Deeper than primes - Continuation

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ok, recess is over. Everyone settle down; it will be nap time soon.

But first, show and tell. Doron, would you like to share with us any real results you have from doronetics? No more taunts from the playground for now.
 
doronshadmi said:
No wonder that this one simply can't deduce Whole\parts relation, exactly because by his\her reasoning the whole = sum of parts.
Click to expand...
So why don't you go ahead and make the deduction yourself to educate the weak-minded? Make the deduction well-behaved

1) condition
2) hypothesis
3) conclusion

so everyone gets the chance to see your glorious victory over Aristotle who miserably failed to see the logical necessity back in the B.C. period. (What do you expect from a superstitious pagan like him, right?)

This one simply summarizes the number of hands in the following picture
images

by ignoring the qualitative whole that is derived from the cooperation among these hands.
Click to expand...

What type of quality does that w-hole that the hands make represent? I understand the Christian connection between quality of life and joined hands, but your example goes right by me.
 
doronshadmi said:
The deterministic-reductionists clone minds here still afraid to get out of their agreed box in order to really not snipping from my arguments in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8600097&postcount=1935.
Click to expand...
Your narrow peripheral reasoning will keep you claiming that the whole possesses higher quality than is the sum of its parts, even though there are plenty of examples that prove otherwise. Like this one: Unlike words flag and pork, hyffdwiyrt doesn't possess any quality, because the union of letters/parts isn't in the dictionary. But when you take both quality wholes and regard them as parts to be cojoined as flagpork, then such an attempt will meet with an immediate expulsion from the dictionary. Here is another example, this time in Real. Fortunately, surgeons try to separate such a "quality whole" into parts at birth if it's possible.

No wonder that your weak reasoning, which ignores the laws of nature and prays to God of Uncompromising Generalization instead, would supply paradoxes, such as
doronshadmi said:
Shame on you pathetic flatterer "clown" of the main stream.
Click to expand...
According to

magnetic2.gif


maiN attracts Stream to form the whole maiNSstream. But you would keep main and stream apart. Why? Is it because according to the inventor of Organic Mathematics doroN Shadmi the unlike repel?

Q: Tell us Heavenly Father, would two unlike, such as even number and odd number, repel each other?

A: eveNOdd

See? God - something that doesn't even exist...

(...but does odd exist.)

Quiet please! Me explaining.
God - something that doesn't even exist - can get the answer right.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
By your reductionist approach the researcher does not have any impact on the results, or in other words, it is not funny at all how a reductionist like you snipping form any responsibility of some results.
Click to expand...

Ok, here's what's wrong. You have not shown what impact. You have not shown any responsibility.

1 + 1 = 2. What impact have I made? Where is my responsibility?

2 + 2 = 5. What impact have I made? Where is my responsibility?

And don't use your made-up words or terms please.
 
Little 10 Toes said:
Ok, here's what's wrong. You have not shown what impact. You have not shown any responsibility.

1 + 1 = 2. What impact have I made? Where is my responsibility?

2 + 2 = 5. What impact have I made? Where is my responsibility?

And don't use your made-up words or terms please.
Click to expand...
Please show even a one case where these expressions are possible without the existence of minds (or their agents) that express them (no matter if the expressions are right or wrong).

According to your questions it is shown that you do not understand that life is a way of a given realm to be aware of itself, where such expressions depend on the evolution of the complexity of life, which takes place at the galactic, starts and planets' level for billions of years.

Again, if a tree falls in the forest, and no one’s there to see it, the tree and ground still measure each other, of in other words, they have impacts on each other.

Such impacts are refined and re-used by complex creatures like us, where one of ways to refine and re-use such impacts are done by the mathematical science (where "1 + 1 = 2" or "2 + 2 = 5" are some of its (wrong or right) expressions) that indefinitely has an influence on our chance to survive further manipulations of Nature's forces.

In other words, you still do not understand the evolutionary scale of life (which is not necessarily fully represented in terms of planet Earth) in the fabric of the existence of the universe.

Your limited view of the evolutionary scale of life prevents from you the understand the relations among Ethics, Logic and Technology in terms of such scale.

Furthermore, you get the mathematical science only in terms of verbal_symbolic expressions (verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial brain skills are not used by you, and as a result you can't handle with http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8625912&postcount=1963) and continue to ask your limited questions and express your limited notions again and again all along this thread).

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

The argument that definitions are invariant is an anti-evolutionist argument, and therefore it goes against the chance of the survival of creatures like us, in the vary near future.
 
Last edited:
How did it go?

It's not that bad. He said, "I'm thinking of a word. Which word am I thinking of?" So I said, "If you've chosen that word randomly, then I'd follow suit and any choice I make for the answer would be the correct one, because you can't expect determination after offering randomness - not fair."

That's right. And...?

He just nodded and showed me the source that he had probably chosen the word from:
doronshadmi said:
Your limited view of the evolutionary scale of life prevents from you the understand the relations among Ethics, Logic and Technology in terms of such scale.
Click to expand...
As I understand it, we make choices according to a preference and the preference is often based on a difference. The difference in the font pre-selects the words Ethics, Logic and Technology. Which one out of those three words do you think is likely the word that he was thinking of?

I think none of them - he doesn't work that way. The context of the source ties those three words to the evolutionary scale. You need to look at the evolutionary scale - that's very likely the extended source of the words that he picked the word from.

I found out that there are quite a few renditions of the evolutionary scale, but they are not identical to each other! That makes another case of choosing from, don't you think?

That surely does. Do not despair though. Think of the evolution as a whole divided into distinct evolutionary steps/parts. Look if your collection includes a rendition that is related to the concept of the whole.

Scale_small.png

https://www.nescent.org/sites/evoviz/Holistic

Yep, that could be the one! The URL of the entire page ends with the word Holistic - a word that is derived from the word "whole." Now link those three words Ethics, Logic and Technology with three terms in the rendition - make the link 3=3 according to the type of font. If such a linkage exists, you got the likely source of the words that he chose one from.

The linkage is right here: Bifucate - Reticulate - Potentially Immortal.
Oh, I got that! If the preference in choosing is based on a difference, then I choose the word Bifucate, because it's the only word out of the three terms that is misspelled - the correct word should read Bifurcate and not Bifucate. Am I right?

I'm afraid that it would be a tempting but premature choice. He doesn't work that way. Look carefully. Those three terms that include one misspelled word are parts of the whole that the author calls STURUCTURE.

But that word should read STRUCTURE! Do you think there are actually three misspelled words in the whole rendition and he picked one of them to think of?

No. He doesn't work that obvious way. Look at both misspelled words. Don't they have something else in common?
BIFUCATE <-----> STURUCTURE.
What do U C?

That's mighty funny. Both misspelled words have the letters U and C right in the middle.

Okay. Now the letters that are responsible for the misspelling: the word BIF()UCATE is missing letter R, and the word ST(U)RUCTURE has additional letter U included. What did you say when he unexpectedly showed up?

I asked him... I said, "Who R U?"
That can be hardly a coincidence, right?

No. I bet my sandwich that he was looking at this particular rendition of the evolutionary scale when he conceived the secret word puzzle. Tell me, how much ignorance would it take not to regard those big coincidence letters U, C, R, U as parts of the whole word he was thinking of?

A lot.

I believe that some choice-narrowing adjustment needs to be made. According to the set theory, {U C R U} = {U C R}, because identical items are not welcome in the set membership. If my intuition doesn't fail me, the word he was thinking of contains a sequence of letters made of U, C and R in any order.

Okay. So I make a list of all words that apply to your hypothesis.

NO!

Why not?

Because you need to have a criterion of choice ready before you commit yourself to the making of such a list. Otherwise you infect the problem with an avalanche of reductionism the way the famous mathematician David Hilbert did. Besides, he doesn't work that way.

So how does he work?

I think he used an association that is visible in the drawing to come up with the word he asked you about. Look about 7 o'clock from the misspelled word STURUCTURE. See the arrows there that form a cross?

Aha! I think we got that word: CHURCH. Just don't tell me that he doesn't work that way - that a church isn't a structure with a cross on top of it.

Something bothers me. The word STURUCTURE is misspelled - it contains additional letter that doesn't belong there - and the word is the whole made of parts BIFUCATE - RETICULATE - POTENTIALLY IMMORTAL. But the error in BIFUCATE is the opposite to the mistake in sturucture; that means, bifucate is missing a letter.

True. But what does it mean? Like that the devil is in the details?

It very likely means that the error in the word structure symbolizes an error in the three evolutionary segments. In other words, the sequence of the three terms is wrong.

That's nonsense! The evolution is a pretty tight scientific theory. Just read again what's written in the web page that features the rendition of the evolutionary scale: The Scope of Evolution within the Structure of Science.

Just free your mind of your simian inheritance and look at the correct order: BIFUCATE - POTENTIALLY IMMORTAL - RETICULATE.
The term Potentially Immortal must be in the middle. That's due to

crucifixiontransgressors0.jpg


and the word that contains the sequence made of the letters U, C and R in any order is CRUCIFIXION. Go and tell him that you got that word he was thinking of. Btw, did he mention what would happen if you miss?

No.

So? You got nothing to lose. Go.

------

Heavenly Father?

Yeeeees?

I came to see you... I got that word you asked me about.

Oh. Well, have you chosen wisely?

I was choosing as wisely as I could.

That's good. You know that if you miss, the Gates of Hell will close behind your no good soul.

Huh????!!!!!

So what is the word I was thinking of? Come on, lemme hear it.

The...the...the... word is CRUCIFIXION.

Sorry, that's not the word I was thinking of.

No??????

No. The word I was thinking of was TWENTY-ONE.
 
The one that uses "The difference in the font pre-selects the words Ethics, Logic and Technology" is still packed in the verbal_symbolic-only box.
 
Little 10 Toes said:
1 + 1 = 2. What impact have I made? Where is my responsibility?
Click to expand...
In clock arithmetic base 2, 1 + 1 = 0

Your mind chooses the needed framework in order to derived to a given result.

It is possible exactly because your mind is rooted at the fabric of the universe in terms of evolutionary scale
 
As can be seen in
ScopeOfEvolutioninScience.gif

this organization still uses only polychotomy among scientific branches.

The cause of polychotomy is thing (known also as Unity), as follows:

6840987626_c9c426828a_z.jpg


NOthing is weaker than any tool that is used to measure it.

YESthing is stronger than any tool that is used to measure it.

Unity (thing) is the source of NO,SOME,EVERY,YES ploychotomy.
 
Last edited:
zooterkin said:
What remote connection does that have to OM?
Click to expand...
Brain connections.

OM and these maps are expressions of whole\parts (internal and external) brain connections, that are derived from brain's evolutionary scale.

Ethics, Logic and Technology are unified into a one organic structure in terms of brain's evolutionary scale, and OM is a free-entropic model that tries to define the scientific framework of such unification, such that its definitions express a reasoning that is derived from at least verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial brain skills.

The current state of the mathematical science is a reflection of minds that are not tolerant to evolutionary changes, exactly because the foundations of this science are based almost on verbal_symbolic brain skills, which is defiantly a partial skill.

Once again, the argument that definitions are invariant is an anti-evolutionist entropic argument, and therefore it goes against the chance of the survival of creatures like us, in the vary near future.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Brain connections.

OM and these maps are expressions of whole\parts (internal and external) brain connections, that are derived from brain's evolutionary scale.

Ethics, Logic and Technology are unified into a one organic structure in terms of brain's evolutionary scale, and OM is a free-entropic model that tries to define the scientific framework of such unification, such that its definitions express a reasoning that is derived from at least verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial brain skills.

The current state of the mathematical science is a reflection of minds that are not tolerant to evolutionary changes, exactly because the foundations of this science are based almost on verbal_symbolic brain skills, which is defiantly a partial skill.

Once again, the argument that definitions are invariant is an anti-evolutionist entropic argument, and therefore it goes against the chance of the survival of creatures like us, in the vary near future.
Click to expand...

Are you trying to suggest that OM is a scientific paradigm?

What can you do with it?
 
zooterkin said:
Are you trying to suggest that OM is a scientific paradigm?

What can you do with it?
Click to expand...
To establish the foundations of The Science Of Awareness as an entropic-free framework in terms of evolutionary scale, which naturally supports the survival and development of complex creatures like us.

The current paradigm of the main stream of the mathematical science does not fit to establish such a goal, because according to it creatures like us have no impact on its results.

And please do not forget to turn the lights on in your brain before you deal with http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8600097&postcount=1935.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
To establish the foundations of The Science Of Awareness as an entropic-free framework in terms of evolutionary scale, which naturally supports the survival and development of complex creatures like us.

The current paradigm of the main stream of the mathematical science does not fit to establish such a goal, because according to it creatures like us have no impact on its results.

And please do not forget to turn the lights on in your brain before you deal with http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8600097&postcount=1935.
Click to expand...


I see the complex of gibberish, comprehension errors, and willful untruths continue. Nothing new here; just Doron being Doron.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
To establish the foundations of The Science Of Awareness as an entropic-free framework in terms of evolutionary scale, which naturally supports the survival and development of complex creatures like us.
Click to expand...
In other words, some Ministry of Supreme_Reason is forming. At last we find out what will hatch out of the alien egg.

eggs.png
 
In other words, an external tool like some world government is nothing but a result (a reflection) of the awareness the voters.
 
I feel the gentleness of Unity among the verses (can be notated as u n i v e r s e), which enables to refine the development of self aware complexity as one organic phenomenon that enables to flourish in terms of non-entropic realm.

The cause of polychotomy is thing (known also as Unity), as follows:

[qimg]http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7043/6840987626_c9c426828a_z.jpg[/qimg]

NOthing is weaker than any tool that is used to measure it.

YESthing is stronger than any tool that is used to measure it.

Unity (thing) is the source among NO,SOME,EVERY,YES ploychotomy (ploychotomy is naturally open since it is the non-entropic expression of Unity).

Some updates of my previous post:

A tool like some world government is nothing but a result (a reflection) of the awareness of the voters, so if each voter actually has Unity awareness, it is reflected by a given world government and be used for further development of each voter, and vice versa, like any naturally-open realm.

As long as Unity awareness is not the daily natural state of mind, a naturally-open realm is not an actual daily experience.

It has to be stressed that in terms of Unity awareness complex creatures are challenged by each other without derived into entropic realm.

A given mind that teaches that a given higher space are defined in terms of collections of lower spaces, is responsible for the creation of entropic realm, which actually blocks further developments of complex creatures like us.

This kind of block is unfortunately expressed as self-made destruction of complex phenomena.

Organic Mathematics (http://67.228.115.45/showpost.php?p=8603952&postcount=1941) is an attempt to establish the foundations of The Science Of Awareness as an entropic-free framework in terms of evolutionary scale, which naturally supports the survival and development of complex creatures like us.

The current paradigm of the main stream of the mathematical science does not fit to establish such a goal, because according to it creatures like us have no impact on its results.
 
Last edited:
How do you feel about the u n i v e r s e?

The same way the universe feels about me.

No, the question was, "How do you feel about the u n i v e r s e?"

Oh. Well, I feel that the u n i v e r s e keeps on expanding, if my verbal_symbolic brain skills work the way they supposed to. But the expansion is somewhat slowed down by the gravitational forces that the galaxies u, n, i, v, ... exert upon each other. The gravity is like an invisible stretched rubber band that ties the galaxies together. And so the verbal_symbolic rendition should reflect upon it.

How?

doronshadmi said:
u n i v e r s e
Click to expand...

Aha. That's mighty omniscient verbal_symbolic brain skills adjustment, Your Most Divine Wisdom.
 
Uinverse is simply the unity among verses, such that they can be developed into a self aware realm that naturally avoids contradictions among its verses.

In my opinion, currently observed living creatures are the first evolutionary steps that actually express self aware realms that are tuned to avoid contradictions among verses through simultaneous several complexity's degrees.

At the macro level, it is expressed as a synchronization among organs.

This synchronization can't be possible if it is not expressed also among the sub-levels of any given organ, so the overall principle can't be but whole\parts relations, where the whole is simply the indivisibility that naturally enables the coordination among the divisible parts.

If we wish to establish the foundations of entropic-free realm, we have to very carefully consider whole\parts relations, such that the whole is the coordinator among parts exactly because it naturally stays indivisible among their natural abilities to be divided.

A point is an indivisible singleton that can't be used as a coordinator among more than a single point, so this is the weakest level of coordination, where complexity can't be expressed.

A line is an indivisible singleton that can be used as a coordinator among more than a single point, so this is not the weakest level of coordination, and this indivisibility is stronger than any amount of coordinated points, which actually enables the observed complexity in our realm.

A coordinator of a complex phenomenon is stronger than the sum of the coordinated parts, exactly because no amount of the coordinated parts is the level of the indivisible coordinator.

Each one of us is the result of whole\parts relations, where this result can be developed beyond each one of us, such that it enables us to actually express entropic-free and contraindications'-free realm upon infinitely many levels of whole\parts relations' principle (which is not restricted only to line\point relations).

We do not need any belief in some God or any other supernatural principle.

All we need is to learn how whole\parts relations are developed into entropic-free and contraindications'-free realm upon infinitely many levels, and the actual results of this learning can be the best gifts for ourselves and for the next generations.

Ethics in terms of evolutionary scale is an inseparable aspect of such scientific framework, which can be called The Science Of Awareness or any other agreed name.

Organic Mathematics (http://67.228.115.45/showpost.php?p=8603952&postcount=1941) is simply the mathematical aspect of such science, and currently it is in its very preliminary level.
 
Last edited:
epix said:
How do you feel about the life in the universe?

It's very diverse.
Click to expand...
If I'm not mistaken, a great spiritual tragedy is about to suffocate the mind of billions for whom God has always reigned as the Hope Supreme. Now the hard evidence is forming just before my eyes that the intuitive reasoning of atheism is the most powerful analytic tool ever assembled by human mind. I just can't believe what I see: "diverse." But hope is a tenacious resistor of unwished, and so I must ask you, my friend: Go and make sure that my eyes really see what was painted in such dark colors...


Heavenly Father, can you do me a favor?

Of course. That's the purpose of my infinite life.

Can you highlight some letters in the word "diversity"?

I surely can. Here... diversity.

:rolleyes:

Is there anything wrong?

The sight of your highlighted I's filled my heart with pain and sorrow.

But I don't use make up not to obscure the expression of omniscience that my countenance emits to the world!

I mean... Why did you highlight those two letters in the word?

That's because they are special; they are the only identical letters in the word. And as you know the relation between ordinary/special is a commanding criterion of choice.

But Heavenly Father, how can you highlight identical letters in the word diversity????????

Oops.

Yeah, "oops." Do you realize what consequence your unwise choice could carry?

:confused:

It means that you are not real - you don't exist.

Why?

Because it's very unlikely that anyone in the universe would make such a dumb choice. It's like highlighting S in the word STRAIGHT.

But I do exist. I do, I do, I do!!!!!!!!!

That's because there exists someone else within the bounds of this universe who can manage to make dumber choices than you do. It follows that your existence depends on his existence.

We must feed him well.

Yes.

But whom?

He is someone who...

doronshadmi said:
...can't use its eyes.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
OK, let's continue.

The simple notion that a given (mathematical or physical) space is not a collection of lower spaces, "opens the door" for the entoric-free realm.

Such realm has infinitely many levels that are based on whole\parts relations, such that no amount of given parts is the whole, where the whole is the coordinator among any amount of coordinated parts.

By following this notion we get an organic realm that naturally has contradictions'-free relations among its organs.

Currently the observed realm does not clearly express its organic potential contradictions'-free relations among its parts, but the phenomena of life and the evolutionary development of self-aware complex creatures can accelerate this expression in geometric series rate, where Organic Mathematics is some preliminary effort in this direction.
 
doronshadmi said:
The simple notion that a given (mathematical or physical) space is not a collection of lower spaces, "opens the door" for the entoric-free realm.
Click to expand...
This devastating inability to properly categorize is not an isolated undesirable feature of human mind. It manifests itself in everyday life and can make it miserable. Fortunately, through the appeal to authority, which cannot easily achieve its status being afflicted by this mental shortcoming, we know, for example, that Euclidian geometry isn't wrong when confronted by Reimannian geometry, because the former doesn't venture beyond its well-defined realm.

The paradox is the size of Mt. Everest: Doron bemoans reductionism, but he is its proponent #1 promising to "fix" the archetype idea that a line segment is a collection of points. Since he can't properly imagine and visualize the concept of infinity, he is left with a conclusion that there is always space between point zero and other diverging point and therefore a line segment isn't a collection of points. He is apparently totally oblivious to the fate of some concepts that Cantor has come up with.
 
Verbal_symbolic-only skillers (like Cantor, for example) can't properly imagine and visualize the concept of infinity, exactly because such skillers do not have any imagination.

For example they can't grasp that the continuum (as minimally expressed by a given 1-dimensional space) is not a collection of 0-dimensional spaces.

One of the results of this inability is the impossibility of such skillers to distinguish between the wholeness of, for example, 1-dimensional space w.r.t any amount of infinitely many given 0-dimesional spaces along it that can't completely cover it.

Because of this inability illogical expressions like "a set is a member of itself" or "...10111..." = "...11011..." are used by traditional mathematicians, which are generally also reductionists (since they do not use also their visual_spatial brain skills, their "imagination" can't grasp the simultaneous relations among "...10111..." and "...11011..." under a common higher space, and as a result they are left with a single expression, which is exactly a reductionist's result).

Organic Mathematics' reasoning is at least verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial, and as a result it easily distinguishes between the whole in terms of higher (abstract or physical) space, and any amount of (abstract or physical) lower spaces w.r.t it.

There is no chance that traditional mathematicians (or their flatterers) will grasp posts like http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8636880&postcount=1984 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8642361&postcount=1993, so if one wishes to deal with Organic Mathematics he\she must stop to reduce it into Traditional Mathematics (where Cantor is one the establishes of it for the past 150 years).

This devastating inability to wrongly categorize the whole in terms of parts is an undesirable feature of verbal_symbolic-only skillers, and Organic Mathematics is one of the first preliminary attempts to be developed beyond this undesirable entropic dead end.
 
Last edited:
Little 10 Toes said:
Ok, here's what's wrong. You have not shown what impact. You have not shown any responsibility.

1 + 1 = 2. What impact have I made? Where is my responsibility?

2 + 2 = 5. What impact have I made? Where is my responsibility?

And don't use your made-up words or terms please.
Click to expand...

You know doronshadmi, if you can't answer my question, you can just say so.
 
doronshadmi said:
Verbal_symbolic-only skillers (like Cantor, for example) can't properly imagine and visualize the concept of infinity, exactly because such skillers do not have any imagination.
Click to expand...
Your claim is a complete damnation of reason, because, unlike in the case of your effort, Cantor's insight into infinity got the best analytic minds of his time going.
For example they can't grasp that the continuum (as minimally expressed by a given 1-dimensional space) is not a collection of 0-dimensional spaces.

One of the results of this inability is the impossibility of such skillers to distinguish between the wholeness of, for example, 1-dimensional space w.r.t any amount of infinitely many given 0-dimesional spaces along it that can't completely cover it.
Click to expand...
You are mixing apples with oranges. There is no real point between 0 and 1 that doesn't exist, but for some, it takes infinite amount of time to define them.

Euclidian definition of the line obviously doesn't include certain considerations borrowed from the set theory. Everyone is aware of it except you.

Line: A line is a collection of points that extend forever.
http://www.basic-mathematics.com/basic-geometry.html

You've been trying to fix a problem that obviously doesn't exist.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom