's trivial anyway.
Click to expand...
Indeed What You See Is What You Get, which is indeed trivial (you are unable to grasp the simple, and the difference between the trivial and the simple).
epix said:
which no squirrel can ever climb.
Click to expand...
Indeed the name of the squirrel is epix, which wastes his energy on trivial jokes.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
1) epix gets only the analogy (he does not understand that 1-dim element is not Unity).

2) Even by analogy epix can't get 1-dim element (he get's the 1-dim as a collection of semi-circles, or in other words, he does not understand the word "element") as a representation of Unity , which is unchanged by the different frequencies of it.

Here is epix's model of "There is nothing going on in there":


Very "profound", isn't it?

Indeed What You See Is What You Get, which is indeed trivial (you are unable to grasp the simple, and the difference between the trivial and the simple).

Indeed the name of the squirrel is epix, which wastes his energy on trivial jokes.
Click to expand...

I think Playboy Bunny rather than Squirrel. I don't want to think what the Porn library in the Vatican looks like!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom