Deeper than primes

doronshadmi · Jul 31, 2011

Please look at these works about Left-Right Hemispheres Math:

http://www.jstor.org/pss/2029936

Please also look at this interesting part, taken from http://www.scribd.com/doc/53948152/10/Nonanalytic-Aspects-of-Mathematics (pages 403-405):

At Brown University Thomas Banchoff, a mathematician, and Charles Strauss, a computer scientist, have made computer-generated motion pictures of a hypercube moving in and out of our three-dimensional space.

To under-stand what they have done, imagine a flat, two-dimensional creature who lived at the surface of a pond and could see only other objects on the surface (not above or below).This flat fellow would be limited to two physical dimensions, just as we are limited to three.
He could become aware of three dimensional objects only by way of their two-dimensional intersections with his flat world. If a solid cube passes from the air into the water, he sees the cross-sections that the cube makes with the surface as it enters the surface, passes through it, and finally leaves it.If the cube passed through repeatedly, at many different angles and directions, he would eventually have enough in-formation about the cube to "understand" it even if he couldn't escape from his two-dimensional world.

The Strauss-Banchoff movies show what we would see if a hypercube passed through our three-space, at one angle or another. We would see various more or less complex configurations of vertices and edges. It is one thing to describe what we would see by a mathematical formula.

It is quite another to see a picture of it; and still better to see it in motion. When I saw the film presented by Banchoff and Strauss, I was impressed by their achievement,* and by the sheer visual pleasure of watching it. But I felt a bit disappointed; I didn't gain any intuitive feeling for the hyper-cube.

A few days later, at the Brown University ComputingCenter, Strauss gave me a demonstration of the interactivegraphic system which made it possible to produce such afilm. The user sits at a control panel in front of a TVscreen. Three knobs permit him to rotate a four-dimensional figure on any pair of axes in four-space. As he does so, he sees on the screen the different three-dimensional figures which would meet our three-dimensional space as the four-dimensional figure rotates through it.

Another manual control permits one to take this three-dimensional slice and to turn it around at will in three-space. Still another button permits one to enlarge or shrink the image; the effect is that the viewer seems to be flying away from the image, or else flying toward and actually into the image on the screen. (Some of the effects in StarWars of flying through the battle-star were created in just this way, by computer graphics.) At the computing center, Strauss showed me how all these controls could be used to get various views of three-dimensional projections of a hypercube.

I watched, and tried my best to grasp what I was looking at. Then he stood up, and offered me the chair at the control. I tried turning the hypercube around, moving it away, bringing it up close, turning it around another way. Suddenly I could feel it!

The hypercube had leaped into palpable reality, as I learned how to manipulate it, feeling in my fingertips the power to change what I saw and change it back again. The active control at the computer console created a union of kinesthetics and visual thinking which brought the hypercube up to the level of intuitive understanding.

In this example, we can start with abstract or algebraic understanding alone. This can be used to design a computer system which can simulate for the hypercube the kinds of experiences of handling, moving and seeing real cubes that give us our three-dimensional intuition. So four-dimensional intuition is available, for those who want it or need it.

The existence of this possibility opens up new prospects for research on mathematical intuition. Instead of working with children or with ethnographic or historical material,as we must do to study the genesis of elementary geometric intuition (the school of Piaget), one could work with adults, either trained mathematically or naive, and attempt to document by objective psychological tests the development of four-dimensional intuition, possibly sorting out the roles played by the visual (passive observation) and the kinesthetic (active manipulation.) With such study, our understanding of mathematical intuition should increase. There would be less of an excuse to use intuition as a catch-all term to explain anything mysterious or problematical.

Looking back at the epistemological question, one wonders whether there really ever was a difference in principle between four-dimensional and three-dimensional. We can develop the intuition to go with the four-dimensional imaginary object. Once that is done, it does not seem that much more imaginary than "real" things like plane curve sand surfaces in space. These are all ideal objects which we are able to grasp both visually (intuitively) and logically.

By defining the union between parts, we are able to be developed beyond our current limitations.

jsfisher · Jul 31, 2011

doronshadmi said:
Please look at these works about Left-Right Hemispheres Math:

http://www.jstor.org/pss/2029936

Let me understand this. You cite a paper with a view of how Mathematics is really done, then lament that that is how Mathematics should really be done.

doronshadmi · Jul 31, 2011

jsfisher said:
Let me understand this. You cite a paper with a view of how Mathematics is really done, then lament that that is how Mathematics should really be done.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/53948152/10/Nonanalytic-Aspects-of-Mathematics (page 316)

It is a reasonable conclusion that a mathematical culture that specifically downgrades the spatial, visual, kinesthetic, and nonverbal aspects of thought does not fully use all the capacities of the brain.The de-emphasis of the analog elements of mathematics represents the closing off of one channel of mathematical consciousness and experience. Surely, it would be better to develop and use all the special talents and abilities of our brains, rather than to suppress some by education and professional prejudice. We suggest that in mathematics it would be better for the contributions of the two halves of the brain to cooperate, complement, and enhance each other, rather than for them to conflict and interfere.

jsfisher, it is clearly seen all along this thread that your Math is done only by your left-hemisphere.

jsfisher · Jul 31, 2011

doronshadmi said:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/53948152/10/Nonanalytic-Aspects-of-Mathematics (page 316)

jsfisher, it is clearly seen all along this thread that your Math is done only by your left-hemisphere.

I see your reading comprehension skills have failed you again, doron. No wonder you get so many things wrong. Try again. Reread my post in its entirety. It is really quite short, so even you should be able to get through it. Perhaps you can spot were you went wrong.

The Man · Jul 31, 2011

doronshadmi said:
"AB" is actual superposition.

Doron you have claimed that your “superposition” does not involve the principle of superposition, so again simply by your own assertions is it specifically and actually not any kind of superposition whatsoever.

doronshadmi said:
Let's look at some example, which demonstrates the difference between "A,B" strict and "AB" non-strict:

( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qubit )

The article says nothing about your "A,B" strict and "AB" non-strict:”

doronshadmi said:
"A,B" is strict relation of bits, where "AB" is non-strict relation of a qubit.

Quantum superposition (as in a qbit) involves the principle of superposition (as well as complex vector addition) as you assert your “superposition” does not involve the principle of superposition you are deliberately trying to conflate your “superposition” with what you specifically assert it does not involve. Such deliberate attempts at deception can apparently fool only you.

doronshadmi said:
"AB" is exactly what it is, the inability to determine if it is X or not-X (where X is some strict value).

In other words, "AB" is non-strict, and it is different than "A,B" strict.

Great, so again you assert it is just indeterminate, as any variable can be.

doronshadmi said:
Your "A,B" strict-only reasoning can't get "AB" non-strict.

For example, your question

is closed under "A,B" strict.

Your deliberate attempts to deceive only yourself can’t help you to get that your "AB" is just indeterminate like any variable can be.

You placed limits on how indeterminate your “AB” variable can be yourself, the question simply demonstrate how desperately you now want to separate yourself from your own previously expressed limits.

doronshadmi said:
This is not quantum superposition ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_superposition ).

Quantum superposition involves the principle of superposition (as well as complex vector addition) as you assert your “superposition” does not involve the principle of superposition it remains simply and by your own assertions not any kind of superposition. Your continued deliberately deceptive attempts to conflate your “superposition” with what you specifically claim it is not, again fools only you.

doronshadmi said:
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialetheism )

In other words "AB" is non-local, where "A,B" is local.

A = "in"
B = "out"

By "AB" non-locality "john is A AND B of the room" is the natural state of non-locality, so there is no contradiction.

By "A,B" locality "john is A AND B of the room" is not the natural state of locality, so there is contradiction.

The Man's reasoning is closed under "A,B" local.

No Doron it specifically (even in the part you quoted) refers to “Ambiguous situations may cause humans to affirm both a proposition and its negation.” That you simply want your assertion to be ambiguous is quite obvious as is the latter result that you simply want to “affirm both a proposition and its negation”.

doronshadmi said:
-------------

"A,B" local is resulted by "A,B" strict (there is no superposition among "A" strict and "B" strict).

"AB" non-local is resulted by "AB" non-strict (there is superposition among "A" strict and "B" strict).

Again and by your own assertions there is no superposition in your, well, “superposition”. Continuing deliberately and deceptively tiring to conflate your “superposition” with what you specifically claim it does not involve still fools only you.

doronshadmi said:
Some update of the last part of my previous post:

-------------

"A,B" local is resulted by "A,B" strict (there is no superposition among "A" strict and "B" strict, which saves their strictness).

"AB" non-local is resulted by "AB" non-strict (there is superposition among "A" strict and "B" strict, which does not save their strictness).

-------------

In other words, The Man, your "A,B" reasoning can't comprehend http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7294686&postcount=15740.

Superposition is naturally unordered exactly because non-strict values can't be ordered.

Yet "AB" is non-strict, and the result of "non-strict strictness" (AB AND A) or "strict non-strictness" (A AND AB) is "AB" non-strict, where the commutativity of AND connective has no influence on "AB" non-strict result.

Your trivial "A,B" limited reasoning simply can't get that.

Same deliberate and futile attempts at deception, again and by your own assertions there is no superposition in your, well, “superposition”. Continuing deliberately and deceptively tiring to conflate your “superposition” with what you specifically claim it does not involve still fools only you.

doronshadmi · Jul 31, 2011

jsfisher said:
I see your reading comprehension skills have failed you again, doron. No wonder you get so many things wrong. Try again. Reread my post in its entirety. It is really quite short, so even you should be able to get through it. Perhaps you can spot were you went wrong.

Again your left-only mind have failed you to get that you are using only Analytic (step-by-step) thinking style.

For example, your analytic-only reasoning can't get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7397738&postcount=16045 (links are included).

jsfisher · Jul 31, 2011

doronshadmi said:
Again your left-only mind have failed you to get that you are using only Analytic (step-by-step) thinking style.

For example, your analytic-only reasoning can't get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7397738&postcount=16045 (links are included).

You continue to accuse others of the failings that are uniquely yours.

doronshadmi · Jul 31, 2011

The Man said:
Doron you have claimed that your “superposition” does not involve the principle of superposition,

Actual superposition is based on parallel reasoning, where at least two variables are indeterminate exactly because the superposition prevents their strict values.

By the quantum-superposition ( which is based on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superposition_principle The Superposition principle) we find this phrase:

... if input A produces response X and input B produces response Y then input (A + B) produces response (X + Y).

In other words, (A + B) or (X + Y) is actual superposition only if (A + B) expression is not strict A expression and not strict B expression,
or (X + Y) expression is not strict X expression and not strict Y expression.

The Man said:
The article says nothing about your "A,B" strict and "AB" non-strict:”

Wrong, if superposition is actual, then (A+B) = "AB" non-strict, which is different than (A strict , B strict) = "A,B" strict.

doronshadmi · Jul 31, 2011

jsfisher said:
You continue to accuse others of the failings that are uniquely yours.

Your imbalanced left-only mind failings even to get the following abstract:

Abstract

In this paper we make a distinction between the practice of mathematics as it is usually presented--a logical chain of abstract, analytical reasoning from premises to conclusions--and how mathematics seems to be done in actuality--as a series of nonverbal, analog, often kinesthetic or visual insights. Mathematics in recent years has created a hierarchy with highly abstract, logical and symbolic material at the peak and with more geometrical, visual, and analog material held to be of lesser worth. We argue that humans are known to vary widely in their approaches to cognition and that the areas of the human brain specifically related to language and logical analysis seem to comprise only a part of the machinery of our intellect. We suggest that it would be wise for the practitioners of mathematics, and perhaps especially the students of mathematics to be aware of the very important nonverbal elements in mathematics. We feel that excessive emphasis on the abstract, analytic aspects of thought may have had deleterious effects on the profession and that a more appropriate balance, more in line with our cognitive endowment as humans, is desirable.

( http://www.jstor.org/pss/2029936 )

jsfisher · Jul 31, 2011

doronshadmi said:
Your imbalanced left-only mind failings even to get the following abstract:

( http://www.jstor.org/pss/2029936 )

Continue to work on that reading comprehension thing. It will take time, but eventually you'll improve.

doronshadmi · Jul 31, 2011

jsfisher said:
Continue to work on that reading comprehension thing. It will take time, but eventually you'll improve.

jsfisher, it is nice to hear from you that you continue to work on that reading comprehension thing, by encourage yourself.

But let me tell you some secret, in order to really improve the balance of your mind, you need to add some visual\spatial training to your reading comprehension training, as suggests in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7426018&postcount=16169 by Philip J. Davis and James A. Anderson (it was written in 1979, but most of mathematicians ignored them).

The Man · Jul 31, 2011

doronshadmi said:
Actual superposition is based on parallel reasoning, where at least two variables are indeterminate exactly because the superposition prevents their strict values.

Again, “Actual superposition” is based upon the principle of superposition, as you claim your “superposition does not involve the principle of superposition you are just claiming you have no “Actual superposition”.

doronshadmi said:
By the quantum-superposition ( which is based on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superposition_principle The Superposition principle) we find this phrase:

I’m quite familiar with both quantum-superposition and the principle of superposition, thank you.

doronshadmi said:
In other words, (A + B) or (X + Y) is actual superposition only if (A + B) expression is not strict A expression and not strict B expression,
or (X + Y) expression is not strict X expression and not strict Y expression.

A blatant lie as exemplified by your own assertion that you are using “other words”. The words you quoted from the article accurately and strictly convey the principle of superposition (a linier addition of input “A” with input “B” which produces a linier addition of response “X” with response “Y”). Your deliberately deceptive “not strict” “other words” make assertions neither explicit nor implicit in the article you quoted from and in fact contradict the strict linier addition exemplified in what you quoted and the article you quoted from. Deliberately substituting your own words for the ones quoted to deceive yourself into thinking the article asserts (either implicitly or explicitly) what it specifically does not evidently fools only you.

The acctualy section you deliberately truncated in your futile attempt to perpetuate your lies.

In physics and systems theory, the superposition principle [1] also known as superposition property, states that, for all linear systems, the net response at a given place and time caused by two or more stimuli is the sum of the responses which would have been caused by each stimulus individually. So that if input A produces response X and input B produces response Y then input (A + B) produces response (X + Y).

Are you attempting to claim now that your “superposition” does involve the principle of superposition (as quoted in its entirety above) in spite of what you have said before?

doronshadmi said:
Wrong, if superposition is actual, then (A+B) = "AB" non-strict, which is different than (A strict , B strict) = "A,B" strict.

Once again a deliberate lie as “(A+B)” is strictly a linear addition of “A” with “B” as exemplified in what you quoted and the article you quoted from. Since you have both said that your “superposition” does not involve the principle of superposition and is not a linier addition you continue to blatantly and futilely lie about your “superposition” by now attempting to posit that it does involve what you have specifically claimed it does not.

The only one your lies, evasions and ridiculously futile deliberate deceptions hurt Doron is just you. You are nothing but a liar Doron, more effetely to just yourself than to anyone else.

doronshadmi · Jul 31, 2011

The Man said:
Again, “Actual superposition” is based upon the principle of superposition, as you claim your “superposition does not involve the principle of superposition you are just claiming you have no “Actual superposition”.

I’m quite familiar with both quantum-superposition and the principle of superposition, thank you.

A blatant lie as exemplified by your own assertion that you are using “other words”. The words you quoted from the article accurately and strictly convey the principle of superposition (a linier addition of input “A” with input “B” which produces a linier addition of response “X” with response “Y”). Your deliberately deceptive “not strict” “other words” make assertions neither explicit nor implicit in the article you quoted from and in fact contradict the strict linier addition exemplified in what you quoted and the article you quoted from. Deliberately substituting your own words for the ones quoted to deceive yourself into thinking the article asserts (either implicitly or explicitly) what it specifically does not evidently fools only you.

The acctualy section you deliberately truncated in your futile attempt to perpetuate your lies.

Are you attempting to claim now that your “superposition” does involve the principle of superposition (as quoted in its entirety above) in spite of what you have said before?

Once again a deliberate lie as “(A+B)” is strictly a linear addition of “A” with “B” as exemplified in what you quoted and the article you quoted from. Since you have both said that your “superposition” does not involve the principle of superposition and is not a linier addition you continue to blatantly and futilely lie about your “superposition” by now attempting to posit that it does involve what you have specifically claimed it does not.

The only one your lies, evasions and ridiculously futile deliberate deceptions hurt Doron is just you. You are nothing but a liar Doron, more effetely to just yourself than to anyone else.

The Man, all you demonstrate is your strict-only reasoning, which can't distinguish between (A+B) non-strict expression (where A value and B value are non-strict as long as they are not collapsed into A strict or B strict), and A strict expression or B strict expression.

You lie to yourself as long as you do not get the difference between (A+B) non-strict expression and and A strict expression or B strict expression.

Again your local-only strict reasoning airs its limited view.

You are missing a simple fact, which is: your balanced understanding is based on your balanced mind, and you will not develop this balance by reading some frozen agreed notions, which are written in some articles by people that use almost only the left-hemisphere of their brain.

As long as the center of your balance is outside of yourself, you continue to lie to yourself.

If you really become aware of yourself, you become aware of the non-subjective level that is the natural source of all your subjective expressions, which is actually the common source of any possible expression, whether it is physical or mental.

The Man said:
a linier addition of input “A” with input “B” which produces a linier addition of response “X” with response “Y”).

You do not understand that "with" is the factor that defines the non-strictness, in this case.

In other words, no mutations of already agreed terms\definitions\axioms\etc. ... are possible in your dogmatic mind, as can be found among anti-evolutionists ( your anti-evolutionist state of mind can't grasp, for example, http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7397813&postcount=16048 ).

You are indeed the ultimate lair of yourself.

The Man · Jul 31, 2011

doronshadmi said:
The Man, all you demonstrate is your strict-only reasoning, which can't distinguish between (A+B) non-strict expression (where A value and B value are non-strict as long as they are not collapsed into A strict or B strict), and A strict expression or B strict expression.

Doron once again you just demonstrate that suddenly you can’t understand a simple linear addition like (A+B) and try to conflate everything into some bizarre notion you have about values being “collapsed” or not.

doronshadmi said:
You lie to yourself as long as you do not get the difference between (A+B) non-strict expression and and A strict expression or B strict expression.

Doron you lied about what the article you quoted said, don’t even try to pawn that off onto anyone else. You knew quite well what that article said and distanced yourself and your assertions from those implications a number of times (starting about a year and a half ago) and continued that up to just recently. Now you just want to lie about what that article says and claim it is “other words” for your “non-strict expression” nonsense.

doronshadmi said:
Again your local-only strict reasoning airs its limited view.

Stop simply trying to posit aspects of your own failed reasoning onto others.

doronshadmi said:
You are missing a simple fact, which is: your balanced understanding is based on your balanced mind, and you will not develop this balance by reading some frozen agreed notions, which are written in some articles by people that use almost only the left-hemisphere of their brain.

I didn’t miss anything including this “people that use almost only the left-hemisphere of their brain” nonsense you’ve begun to spout recently. Just another aspect of one of your self serving dichotomies that you simply want to posit onto others.

doronshadmi said:
As long as the center of your balance is outside of yourself, you continue to lie to yourself.

If you really become aware of yourself, you become aware of the non-subjective level that is the natural source of all your subjective expressions, which is actually the common source of any possible expression, whether it is physical or mental.

Once again you attempt to ascribe objectivity to your own subjectivity by simply proclaiming it. As I wouldn’t expect you to actually understand it, this is most likely a simple delusion on your part as opposed to the outright lie you still try to pawn off (where you did demonstrate and acted directly, claiming opposition, upon an understanding of the superposition principle and have now simply chosen instead to lie about the basis of that principle as it is stated).

doronshadmi said:
You do not understand that "with" is the factor that defines the non-strictness, in this case.

You don’t understand that the words “a linier addition of input “A” with input “B”” is the factor that defines the, well, linier addition of input “A” with input “B” in this case. All of those other words come with that , well, “with”. So again unless you are claiming your “non-strictness” is just a linear addition of input “A” with input “B” you are still just lying (and making an even more ridiculous effort at it).

doronshadmi said:
In other words, no mutations of already agreed terms\definitions\axioms\etc. ... are possible in your dogmatic mind, as can be found among anti-evolutionists ( your anti-evolutionist state of mind can't grasp, for example, http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7397813&postcount=16048 ).

A lie isn’t a mutation Doron; you claimed the article said something you know it does not, as demonstrated by your almost fanatic attempts to separate your “superposition” from the principle of superposition and anything using the word linear. You lied and got caught, trying to ascribe “dogmatic mind”, “anti-evolutionists” and “people that use almost only the left-hemisphere of their brain” labels to others can not change the fact that you lied and have been called on it.

doronshadmi said:
You are indeed the ultimate lair of yourself.

That makes even less sense than usual for you Doron.

epix · Jul 31, 2011

doronshadmi said:
This is not quantum superposition ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_superposition ).

You said that according to my example, blah blah blah . . . But my links never included any reference to the quantum superposition.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7318785&postcount=15807

If you look at Shrodinger equation, you see "traditional math" in action. So be very careful not to allow yourself to be lead astray by it while exploring the subject of quantum superposition whose concept you decided to turn upside down (without strictly knowing where the non-strict bottom B actually is), so it would serve your urgent need to enrich the world of the abstract with yet another dosage of phantasmagorically entangled relationships.

epix · Aug 1, 2011

doronshadmi said:
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialetheism )

In other words "AB" is non-local, where "A,B" is local.

A = "in"
B = "out"

Miracle! You are actually right. A, B (apart) must be local to an object X, otherwise A= "in" and B = "out" wouldn't hold. Just solve X to get the necessary proof.

X = H-M-URGERS

epix · Aug 1, 2011

doronshadmi said:
By using your example, AB means that "A=bottom and B=top" is indeterminate so we can't determine if it is "bottom", "top" or some intermediate state between them. Because of this non-determination AB is not a contradiction.

Contradiction, in this case, is the result of forcing determination on the indeterminate.

I don't force any determination on why was Freddie Mercury using a mic stand that doesn't have the bottom tripod instead of simply holding a mic that is not anchored. I'm just curious.

AB is exactly the simultaneity of more than one option in parallel, which is intermediate and called by me superposition.

Well, he doesn't really keep the stand parallel to his body most of the time, but you are free to keep your theory alive.

doronshadmi · Aug 1, 2011

The Man said:
Doron once again you just demonstrate that suddenly you can’t understand a simple linear addition like (A+B) and try to conflate everything into some bizarre notion you have about values being “collapsed” or not.

In linear addition like (A+B) A is strict value, B is strict value and the result of their addition is also strict value.

A = False
B = True

A given classical bit can have one and only one value, and this value must be strict, for example:

Bit₁ = A OR B.

Unlike Bit₁, QuantumBit₁ can be also A AND B, which is a contradiction in terms of Bit₁, but not in terms of QuantumBit₁ because of a very simple reason:

The simultaneity of more than one value prevents its strictness, where strictness is possible only if QuantumBit₁ has exactly one and only one value (which is A strict or B strict, in this case), but in this particular case QuantumBit₁=Bit₁.

In other words, what is called linear addition like (A+B) where A is strict value, B is strict value and the result is strict value, simply can't express (A+B) as the simultaneity of more than one value that is non-strict, and only the collapse of this simultaneity into a single value, determines its strictness.

Left-only hemisphere minds, like you The Man, wrote this wiki article, and you are no more than some Left-only hemisphere mind that reads it, and of course gets it only in terms of classical simultaneous single-value bit.

In other words, no actual Superposition is defined by left-only hemisphere minds, and it is really does not matter what left-only hemispheres (which are step-by-step only minds) say about it, because they can't get it anyway.

Let's take, for example, the 2-Uncertainty x 2-Redundancy Distinction-Tree (step-by-step only minds, can't get it):

Code:

(AB,AB) (AB,A)  (AB,B)  (AB)    (A,A)   (B,B)   (A,B)   (A)     (B)     ()

A * *   A * *   A * .   A * .   A * *   A . .   A * .   A * .   A . .   A . .
  | |     | |     | |     | |     | |     | |     | |     | |     | |     | |
B *_*   B *_.   B *_*   B *_.   B ._.   B *_*   B ._*   B ._.   B *_.   B ._.

(2,2) = (AB,AB)
(2,1) = (AB,A),(AB,B)
(2,0)=  (AB)
(1,1) = (A,A),(B,B),(A,B)
(1,0)=  (A),(B)
(0,0)=  ()

Any appearance of that tree is called Distinction State (DS), where any DS is under a structure called Frame (F), for example: (AB ,B ) is a DS that is under (2,1) F.

The universe of step-by-step only minds is the particular case of DS (A,B) under F (1,1), and they have no chance to get
the whole 2-Uncertainty x 2-Redundancy Distinction-Tree, from their particular point of view.

The Man and his interpretation of (A+B) in terms of DS (A,B) under F (1,1), is an actual example of this limited particular point of view.

doronshadmi · Aug 1, 2011

Quantum World

In quantum mechanics, opposites merge into sameness and paradox reigns. Quantum theorists posit that quantum mechanical phenomenon such as quantum entanglement, uncertainty and superposition may play an important part in neurological function and could unmask the mysteries of consciousness.

Features of the Quantum World

● Superposition - particles can exist in multiple states or locations simultaneously.

● Quantum entanglement - unified particles that became separated remain connected over distance and time.

● Quantum coherence - multiple particles can condense into one unified entity.

● Uncertainty - precise location and momentum of quantum particles are undetermined.

( http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/Pandarakalam New Horizons in Consciousness Studies Revised.pdf )

epix · Aug 1, 2011

doronshadmi said:
( http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/Pandarakalam New Horizons in Consciousness Studies Revised.pdf )

Andrew Powell speculates, ‘A mind of greater power can collapse the wave uniquely, apparently miraculously, on one notable occasion turning water into wine. However, quantum sceptics argue that the influence of observation on observed objects claimed by particle physicists may be negligible with regard to macro objects.

The "According to John" chemistry experiment is described here:

1 On the third day a wedding took place at Cana in Galilee. Jesus’ mother was there, 2 and Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding. 3 When the wine was gone, Jesus’ mother said to him, “They have no more wine.”

4 “Woman, why do you involve me?” Jesus replied. “My hour has not yet come.”

5 His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.”

6 Nearby stood six stone water jars, the kind used by the Jews for ceremonial washing, each holding from twenty to thirty gallons.

7 Jesus said to the servants, “Fill the jars with water”; so they filled them to the brim.

8 Then he told them, “Now draw some out and take it to the master of the banquet.”

They did so, 9 and the master of the banquet tasted the water that had been turned into wine. He did not realize where it had come from, though the servants who had drawn the water knew. Then he called the bridegroom aside 10 and said, “Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now.”

11 What Jesus did here in Cana of Galilee was the first of the signs through which he revealed his glory; and his disciples believed in him.

The experiment hasn't been successfully repeated mainly coz the highlighted part. If the text of a particular verse includes the number of that verse -- in the case Verse 6 -- you need to conduct the experiment with a strict respect to the concept of quanta. In other words you cannot fill just one container with water, then stare at it thinking wine big time. You need to use exactly 6 containers as described in Verse 6. That's because time has changed and the result of your effort would be subjected to rigorous testing. That means water must turn into wine in all 6 jars -- each of them must include that what sets wine apart from water:

1) C
2) 30
3) H
4)26
5) O
6) 12

The letters C and H are not the first two letters of CHrist -- those are the first letters of CHemistry where C is a symbol for carbon and H for hydrogen -- which was pretty much known to His Divine Quantum Mind God. That's why "six jars" must appear in Verse 6. That also means that the Bible will exist for at least two additional millennia before some academic potentate succeeds in defeating his simian origin and realizes what that book is actually for and proves it with the aid of quantum computing. What do you think, Doron? (If you ever do...)

The Man · Aug 1, 2011

doronshadmi said:
In linear addition like (A+B) A is strict value, B is strict value and the result of their addition is also strict value.

In algebra “A” is a variable, “B” is a variable and their linear addition results in a variable (that we can call “AB”, (A+B) =AB). As variables they can all be indeterminate with “AB” having just the restriction of being equal to "A+B" as asserted.

doronshadmi said:
A = False
B = True

OK so now you’ve given your “A” and “B” variables particular values.

doronshadmi said:
A given classical bit can have one and only one value, and this value must be strict, for example:

Bit₁ = A OR B.

Only if you apply some particular vales to your “A” and “B" variables as you just did above. Otherwise your “Bit₁” remains indeterminate with just your restriction that it must “= A OR B” as you have stated.

doronshadmi said:
Unlike Bit₁, QuantumBit₁ can be also A AND B, which is a contradiction in terms of Bit₁, but not in terms of QuantumBit₁ because of a very simple reason:

Once again “A AND B” is not a contradiction even with your “A = False B = True” assigned values. That would just make it an expression that evaluates to False (we have been over what constitutes a contradiction before). A Qbit still just represents a single wave function that is the superposition of other wave functions just as any given waveform can be considered a superposition of other waveforms (see Fourier transform)

doronshadmi said:
The simultaneity of more than one value prevents its strictness, where strictness is possible only if QuantumBit₁ has exactly one and only one value (which is A strict or B strict, in this case), but in this particular case QuantumBit₁=Bit₁.

You really need to learn what a wave function is along with some basic algebra and mathematics.

doronshadmi said:
In other words, what is called linear addition like (A+B) where A is strict value, B is strict value and the result is strict value, simply can't express (A+B) as the simultaneity of more than one value that is non-strict, and only the collapse of this simultaneity into a single value, determines its strictness.

Again you really need to learn what a wave function is and why its evolution is linear, which is of course why the principle of superposition applies, along with some basic algebra and mathematics. You keep trying to express this “non-strict” notion of yours which so far simply amounts to being ‘indeterminate’ which any variable can be. Basically you just want to conflate your “non-strict” notion with quantum superposition while evidently not even bothering to understand either.

doronshadmi said:
Left-only hemisphere minds, like you The Man, wrote this wiki article, and you are no more than some Left-only hemisphere mind that reads it, and of course gets it only in terms of classical simultaneous single-value bit.

Again stop simply trying to posit aspects of your own failed reasoning onto others.

doronshadmi said:
In other words, no actual Superposition is defined by left-only hemisphere minds, and it is really does not matter what left-only hemispheres (which are step-by-step only minds) say about it, because they can't get it anyway.

Ah back to playing the deliberate ignorance card again I see. Unfortunately for you the only one that particular card trumps, is you.

doronshadmi said:
Let's take, for example, the 2-Uncertainty x 2-Redundancy Distinction-Tree (step-by-step only minds, can't get it):

Code:

(AB,AB) (AB,A) (AB,B) (AB) (A,A) (B,B) (A,B) (A) (B) () A * * A * * A * . A * . A * * A . . A * . A * . A . . A . . | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | B *_* B *_. B *_* B *_. B ._. B *_* B ._* B ._. B *_. B ._. (2,2) = (AB,AB) (2,1) = (AB,A),(AB,B) (2,0)= (AB) (1,1) = (A,A),(B,B),(A,B) (1,0)= (A),(B) (0,0)= ()

Any appearance of that tree is called Distinction State (DS), where any DS is under a structure called Frame (F), for example: (AB ,B ) is a DS that is under (2,1) F.

The universe of step-by-step only minds is the particular case of DS (A,B) under F (1,1), and they have no chance to get
the whole 2-Uncertainty x 2-Redundancy Distinction-Tree, from their particular point of view.

The Man and his interpretation of (A+B) in terms of DS (A,B) under F (1,1), is an actual example of this limited particular point of view.

Repeating your nonsense doesn’t make it any less nonsense

And again stop simply trying to posit aspects of your own failed reasoning onto others.

Learn what a wave function is Doron, learn why its evolution is linear and thus the principle of superposition can be applied and how it is applied, learn why things work instead of just making up crap for 20 odd years and trying to conflate it with what does work.

epix · Aug 2, 2011

doronshadmi said:
Please look at these works about Left-Right Hemispheres Math:

http://www.jstor.org/pss/2029936

Please also look at this interesting part, taken from http://www.scribd.com/doc/53948152/10/Nonanalytic-Aspects-of-Mathematics (pages 403-405):

By defining the union between parts, we are able to be developed beyond our current limitations.

Not really. There is no only-left or only-right hardware performance and there is no evidence that folks that are almost "ambicerebral" perform significantly better. Read up something on the distinction:
http://web-us.com/brain/LRBrain.html

You won't make things better by just defining stuff around. You need to alter the genetic inheritance in order to intervene on behalf of better performance within the mass of the frontal lobe. But for this task, you need advanced brain to figure the procedure, which includes the development of non-biochemical model to test theories on, so it's lovely Catch 22.

doronshadmi · Aug 2, 2011

The Man said:
In algebra “A” is a variable, “B” is a variable and their linear addition results in a variable (that we can call “AB”, (A+B) =AB). As variables they can all be indeterminate with “AB” having just the restriction of being equal to "A+B" as asserted.

Wrong. "AB" is not a single variable, but it is the simultaneity of more than one variable, where this simultaneity is non-strict as long as it is not collapsed into a single result.

In other words, your notion of (A+B) is limited to (A,B) and as a result, it can't get (AB) of 2-Uncertainty x 2-Redundancy Distinction-Tree (by your notion, the non-strictness of the simultaneity of more than one variable, simply can't be comprehended) not to mention that it can't get the whole tree.

The Man said:
OK so now you’ve given your “A” and “B” variables particular values.

So what, a given variable has simultaneously one and only one value.

The Man said:
Only if you apply some particular vales to your “A” and “B" variables as you just did above. Otherwise your “Bit₁” remains indeterminate with just your restriction that it must “= A OR B” as you have stated.

Again, a given variable has simultaneously one and only one value, and Bit₁ is useful only in the particular case of simultaneous one and only one value.

The Man said:
Once again “A AND B” is not a contradiction even with your “A = False B = True” assigned values.

Here you are forcing once again (A,B) on (AB).

The Man said:
Once again “A AND B” is not a contradiction even with your “A = False B = True” assigned values. That would just make it an expression that evaluates to False (we have been over what constitutes a contradiction before).

"A AND B" is always false (always false = contradiction) by (A,B) form, and not just false, as you wrongly put it.

The Man said:
A Qbit still just represents a single wave function that is the superposition of other wave functions just as any given waveform can be considered a superposition of other waveforms (see Fourier transform)

In other words, this wave function is non-strict as long as it is not collapsed into a single strict state.

Fourier transform actually transforms (AB) into (A,B) in order to provide some strict result.

So once again, it is shown how your notion is tuned to deal only with strictness.

For example:

the quantum Fourier transform acts on a quantum state, whereas the classical Fourier transform acts on a vector, so the quantum Fourier transform can not give a generic exponential speedup for any task which requires the classical Fourier transform.

( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Fourier_transform )
In other words, since superposition is involved in non-strict quantum states that are collapsed into some strict state by direct measurement, there is no equivalence between the classical Fourier transform that acts on a vector (which is a set of strict values) and the natural non-strict state of quantum superposition.

The Man said:
You really need to learn what a wave function is along with some basic algebra and mathematics.

You really need to get (AB) not in terms of (A,B).

The Man said:
Again you really need to learn what a wave function is and why its evolution is linear, which is of course why the principle of superposition applies, along with some basic algebra and mathematics. You keep trying to express this “non-strict” notion of yours which so far simply amounts to being ‘indeterminate’ which any variable can be. Basically you just want to conflate your “non-strict” notion with quantum superposition while evidently not even bothering to understand either.

Again, you really need to get (AB) not in terms of (A,B).

As long as you can't do that, you do not understand (AB).

The Man said:
Repeating your nonsense doesn’t make it any less nonsense

And again stop simply trying to posit aspects of your own failed reasoning onto others.

Repeating on (A,B) in order to get (AB) posits aspects of your own failed reasoning onto yourself.

The Man said:
Learn what a wave function is Doron, learn why its evolution is linear and thus the principle of superposition can be applied and how it is applied, learn why things work instead of just making up crap for 20 odd years and trying to conflate it with what does work.

Learn how to get out of (A,B) in order to really get (AB).

Some analogy:

You are like a researcher that wishes to research the natural life of night creatures by using a spotlight.

doronshadmi · Aug 2, 2011

epix said:
Not really. There is no only-left or only-right hardware performance and there is no evidence that folks that are almost "ambicerebral" perform significantly better. Read up something on the distinction:
http://web-us.com/brain/LRBrain.html

You won't make things better by just defining stuff around. You need to alter the genetic inheritance in order to intervene on behalf of better performance within the mass of the frontal lobe. But for this task, you need advanced brain to figure the procedure, which includes the development of non-biochemical model to test theories on, so it's lovely Catch 22.

Advanced brain, is first of all the ability to actually co-operate between different brain skills, such that they reinforce each other as a one comprehensive system.

Please prove that researchers that use almost only one hemisphere of their brain, can actually do a reliable research on the human brain.

doronshadmi · Aug 2, 2011

But within the framework of the interpretation of quantum mechanics, decoherence cannot explain this crucial step from an apparent mixture to the existence and/or perception of single outcomes.

( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_decoherence )

2-Uncertainty x 2-Redundancy Distinction-Tree is some particular example of a novel model, which shows exactly how a mixture of states in superposition (AB,AB) are collapsed into single outcomes (A,B):

Code:

(AB,AB) (AB,A)  (AB,B)  (AB)    (A,A)   (B,B)   (A,B)   (A)     (B)     ()

A * *   A * *   A * .   A * .   A * *   A . .   A * .   A * .   A . .   A . .
  | |     | |     | |     | |     | |     | |     | |     | |     | |     | |
B *_*   B *_.   B *_*   B *_.   B ._.   B *_*   B ._*   B ._.   B *_.   B ._.

(2,2) = (AB,AB)
(2,1) = (AB,A),(AB,B)
(2,0)=  (AB)
(1,1) = (A,A),(B,B),(A,B)
(1,0)=  (A),(B)
(0,0)=  ()

Any appearance of that tree is called Distinction State (DS), where any DS is under a structure called Frame (F), for example: (AB,B) is a DS that is under (2,1) F.

The universe of single outcomes is the particular case of DS (A,B) under F (1,1) under the 2-Uncertainty x 2-Redundancy Distinction-Tree.

jsfisher · Aug 2, 2011

doronshadmi said:
2-Uncertainty x 2-Redundancy Distinction-Tree is some particular example of a novel model....

Perhaps you could demonstrate some utility for this novel model which is neither.

epix · Aug 2, 2011

doronshadmi said:
Advanced brain, is first of all the ability to actually co-operate between different brain skills, such that they reinforce each other as a one comprehensive system.

Nonsense.

Please prove that researchers that use almost only one hemisphere of their brain, can actually do a reliable research on the human brain.

After you prove otherwise.

Your links include the one where presumably "two-hemispheres" researcher believes that Jesus actually turned water into wine collapsing some waves.

Andrew Powell speculates, ‘A mind of greater power can collapse the wave uniquely, apparently miraculously, on one notable occasion turning water into wine. However, quantum sceptics argue that the influence of observation on observed objects claimed by particle physicists may be negligible with regard to macro objects.

We've been always at mercy of some aholes whose crap is appealed to through academic authority by ignorants.

CHRIST is a subset of CHemISTRy. Since the cardinality of the subset is 6, the whole hoopla with turning water into wine must be done in 6 jars and desribed in Verse 6, so the coincidence 666 could materialize.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7429527&postcount=16180
Then you need to attach notoriety to 666 and link it significantly with Jesus' activities. That means you need to employ a bit of neuroscience, which causes the human brain regard a fiction an irreversible fact. Common sense tells you that Jesus couldn't turn water into wine, coz, for one, if he could he would be smart enough not to let his ass stapled to the cross. But Andrew Powell thinks "wave collapsing" instead.

Sometimes it happens that the "the bit of advanced neuroscience" hits a brain that is not completely screwed, which brings about results like

Cantor believed his theory of transfinite numbers had been communicated to him by God.

Due to Cantor, we know that subset|CHRIST| = 6 and set |CHemISTRy| = 9.

Me, My Divine and Irreversibly Accelerated 10-Hemisphered Wisdom, cannot turn water into wine Myself, but I shall say onto you that I can turn 6 into 9.

I keep turning, then I stop
when 6=bottom and 9=top

Keep turning, Heavenly Father, just keep turning . . .

Lols.

The Man · Aug 3, 2011

doronshadmi said:
Wrong. "AB" is not a single variable, but it is the simultaneity of more than one variable, where this simultaneity is non-strict as long as it is not collapsed into a single result.

Again you really need to learn what a wave function is, instead of just trying to conflate your nonsense with quantum mechanics by simply saying “collapsed”. Oh, and a “single variable” can represent, well, “more than one variable” including some operations like addition, as in C=A+B. That’s what makes variables useful. Learn some basic algebra.

doronshadmi said:
In other words, your notion of (A+B) is limited to (A,B) and as a result, it can't get (AB) of 2-Uncertainty x 2-Redundancy Distinction-Tree (by your notion, the non-strictness of the simultaneity of more than one variable, simply can't be comprehended) not to mention that it can't get the whole tree.

No Doron, my “notion of (A+B)” is exactly, well, (A+B), the sum of two variables.

doronshadmi said:
So what, a given variable has simultaneously one and only one value.

No Doron a variable can represent a whole range of values; your assertion is patently false. Learn some basic algebra. That you happen to give yours some particular value at that time does not detract from the fact that they could represent a range of values (and would without your specific assertion of some particular value at that time). Do not confuse your particular choice at some particular time with a restriction that prevents a variable from representing a range of values at some particular time.

Let’s take a very simple example…

A²=B

It doesn’t matter what positive numeric value we might give “B”, “A” will always represent both a positive and a negative value, in each instance. So even with “B” strictly a single positive value, “A” isn’t. Whether “A” is positive or negative is simply indeterminate.

Next time learn math from something other than yourself and a kindergarten class.

doronshadmi said:
Again, a given variable has simultaneously one and only one value, and Bit₁ is useful only in the particular case of simultaneous one and only one value.

Again please learn some basic algebra and you just might find how a variable representing more then “one value”, more than one variable and even some operations also is, well, useful.

doronshadmi said:
Here you are forcing once again (A,B) on (AB).

What? “A = False B = True” was your assertion not mine. Why do you always run from you own assertions and try to blame others for them? No one forced you to make those assertions, you did it yourself, but you run from yourself and then fallaciously accuse others of “forcing” you.

doronshadmi said:
"A AND B" is always false (always false = contradiction) by (A,B) form, and not just false, as you wrongly put it.

No “A AND B” is not always false, however given your stated truth value for “A” and stated truth value for “B” that expression with those values (I guess you just forced yourself to give) evaluates to False. Again a contradiction is an expression that evaluates to False regardless of the truth values of its inputs. Not one that just evaluates to False because evidently hyou had to force yourself to give it a particular pair of input values.

doronshadmi said:
In other words, this wave function is non-strict as long as it is not collapsed into a single strict state.

No a wave function for an electron would strictly give you the probability of finding that electron at some particular point in space and time. When that function is said to ‘collapse’ the probability distribution takes a more defined peak but the time based evolution of the function continues from there. Again learn what a wave function is instead of just making up crap and trying to conflate it with what works. Heck just learn what a function is first.

doronshadmi said:
Fourier transform actually transforms (AB) into (A,B) in order to provide some strict result.

Again if your going to try to invoke superposition then AB = A + B. Otherwise stop lying about what you have already demonstrated you know about the linearity of superposition.

doronshadmi said:
So once again, it is shown how your notion is tuned to deal only with strictness.

So once again stop simply trying to posit aspects of your own failed reasoning onto others.

doronshadmi said:
For example:

Oh, I can’t wait for this…

doronshadmi said:
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Fourier_transform )
In other words, since superposition is involved in non-strict quantum states that are collapsed into some strict state by direct measurement, there is no equivalence between the classical Fourier transform that acts on a vector (which is a set of strict values) and the natural non-strict state of quantum superposition.

A wave function is a state vector Doron. Learn at least something please.

doronshadmi said:
You really need to get (AB) not in terms of (A,B).

Again, you really need to get (AB) not in terms of (A,B).

OK, the only terms you’ve given so far is that it is indeterminate, as any variable can be, and you placed some limits on your (AB) that you related to your (A,B) but then subsequently refused to specifically acknowledge. So when you can “get (AB) not in terms of (A,B)” you be sure to let us know. Oh, guess what (just to clue you in), if you do happen to get your “(AB) not in terms of (A,B)” then it has no relation to your “A”, “B” variables (just thought I should let you know before you wasted another 20 some odd years).

doronshadmi said:
As long as you can't do that, you do not understand (AB).

Evidently you don’t.

doronshadmi said:
Repeating on (A,B) in order to get (AB) posits aspects of your own failed reasoning onto yourself.

Nope just yours and your sepcifed relation of your “(AB)” to your “(A,B)”.

doronshadmi said:
Learn how to get out of (A,B) in order to really get (AB).

You said how and then simply refused to acknowledge what you specifically said. So learn how not to simply contradict yourself. Given your blatant lie before about what the article you quoted said and your other lies about what other posters have said it seems that you are just a compulsive liar.

doronshadmi said:
Some analogy:

Same accusation…

doronshadmi said:
You are like a researcher that wishes to research the natural life of night creatures by using a spotlight.

You are like someone that compulsively lies just to perpetuate his self-contradictory fantasy.

epix · Aug 3, 2011

The Man said:
A²=B

It doesn’t matter what positive numeric value we might give “B”, “A” will always represent both a positive and a negative value, in each instance. So even with “B” strictly a single positive value, “A” isn’t. Whether “A” is positive or negative is simply indeterminate.

Next time learn math from something other than yourself and a kindergarten class.

That B can be also negatively signed and that wouldn't alter the sign duality of A either. After A and B comes C, and letter C is reserved for complex numbers. So when

A² = -4

for example, the equation has two solution, like in the case when B>0.

A = 2i or A = -2i

But after A, B, and C comes D, and the letter D is reserved for Doronetics, so the equation with unknown variable A

A² = B

has three solutions, not just two: the left hemisphere thinking provides the first solution, the right hemisphere thinking the second solution, and the simultaneous thinking of both hemispheres provides the third solution, namely that the equation doesn't have a solution at all.

The Man · Aug 3, 2011

epix said:
That B can be also negatively signed and that wouldn't alter the sign duality of A either. After A and B comes C, and letter C is reserved for complex numbers. So when

A² = -4

for example, the equation has two solution, like in the case when B>0.

A = 2i or A = -2i

But after A, B, and C comes D, and the letter D is reserved for Doronetics, so the equation with unknown variable A

A² = B

has three solutions, not just two: the left hemisphere thinking provides the first solution, the right hemisphere thinking the second solution, and the simultaneous thinking of both hemispheres provides the third solution, namely that the equation doesn't have a solution at all.

Good point, epix. though given Doron's problems just understanding negation. I didn't think the square root of a negated value (complex numbers) would have been much help to him. Other than for him to just try to conflate a complex number with his "complexity" nonsense.

Wait for it..............

doronshadmi · Aug 3, 2011

The Man said:
Again you really need to learn what a wave function is, instead of just trying to conflate your nonsense with quantum mechanics by simply saying “collapsed”. Oh, and a “single variable” can represent, well, “more than one variable” including some operations like addition, as in C=A+B. That’s what makes variables useful. Learn some basic algebra.

C is a strict result of A strict and B strict.

In other words you are still get only strict things (in this case you are using the particular case of DS (A,B,C) under F (1,1,1), which are under 3-Uncertainty x 3-Redundancy Distinction-Tree).

The Man said:
Let’s take a very simple example…

A²=B

It doesn’t matter what positive numeric value we might give “B”, “A” will always represent both a positive and a negative value, in each instance. So even with “B” strictly a single positive value, “A” isn’t. Whether “A” is positive or negative is simply indeterminate.

You are using again DS (A,B) under F (1,1), exactly because A is positive OR negative.

Under DS (AB) superposition A is simultaneously positive AND negative, but it is not a contradiction since (AC) is non-strict.

The Man said:
No Doron a variable can represent a whole range of values;

Not simultaneously, The Man, not simultaneously, and if it is a sum (as done in C=A+B), then the sum is some strict single value.

The Man, you are still closed under strictness and simply can't get out no matter what twisted maneuvers are done by you with variables.

The Man said:
A wave function is a state vector Doron. Learn at least something please.

Only if (AB) is transformed into (A,B) by classical Fourier transform, and the result is not equivalent to the state of superposition, exactly because any measurement actually changes the superposition into set of strict values (a state vector) (the superposition is collapsed into a strict state).

No wonder that you can't get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7431694&postcount=16185.

At least try to get out of your :dig:

please.

doronshadmi · Aug 3, 2011

epix said:
Nonsense.

After you prove otherwise.

Right Brain and Left Brain

We can make some statements that are normally true for a right handed person.

1. The right brain deals with novel situations. In teaching, we want to keep the right brain of students engaged.

2. The left brain deals with routine. The left brain stores and processes procedures and algorithms. An important aspect of learning is to move knowledge and skills from being novel to being routinized (from right brain to left brain).

( http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~moursund/Math/brain_science.htm )
And I would add that also moving from left brain to the right brain is important, but persons like The Man, jsfisher and you can't make it.

You are like a person that jumps on one leg instead of using both legs for walking.

doronshadmi · Aug 3, 2011

Here is some analogy about superposition and superposition collapse.

There is a door that is opened only by one thing at a time.

As long as more than one thing try simultaneously to open that door, it is stayed closed.

Staying closed means that id is indeterminate or in superposition.

Only if the superposition is collapsed into a thing that opens the door, a strict id is given.

For example, the expression C = A+B is possible only by things that have strict ids like (A,B,C).

(ABC) expression means that a given thing does not have a strict id, or in other words, it is under superposition (the door is closed).

An expression like C = A+B can't be defined by (ABC) unless it is collapses into (A,B,C) (the door is opened).

Furthermore, if A = "closed door" and B = "opened door", then (AB) = "indeterminate under superposition" and (A,B) = "determinate under superposition collapse".

The principle of superposition claims that while a measurement is not taken (the door is closed), it is actually in all possible states simultaneously.

It is the measurement itself (the door is opened) that causes a thing to be limited to a single possibility.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7431694&postcount=16185 is a novel model of the transition from superposition non-strictness to strict possibility.

doronshadmi · Aug 3, 2011

Here is some question for Mr. James Randi:

Mr. James Randi, are you and the scientists that are co-operated with you in order to discover frauds, are also monitored, such that the scientific investigation methods and your brain activity are openly included?

epix · Aug 3, 2011

doronshadmi said:
( http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~moursund/Math/brain_science.htm )
And I would add that also moving from left brain to the right brain is important, but persons like The Man, jsfisher and you can't make it.

You are like a person that jumps on one leg instead of using both legs for walking.

Your notion of "proof" or "evidence" shares the same space with the locality where Doronetics comes from, e.g. neither from the left or the right hemisphere, but from the anus.

Things are not set up the way you think they are.

It has now become quite clear that the two hemispheres complement each other as far as language and visual-spatial information processing are concerned. Differences do exist crediting the left side with slightly greater linguistic ability and the right side efficiency in visual-spatial processing. But the differences are likely much smaller than they were originally described. Some researchers now believe that a truly meaningful difference exists not in the information that are presented to both sides of the brain but in the processing style of the two hemispheres. A widely accepted view is that the left side specializes in analytical processing, the right in holistic or abstract processing; but this is difficult to substantiate in the laboratory. The main problem is that researchers often disagree on whether a task designed to test processing style requires analytical or holistic processing. Indeed, there is hardly any task in our daily living that requires only one type of processing. The complexity of the brain is such that both hemispheres likely participate in every aspect to optimize survival and intellectual development.

Both hemispheres are used -- that's why they are included in the hardware. But there is that "third hemisphere," which can solve problems without the "learn and repeat" process. The best test for the third hemisphere is based on something that relates to 3 -- like the cube. So here is the question: What is in that box?

doronshadmi · Aug 4, 2011

epix said:
Your notion of "proof" or "evidence" shares the same space with the locality where Doronetics comes from, e.g. neither from the left or the right hemisphere, but from the anus.

Things are not set up the way you think they are.

Both hemispheres are used -- that's why they are included in the hardware. But there is that "third hemisphere," which can solve problems without the "learn and repeat" process. The best test for the third hemisphere is based on something that relates to 3 -- like the cube. So here is the question: What is in that box?

epix, once again you do not provide the reference of your used quote.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7397738&postcount=16045 (do not ignore the links there) is clearly an example of the inability of a person to get math that is done by using both hemispheres, by using only his left-hemisphere.

Indeed, there is hardly any task in our daily living that requires only one type of processing.

Professional mathematicians are indeed a minor community of left-hemisphere specialists, which have influence on our civilization that the do not deserve.

The Man and jsfisher are concrete examples of this minor community.

epix · Aug 4, 2011

doronshadmi said:
Here is some analogy about superposition and superposition collapse.

There is a door that is opened only by one thing at a time.

As long as more than one thing try simultaneously to open that door, it is stayed closed.

Wrong. It doesn't go like that.

doronshadmi · Aug 4, 2011

epix said:
Wrong. It doesn't go like that.

Unless it is used as an analogy, which is something that your poor humor can't comprehend.

Furthermore, in your reply, two strict keys of DS (A,B) are used (they are not under superposition).

zooterkin · Aug 4, 2011

doronshadmi said:
Here is some question for Mr. James Randi:

If you are serious about asking him, email would be a better way to contact him. He doesn't spend much time reading the forums.

Mr. James Randi, are you and the scientists that are co-operated with you in order to discover frauds, are also monitored, such that the scientific investigation methods and your brain activity are openly included?

On the other hand, I think you might want to formulate something a little more meaningful if you don't want to get short shrift from him. What is that question supposed to mean?

epix · Aug 5, 2011

doronshadmi said:
epix, once again you do not provide the reference of your used quote.

Why should I? There is near consensus that the simultaneous performance of both hemispheres doesn't produce any thought to cheer upon:

Global markets have issued a vote of no confidence in the management of the world’s two largest economies, the U.S. and the euro area. To regain credibility, leaders on both sides of the Atlantic need to recognize the magnitude of the crisis they face.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...-loud-no-confidence-vote-in-leaders-view.html

Deeper than primes

Penultimate Amazing

ETcorngods survivor

Penultimate Amazing

ETcorngods survivor

Unbanned zombie poster

Penultimate Amazing

ETcorngods survivor

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

ETcorngods survivor

Penultimate Amazing

Unbanned zombie poster

Penultimate Amazing

Unbanned zombie poster

Banned

Banned

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Unbanned zombie poster

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

ETcorngods survivor

Banned

Unbanned zombie poster

Banned

Unbanned zombie poster

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Nitpicking dilettante, Administrator

Banned