Deeper than primes - Continuation

Status
Not open for further replies.
Is anyone surprised that unity is now the core of Doronetics even though it used to be difference? Of course, now that Doron is getting all meta on us (having nothing vaguely resembling firm ground on anything even pretending to be Mathematics), unity enables difference and difference enables unity, so this is just a great unification within Doronetics to preserve difference.
 
jsfisher said:
Is anyone surprised that unity is now the core of Doronetics even though it used to be difference? Of course, now that Doron is getting all meta on us (having nothing vaguely resembling firm ground on anything even pretending to be Mathematics), unity enables difference and difference enables unity, so this is just a great unification within Doronetics to preserve difference.
Click to expand...

Nah, Doron was trying to pose as the Messiah of new Mathematical insight, but now feels no shame in being the apostle of sectarian woo, just to save face.
 
Oh, well. This is such a let down. OM Shadmi contacts K. Ghosh thinking he will be OM Ghosh and invites him here to defend his crank paper.

Sure enough K. Ghosh shows, becomes a one post wonder, then vanishes never to be seen again.

And I was looking forward so much to how he was going to explain his bizarre take on limits. (Well, not quite as bizarre as Doron's view, but different at least.)

Did he ever respond to the email?


Maybe it was all the electro-magnetic telepathy that turned him off to this place.
 
sympathic said:
I think OM qualifies for that list. I presume doron will count this sort of publication as an achievement.
Click to expand...
It is clear that this list was done by minds (and you, sympathic, are an actual example of such mind) that get reasoning only in terms of verbal_symbolic and\or context-dependent frameworks.

So each case in this list has to be re-examined very carefully by using reasoning, which is not restricted only to verbal_symbolic and\or context-dependent frameworks, in order to conclude if it is valuable.

As about the "white-noise" around us, it still gets silence in terms of "silence".

From time to time I response to some sound that comes out from this cloud of "white-noise" if I find it valuable for better explanation of reasoning, which is not restricted only to verbal_symbolic and\or context-dependent frameworks.

By doing that I ignore the personal aspect of the mind that makes this sound, in order to give this mind the chance to get reasoning beyond context-dependent-only awareness (known also as personal-only awareness).

What I call "white-noise" is a collection personal-only minds, which are only aware about "branches" without being actually aware of the trunk (the collection personal-only minds tells us lie each time it uses the term "mathematical branches").

http://kevincarmody.com/math/mvmath.pdf is an example of Unity as the actual foundation of the mathematical science (for more details, please look at http://kevincarmody.com/math/math.html).
 
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
The list does have some ringers on it, though. The guy at Acme Klein Bottle Co. is clearly awesome.
Click to expand...

Yeah! :) I'd rather have him than Doron any day :)

But what is so utterly amazing, is that none of the unity guys can factually *use* unity to explain unity.

That is a clear indicator that no such thing exists and that all they have is smarmy babble.

Another thing that is a dead giveaway that they do not have the slightest clue what they are talking about is that they all are poor and lead unfullfilled lives, except for the people that tell them how to live and ask their cash for it.

And finally, the whole fact that there even *exist* minds like mine and most others that 'do not get it' is only possible because... wait for it... we are not in unity! Therefore unity does not exist and can not exist.

Q.E.D.
 
jsfisher said:
I see what you did there. ;)
Click to expand...
You know we both won't ever quit this thread... it is too much fun hiding easter eggs where we both know Mr. Univac won't find them, even though they are blindingly obvious to any blind passers-by.
 
stilicho said:
Here's a guy on that list who'll pay you 300,000 krone ...
Click to expand...

Come on it is 400,000 Swedish Crowns ( http://www.correctpi.com/ ) so as you can see, things are changed under polychotomy.

But there are posters in this thread that try to freeze polychotomy by using, so called, Definitions.

Furthermore, they claim that their definitions are not artificially constrained and can last forever (they simply miss Unity (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8175510&postcount=1236) as the source of ploychotomy, and as a result they do not get that meanings are naturally changeable).
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Come on it is 400,000 Swedish Crowns ( http://www.correctpi.com/ ) so as you can see, things are changed under polychotomy.

But there are posters in this thread that try to freeze polychotomy by using, so called, Definitions.

Furthermore, they claim that their definitions are not artificially constrained and can last forever (they simply miss Unity (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8175510&postcount=1236) as the source of ploychotomy, and as a result they do not get that meanings are naturally changeable).
Click to expand...

Doron, is there a reason that you keep spelling it PLOYchotomoy?

Is this thread, perhaps, a PLOY to get a good ranking in Google with your name?

Is there a reason you are not aware of the fact that you are mentioned in the 'Rant's 'n Raves' section of some other board where 'senseless' is literally defined as 'discussing with Doron Shadmi'?

I bet there is, and I bet it is because you know that none of what you have presented here is either material for philosophy or for science.
 
jsfisher said:
Right! The last thing Doron will tolerate is posters in this thread trying to impose meaning on things.
Click to expand...

Can't have any of that. Defining things so a coherent logical reasoning may follow... what will the rascals think of next?

No, according to Doron we need to embrace 'unity' and from that we can explain anything and everything by just pointing back and saying: 'well it all belongs to the sort of general mish-mash of everything rolled into one'.

Doron really is 'one with everything', but he sure ain't the bun.
 
"White-noise" minds are not aware of meanings as naturally changeable, and they are called "White-noise" minds because they get silence in terms of "silence".
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Come on it is 400,000 Swedish Crowns ( http://www.correctpi.com/ ) so as you can see, things are changed under polychotomy.

But there are posters in this thread that try to freeze polychotomy by using, so called, Definitions.

Furthermore, they claim that their definitions are not artificially constrained and can last forever (they simply miss Unity (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8175510&postcount=1236) as the source of ploychotomy, and as a result they do not get that meanings are naturally changeable).
Click to expand...

From the book itself, it's only 300,000 crowns:

Also find a mistaken in the book and win 300,000 Swedish Crowns and a copy of the book. For more information please see www.correctpi.com or write to correctpi@hotmail.com
Click to expand...
​

That's on page 2 in the introduction. ​

I'm wondering just what some of his definitions mean. Like this one on page 110:​

Standard circle = an inner circle where its diameter is equal its square’s side.
Click to expand...

What is a non-standard circle? What are non-standard circles useful for? What are the distinctions among a circle, a standard circle, and a non-standard circle? He repeats that definition of a "standard circle" several times so it must mean something.
 
Last edited:
stilicho said:
What is a non-standard circle? What are non-standard circles useful for? What are the distinctions among a circle, a standard circle, and a non-standard circle? He repeats that definition of a "standard circle" several times so it must mean something.
Click to expand...

A standard circle is the one that matches the Pi value of 3.14159265....

But only Group 2...

Just forget about Doron. He will repeat posting links to old stuff in the hope that someone clicks on them and restarts the discussion.

If this thread ever stops it will fade into history/oblivion and he has to face again that he failed to convert even 'one' person.

A general Doronic discussion goes as follows:

-someone: *click* Hey, but that is not correct in mathematics...
-Doron: but if you stretch, redefine, ignore and mutilate, it is!
-someone: No it isn't! Look, formula such and so proves X!
-Doron: But it does not prove Y, does it?
-someone: But that was not what I said, look, X is proven, right there!
-Doron: You don't get Y!
-someone: But I wasn't talking about Y...
-Doron: insult, insult, insult, ignore.
*pause*
-Doron: Repost of already refuted and debunked material in post-only links so someone will take the bait again without noticing everything has already been destroyed.
-Doron: *heeerefishyfishyfishy* *waiting*

He has been banned on most other mathematics and physics boards.
 
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
He's not ignoring us very well, is he?
Click to expand...

I think he wants to see his name as last post.

And of course, if you do an ego search in Google, the last post that mentions the poster thinking Doron is a crackpot will show up. No ignoring there.
 
stilicho said:
From the book itself, it's only 300,000 crowns:

​

That's on page 2 in the introduction. ​

I'm wondering just what some of his definitions mean. Like this one on page 110:​



What is a non-standard circle? What are non-standard circles useful for? What are the distinctions among a circle, a standard circle, and a non-standard circle? He repeats that definition of a "standard circle" several times so it must mean something.
Click to expand...
You are off-topic stilicho.

If you wish to discuss on Mohammad-Reza Mehdinia's theory, then please open a thread on this subject.
 
Last edited:
M. F. ATIYAH's Concluding Remarks about THE UNITY OF MATHEMATICS http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7243778&postcount=15576 is not in the scope of "white-noise".


Also look at this part, taken form Alain CONNES' article A VIEW OF MATHEMATICS (http://www.google.co.il/url?sa=t&rc...sg=AFQjCNG_vp6FP49LtnC-91knrEoACE7QLA&cad=rja):
It might be tempting at rst to view mathematics as the union of separate parts such as Geometry, Algebra, Analysis, Number theory etc... where the rst is dominated by the understanding of the concept of "space", the second by the art of manipulating "symbols", the next by the access to "infinity" and the "continuum" etc...
This however does not do justice to one of the most essential features of the mathematical world, namely that it is virtually impossible to isolate any of the above parts from the others without depriving them from their essence. In that way the corpus of mathematics does resemble a biological entity which can only survive as a whole and would perish if separated into disjoint pieces.The first embryo of mental picture of the mathematical world one can start from is that of a network of bewildering complexity between basic concepts. These basic concepts themselves are quite simple and are the result of a long process of "distillation" in the alembic of the human thought.
Click to expand...


The "distillation" of the organic structure of Mathematics is actually achieved by Unity awareness, which is the source of polychotomy (where human thoughts are some aspect at the level of polychotomy), and this is exactly Organic Mathematics' goal.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
You are off-topic stilicho.

If you wish to discuss on Mohammad-Reza Mehdinia's theory, then please open a thread on this subject.
Click to expand...

I probably am off-topic since I've read several pages of this thread and I have to confess that I have no clue what the topic actually is. I thought the pi = 3 1/8 topic was at least interesting and the 300,000 krone was a pretty good enticement to read further.

This is posted in religion and philosophy so I'd guess the topic is some kind of numerology. Am I close?
 
stilicho said:
I probably am off-topic since I've read several pages of this thread and I have to confess that I have no clue what the topic actually is. I thought the pi = 3 1/8 topic was at least interesting and the 300,000 krone was a pretty good enticement to read further.

This is posted in religion and philosophy so I'd guess the topic is some kind of numerology. Am I close?
Click to expand...

Spot on!

Although Doron will claim otherwise.

The original thread was something completely different and totally opposite of what Doron is claiming now though.
 
stilicho said:
I probably am off-topic since I've read several pages of this thread and I have to confess that I have no clue what the topic actually is. I thought the pi = 3 1/8 topic was at least interesting and the 300,000 krone was a pretty good enticement to read further.

This is posted in religion and philosophy so I'd guess the topic is some kind of numerology. Am I close?
Click to expand...
Once again, if you wish to discuss on Mohammad-Reza Mehdinia's theory, then please open a thread under religion and philosophy forum on this subject.

As about this thread, please ask some questions, for example, about post http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8186977&postcount=1308 if you wish to understand its topic.

Thank you.
 
Last edited:
stilicho said:
I probably am off-topic since I've read several pages of this thread and I have to confess that I have no clue what the topic actually is. I thought the pi = 3 1/8 topic was at least interesting and the 300,000 krone was a pretty good enticement to read further.
Click to expand...

No, I don't think you were off-topic at all. The subject matter, here, is mathematical crankery. Admittedly, the focus is on DoronShadmi's own version of crankery, but it is reasonable to explore the breath of crankery beyond the limits DoronShadmi has to offer.

This is posted in religion and philosophy so I'd guess the topic is some kind of numerology. Am I close?
Click to expand...

DoronShadmi started the original thread and many others in the Science and Mathematics forum. He had a pattern of starting threads on what seemed to be a specific topic, they by way of incoherence and contradiction shift to the cycle of the same motley mangled concepts you see here, then he'd start another new thread.

This particular thread (now in its second volume) was moved from Science to Philosophy by the mods mostly to make the point his babble didn't even pretend to be Mathematics. (It didn't amount to philosophy, either, but philosophy has softer boundaries.) I think, also, DoronShadmi has been admonished to not start any more threads of the same general content.


I do need to correct a previous statement I made about how many years he's invested in this junk. He's now in the range of 30-35 years, not 25.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom