Deeper than primes - Continuation

Status
Not open for further replies.
doronshadmi said:
Your degree in maths was given by a community of people who understand Math only if it expressed by verbal_symbolic brain's skills.
Click to expand...

No, actually it was granted by people who understand Mathematics.

Their stuff works. Doronetics, not so much, so may be these fantasies you have of effective reasoning are just that, fantasies.
 
The single biggest problem with OM/Doronetics/Plagiarized TM is actually that Doron has not solved or done a single thing that people do every day but a lot more efficient.

All we get is analogies and futuristic maybe's that are like 'If we use OM we can all become pink unicorns and fly. You can't believe that, because you don't get how to become a pink unicorn. I am not a pink unicorn, but that is because I choose to, not because I am not able to become one'.
 
realpaladin said:
The single biggest problem with OM/Doronetics/Plagiarized TM is actually that Doron has not solved or done a single thing that people do every day but a lot more efficient.

All we get is analogies and futuristic maybe's that are like 'If we use OM we can all become pink unicorns and fly. You can't believe that, because you don't get how to become a pink unicorn. I am not a pink unicorn, but that is because I choose to, not because I am not able to become one'.
Click to expand...

Doronshadmi is not interested in solving anything or doing anything with what he calls OM. It would be a nice bonus but it is not his goal. All he is interested in is dwelling more and more into his fantasies. It is an obsession, and his ramblings over thousands of pages on the internet is the monument of this obsession.
 
sympathic said:
Doronshadmi is not interested in solving anything or doing anything with what he calls OM. It would be a nice bonus but it is not his goal. All he is interested in is dwelling more and more into his fantasies. It is an obsession, and his ramblings over thousands of pages on the internet is the monument of this obsession.
Click to expand...

True.

I have to admit I fall for it every now and then...
 
sympathic said:
Doronshadmi is not interested in solving anything or doing anything with what he calls OM. It would be a nice bonus but it is not his goal. All he is interested in is dwelling more and more into his fantasies. It is an obsession, and his ramblings over thousands of pages on the internet is the monument of this obsession.
Click to expand...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8223955&postcount=1440 is indeed a fantasy according to your verbal_symbolic-only (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8223878&postcount=1436) context-dependent-only reasoning, so?

sympathic said:
Doronshadmi is not interested in solving anything or doing anything with what he calls OM.
Click to expand...
OM's goal is to establish a unified framework for (Ethics (at evolutionary scale, which is not restricted to any particular religion, culture or civilization)) AND (logical reasoning that is derived from verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial brain's skills).
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
OM's goal is to establish a unified framework for (Ethics (at evolutionary scale, which is not restricted to any particular religion, culture or civilization)) AND (logical reasoning that is derived from verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial brain's skills).
Click to expand...

And what progress have you made towards that goal?
 
More about the Unity of the mathematical science ( http://www.project2061.org/publicat...pStTcANkZaA&txtURIOld=/tools/sfaaol/chap2.htm ):

"A central line of investigation in theoretical mathematics is identifying in each field of study a small set of basic ideas and rules from which all other interesting ideas and rules in that field can be logically deduced.

Mathematicians, like other scientists, are particularly pleased when previously unrelated parts of mathematics are found to be derivable from one another, or from some more general theory. Part of the sense of beauty that many people have perceived in mathematics lies not in finding the greatest elaborateness or complexity but on the contrary, in finding the greatest economy and simplicity of representation and proof.

As mathematics has progressed, more and more relationships have been found between parts of it that have been developed separately—for example, between the symbolic representations of algebra and the spatial representations of geometry.
These cross-connections enable insights to be developed into the various parts; together, they strengthen belief in the correctness and underlying unity of the whole structure. "

In other words, underlying Unity is actual by Cross-contexts AND Contest-dependent framework that is verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial.

Without it, the Unity among Simplicity and Complexity is not actual.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
More about the Unity of the mathematical science ( http://www.project2061.org/publicat...pStTcANkZaA&txtURIOld=/tools/sfaaol/chap2.htm ):

"A central line of investigation in theoretical mathematics is identifying in each field of study a small set of basic ideas and rules from which all other interesting ideas and rules in that field can be logically deduced.

Mathematicians, like other scientists, are particularly pleased when previously unrelated parts of mathematics are found to be derivable from one another, or from some more general theory. Part of the sense of beauty that many people have perceived in mathematics lies not in finding the greatest elaborateness or complexity but on the contrary, in finding the greatest economy and simplicity of representation and proof.

As mathematics has progressed, more and more relationships have been found between parts of it that have been developed separately—for example, between the symbolic representations of algebra and the spatial representations of geometry.

These cross-connections enable insights to be developed into the various parts; together, they strengthen belief in the correctness and underlying unity of the whole structure. "
Click to expand...

This is now really getting into the domain of the pitiful; Doron has not even understood that site OR the above quote; it contradicts all that he has been saying and still he brings it forth as if it would mean anything for his line of argumentation.
 
zooterkin said:
And what progress have you made towards that goal?
Click to expand...
Persons, for example, you, are arguing about it for the past 10 years, which gives them the change "to think out of the box" of the considered subjects (as shown, for example, in http://www.scribd.com/doc/85046673/Dear-Conor-Mayo).

It will be further developed if persons, for example, you, will become also participators of actual practice of awareness development, rather than being only passive "pure" observers (which is your current status, zooterkin).
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Persons, for example, you, are arguing about it for the past 10 years.

It will be further developed if persons, for example, you, will become also participators of actual practice of awareness development, rather than being only passive "pure" observers (which is your current status, zooterkin).
Click to expand...

:dl:

So, arguing about something is considered progress now?
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Persons, for example, you, are arguing about it for the past 10 years, which gives them the change "to think out of the box" of the considered subjects (as shown, for example, in http://www.scribd.com/doc/85046673/Dear-Conor-Mayo).

It will be further developed if persons, for example, you, will become also participators of actual practice of awareness development, rather than being only passive "pure" observers (which is your current status, zooterkin).
Click to expand...

The question, which you have dodged, was what progress have you made towards the goal of developing a framework? Is there a single thing that you can point to that OM has achieved?
 
zooterkin said:
The question, which you have dodged, was what progress have you made towards the goal of developing a framework? Is there a single thing that you can point to that OM has achieved?
Click to expand...
A better understanding of Entropy, which enables to unify what is called "mathematical branches" by using reasoning that is derived from verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial brain's skills (for example: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8223955&postcount=1440).

B.T.W your reply is a concrete example of passive "pure" observer.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
A better understanding of Entropy, which enables to unify what is called "mathematical branches" by using reasoning that is derived from verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial brain's skills (for example: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8223955&postcount=1440).

B.T.W your reply is a concrete example of passive "pure" observer.
Click to expand...


Ah, yes! The entropy aside. That began with Doron's discovery that (1) prime numbers had no factors other than themselves and 1 and (2) multiplication was related to addition (by way of repetition). Truly ground-breaking work there.
 
Here are two quotes taken from Dina Goldin and Peter Wegner article The Interactive Nature of Computing:Refuting the Strong Church-Turing Thesis ( http://www.cs.brown.edu/people/pw/strong-cct.pdf ):

Page 3:
"According to the interactive view of computation, interaction (com-
munication with the outside world) happens during the computation,
not before or after it. Hence, computation is an ongoing process rather than a function-based transformation of an input to an output. The
interactive approach represents a paradigm shift that redefines the
nature of computer science, by changing our understanding of what
computation is and how it is modeled. This view of computation is not
modeled by TMs, which capture only the computation of functions;
alternative models are needed."

page 22:
"Interactive computation is inherently concurrent, where the compu-
tation of interacting agents or processes proceeds in parallel. Hoare,
Milner and other founders of concurrency theory have long realized
that TMs do not model all of computation (Wegner and Goldin, 2003).
However, when their theory of concurrent systems was first developed
in the late ’70s, it was premature to openly challenge TMs as a complete
model of computation. Their theory positions interaction as orthogonal
to computation, rather than a part of it. By separating interaction
from computation, the question whether the models for CCS and the
π-calculus went beyond Turing Machines and algorithms was avoided.
The resulting divide between the theory of computation and concur-
rency theory runs very deep. The theory of computation views compu-
tation as a closed-box transformation of inputs to outputs, completely
captured by Turing Machines. By contrast, concurrency theory fo-
cuses on the communication aspect of computing systems, which is not
captured by Turing Machines – referring both to the communication
between computing components in a system, and the communication
between the computing system and its environment. As a result of this
division of labor, there has been little in common between these fields
and their communities of researchers. According to Papadimitriou (Pa-
padimitriou, 1995), such a disconnect within the theory community is a sign of a crisis and a need for a Kuhnian paradigm shift in our discipline."

Since OM is Cross-contexts AND Context-dependent framework, in naturally bridges among the Cross-contexts aspect of interactive view of computation and the Context-dependent aspect of function-based view of computation.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Since OM is Cross-contexts AND Context-dependent framework, in naturally bridges among the Cross-contexts aspect of interactive view of computation and the Context-dependent aspect of function-based view of computation.
Click to expand...


So this thing without a framework has a framework?

So much hand-waving, Doron. You are scaring the birds.
 
doronshadmi said:
zooterkin said:
The question, which you have dodged, was what progress have you made towards the goal of developing a framework? Is there a single thing that you can point to that OM has achieved?
Click to expand...
A better understanding of Entropy, which enables to unify what is called "mathematical branches" by using reasoning that is derived from verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial brain's skills (for example: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8223955&postcount=1440).

B.T.W your reply is a concrete example of passive "pure" observer.
Click to expand...

Another failed attempt to address the questions.
 
That is so funny... By using Huckleberry-Finn and highlighting selected sentences I could probably prove that water comes from honeybees.

Doron... forget about it. Write up 1 coherent theory on a blog somewhere and then accept the reactions.

You have lost this thread over and over again, and keep on obsessing about something that even you can not do justice with your verbality.
 
We should start a new game: "What was Doron's Google search this time?" I'm guessing "paradigm shift" and "TM", although he got a different TM than perhaps he recognizes.
 
A nice way to distinguish between an object that is not a member of some set, and an object that is a member of some set, is to get the object in terms of in-vitro (the object is isolated from a wider environment, for example: 2) or in-vivo (the object is not isolated from a wider environment, for example: {2} or {2,{2}} etc...). The term in-vivo is not used here to describe living things, but it is used here to describe non-isolation.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
A nice way to distinguish between an object that is not a member of some set, and an object that is a member of some set, is to get the object in terms of in-vitro (the object is isolated from a wider environment, for example: 2) or in-vivo (the object is not isolated from a wider environment, for example: {2} or {2,{2}} etc...). The term in-vivo is not used here to describe living things, but it is used here to describe non-isolation.
Click to expand...


So, in Doronetics, set membership is all about non-isolation. Interesting. Kind of ass-backwards the way Doron has presented it, completely useless, but still interesting.
 
According to Set-Theory, objects are considered as members only in terms of in-vivo (they are always belong to a wider environment).
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
According to Set-Theory, objects are considered as members only in terms of in-vivo (they are always belong to a wider environment).
Click to expand...

Please show exactly where objects are considered belonging to a wider environment.

If anything, they should be considered part of a smaller environment since we are limiting things in a set.

And why are you inventing more terms that don't need to be invented?
 
Last edited:
The dynamics of this thread.

300px-Escher_Waterfall.jpg
 
Little 10 Toes said:
Please show exactly where objects are considered belonging to a wider environment.
Click to expand...
For example 2 is not considered as a member unless it belongs to a wider environment like {2}, {2,{2}}, {2,35.56767,"love"} etc...

Little 10 Toes said:
If anything, they should be considered part of a smaller environment since we are limiting things in a set.
Click to expand...
I am not talking about any particular size of a non-empty set.

I do talking about the minimal terms that are needed in order to define some object as a member of some set.

Little 10 Toes said:
And why are you inventing more terms that don't need to be invented?
Click to expand...
What exactly does not need to be invented, in this case?
 
zooterkin said:
Nor do any of the pictures you use.

Still waiting for one single useful result from OM.
Click to expand...

OM is a framework that is defined by verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial brain's skills, which easily enables one to understand the non-entropic nature of collections, which are irreducible into NOthing AND non-extensible into YESthing, as rigorously shown in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8223955&postcount=1440, which uses verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial reasoning.

All you have to do is to cross the Rubicon of your verbal_symbolic-only reasoning.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
OM is a framework that is defined by verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial brain's skills, which easily enables one to understand the non-entropic nature of collections, which are irreducible into NOthing AND non-extensible into YESthing, as rigorously shown in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8223955&postcount=1440, which uses verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial reasoning.

All you have to do is to cross the Rubicon of your verbal_symbolic-only reasoning.
Click to expand...

Ah, you're back to claiming there is a framework? Care to show it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom