Deeper than primes - Continuation

Status
Not open for further replies.
If Doron won't oblige (he is anglerfishing) maybe we can do some speculation ourselves on Doronetics.

I will start.

First, what do Doron's statements tell us.

As I read his texts, he tells us that there exists a Doron - function that allows us to conclude things like |N|>|N|.

So, if I am able to draw a conclusion like that, what can I do with that bit of information?

Well, that's where I am stumped... I can find absolutely no purpose in being able to conclude that.

Now, maybe the Doron - function that enables us to draw this conclusion is something worthwhile...

That function can return 'No output' or a mapping of sorts...

But that sounds like a bog-standard consistent hash function to me...

Basically, even if we were to accept all of the logic as coherent, complete and correct, I, for the life of me, can't see anything that would make the effort worth it.

Any suggestions?
 
EDIT:

Anyway let's go forward as follows, for example:

Code: 
1_2_3_4_5_...
↕ ↓ ↕ ↓ ↕
1___2___3_...

is equivalent to

Code: 
{...4,2,1,3,5,...}
    ↓ ↓ ↕ ↕ ↕
       {1,2,3,...}

where actual infinity is the non-locality of the non-composed _____ or the outer "{" and "}", with respect to the collection (which is no more than potential infinity) of local objects (where in this case the local objects are (without loss of generality) the all natural numbers).
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
EDIT:

Anyway let's go forward as follows, for example:


1_2_3_4_5_...
? ? ? ? ?
1___2___3_...


is equivalent to


{...4,2,1,3,5,...}
? ? ? ? ?
{1,2,3,...}


where actual infinity is the non-locality of the non-composed _____ or the outer "{" and "}", with respect to the collection (which is no more than potential infinity) of local objects (where in this case the local objects are (without loss of generality) the all natural numbers).
Click to expand...

Ok, so, what can I conclude from these observations?
 
doronshadmi said:
Please read, for example, http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9578867&postcount=2721
Click to expand...

Incorrect answer Doron, because:

doronshadmi said:
According to your verbal_symbolic-only reasoning, this is indeed the best you can get about my work, nothing.

Once again, it is indeed quite pathetic for a grown-up not to be aware of the importance of non-entropic conditions for his own development.

------------------------------------
<snip?

By using verbal-symbolic AND visual-spatial reasoning, one easily understands that the demonstrated relations among . and ____ are (without a loss of generality) extendible to any lower and higher dimensional spaces (where the term dimensional space is not restricted only to Geometry or Metric-space).

Persons like laca or jsfisher simply can't get it exactly because they are using verbal-symbolic only reasoning.

As a result the best they can get is technological achievements, where Ethics (in terms of evolutionary scale) has nothing to do with them.

On the contrary, by the relations among non-locality and locality (by using verbal-symbolic AND visual-spatial reasoning) one enables to cooperate Ethics (in terms of evolutionary scale), Logic (which is at least verbal-symbolic AND visual-spatial) and technology into one framework that has the tools to deal with non-entropic conditions. These conditions are essential for further development of self-aware complex creatures like us (for example, by using verbal-symbolic AND visual-spatial reasoning, no collection of lower dimensional spaces at a given higher dimensional space, has the power of continuum of the higher dimensional space. As e result there is always a domain of the higher dimensional space that is not covered by elements of lower dimensional spaces upon infinitely many scale levels, and we get a naturally open (non-entropic) framework for further development of complex creatures like us).

It is typical to verbal-symbolic only thinkers to speak about the useful achievements of their reasoning (walking on the moon etc.) by completely ignoring the devastating "achievements" (mass-destruction weapon etc.) of this reasoning (where Ethics (in terms of evolutionary scale)) is not an essential factor of it).
<snip>
Click to expand...

Tells us only why we can conclude different things with your observations, but never which things we might conclude or what revelations it will bring.

So, is there any conclusion to your observations? The above answer is not much better than Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's default answer: "It is a law of Nature, hmmmmmm."

To which I used to reply "Yes, I will accept that, but *what* is?" and then the audience was over, for some reason.

So, *what* do your observations enable us to see what we would not as traditional verbalists.

And to use your words: please describe in detail what conclusions these observations and deductions lead to.
 
jsfisher said:
Same as always, that doronetics is convoluted, inconsistent, and thoroughly useless. That has been the one constant throughout Doron's treatises.
Click to expand...
What is written in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9578867&postcount=2721 is straightforward if verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills are used.

Any attempt to understand http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9578867&postcount=2721 only in terms of verbal_symbolic skills or only in terms of visual_spatial skills, leads to conclusions like " ... is convoluted, inconsistent, and thoroughly useless".
 
realpaladin said:
Incorrect answer Doron, because:



Tells us only why we can conclude different things with your observations, but never which things we might conclude or what revelations it will bring.

So, is there any conclusion to your observations? The above answer is not much better than Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's default answer: "It is a law of Nature, hmmmmmm."

To which I used to reply "Yes, I will accept that, but *what* is?" and then the audience was over, for some reason.

So, *what* do your observations enable us to see what we would not as traditional verbalists.

And to use your words: please describe in detail what conclusions these observations and deductions lead to.
Click to expand...

Why you used "<snip>" in your reply?

EDIT:

Also please explain in details why what is written in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9578867&postcount=2721 (without using any <snip>, and also by not ignoring the link that is fond there) is equivalent to Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's default answer: "It is a law of Nature, hmmmmmm."?
 
Last edited:
realpaladin said:
So, *what* do your observations enable us to see what we would not as traditional verbalists.
Click to expand...
How exactly "traditional verbalists" enable to understand things (or observations, as you put it) that are based on verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills?
 
doronshadmi said:
Why you used "<snip>" in your reply?

EDIT:

Also please explain in details why what is written in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9578867&postcount=2721 (without using any <snip>, and also by not ignoring the link that is fond there) is equivalent to Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's default answer: "It is a law of Nature, hmmmmmm."?
Click to expand...

That is easy; if the text, nor the text in the link can convey information it is quite useless to anyone but the originator.

The default answer was just as meaningless because there was no way to clarify the need for further information after such a thing was said.
 
doronshadmi said:
How exactly "traditional verbalists" enable to understand things (or observations, as you put it) that are based on verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills?
Click to expand...

They can not; they have to agree upon concepts which start from atomics to which they all can agree and then build upon those with further concepts to which meanings they agree.

If in the discourse of a concept there is but the slightest disagreement, then the concept is useless for the purpose of conveying information.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Please look at http://scireprints.lu.lv/241/1/Umes.pdf
Click to expand...

I can't; it is behind a password.

Actually a quite fitting metaphor on how you are communicating; assuming things and then shouting 'ahaaaaah' if the other side does not even know it is missing some information.

If you want your insights not to die with you then you may want to work a bit more on your communication skills; as it is, it does not matter whether you are wrong or right; it will all be gone the day you stop posting to the Internet.
 
doronshadmi said:
...straightforward if verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills are used....
Click to expand...

The imaginary superior sensory and reasoning skills you claim to have might make for a pleasant LSD excursion, but reality does not yield. Doronetics remains convoluted, contradictory, and utterly useless.

It is a good thing Mathematics hasn't those failings.
 
jsfisher said:
The imaginary superior sensory and reasoning skills you claim to have might make for a pleasant LSD excursion, but reality does not yield. Doronetics remains convoluted, contradictory, and utterly useless.

It is a good thing Mathematics hasn't those failings.
Click to expand...

The following stuff:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9768949&postcount=3234

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9769148&postcount=3238

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9770951&postcount=3245

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9578867&postcount=2721

http://www.filesnack.com/files/c7k54nmh

is developed beyond accepted mathematics.
 
realpaladin said:
Why don't you try to communicate?
Click to expand...
Communication is done by reply in details to a given material.

I do not see any attempt from your side to really communicate, so for the last time please reply in details to what is written in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9578867&postcount=2721.

If you do not do that, it will be clear to me that you do not wish to communicate about my suggested novel and detailed material (as found also in http://www.filesnack.com/files/c7k54nmh).
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Communication is done by reply in details to a given material.

I do not see any attempt from your side to really communicate, so for the last time please reply in details to what is written in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9578867&postcount=2721.

If you do not do that, it will be clear to me that you do not wish to communicate about my suggested novel and detailed material (as found also in http://www.filesnack.com/files/c7k54nmh).
Click to expand...

No Doron, you are trying to dominate, not communicate.

Communication is the transference of concepts within established knowledge domains.

We need to establish these knowledge domains because truth is only locally consistent but can be globally inconsistent.

An example : if you stamp your foot on the ground the earth is pretty solid. But to a neutrino, all matter is 99 percent empty space.

Another example : to us mortals, the sun is shining every day of our lives, but on a cosmic scale, long after we have decayed and all of our molecules have been redistributed to thousands of people living after us, the sun only flares and the universe will end in heat death.

So we first need to establish which knowledge domain we are trying to communicate in.
 
realpaladin said:
Communication is the transference of concepts within established knowledge domains.
Click to expand...
Such restriction unable to develop communication beyond the already-established knowledge domains.

realpaladin said:
doronshadmi said:
Please look at http://scireprints.lu.lv/241/1/Umes.pdf
Click to expand...
I can't; it is behind a password.
Click to expand...
EDIT:

So register to this site (it is for free) if you really wish to discuss in details about Umes.pdf content.

This is what a given parson does if he really wishes to communicate also beyond the already-established knowledge domains.

If it is still unavailable then please send me your email by private message, and I will send it to you.

Do you really wish to communicate also beyond the already-established knowledge domains?
 
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
That may not be the preposition the rest of us would have chosen.
Click to expand...

It is indeed the not the preposition of persons that for them "Communication is the transference of concepts within [already] established knowledge domains."
 
Last edited:
realpaladin said:
So we first need to establish which knowledge domain we are trying to communicate in.
Click to expand...
EDIT:

In Umes.pdf I am talking about Ethics in terms of evolutionary scale, which is not necessarily restricted to any particular civilization, culture, religion, political or economical systems (it can be described as the communication among the non-local and local principles of Ethics).

Furthermore, the non-local principles of Ethics and Logical reasoning are taken as cross-contexts principles, which enable the communication among Ethics and Logical reasoning, and this is exactly the goal (or, by using your term, "knowledge domain") of my work.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Such restriction unable to develop communication beyond the established knowledge domains.


EDIT:

So register to this site (it is for free) if you really wish to discuss in details about Umes.pdf content.

This is what a given parson does if he really wishes to communicate also beyond the established knowledge domains.

If it is still unavailable then please send me your email by private message, and I will send it to you.
Do you really wish to communicate also beyond the established knowledge domains?
Click to expand...

Ehm, according to: http://scireprints.lu.lv/view/creators/Shadmi=3ADoron=3A=3A.html that novel is nowhere to be seen...

The highlighted part is illustrative of what I am talking about; you are huffing and puffing and being an angry little man (I am getting an image of someone who likes to beat his spouse, but that is just an image I am getting from the dominant tone), but you do not check if what you try to get to the other side even works.

You do not come across as someone who even can communicate.

And why should I give you an email address? In the age of Skydrive, Google Drive, wetransfer.com etc. surely someone of your higher intelligence can find something to ward off the bitrot that slowly gnaws away at your writing?

Use www.wetransfer.com and post the link here, that way more people can see it.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
In Umes.pdf I am talking about Ethics in terms of evolutionary scale, which is not necessarily restricted to any particular civilization, culture, religion, political or economical systems (in can be described as the communication among the non-local and local principles of Ethics).
Click to expand...

That will provide hilarity; someone who has the empathy of a seacucumber talking about ethics....
 
doronshadmi said:
Furthermore, the non-local principles of Ethics and Logical reasoning are taken as cross-contexts principles, which enable the communication among Ethics and Logical reasoning, and this is exactly the goal (or, by using your term, "knowledge domain") of my work.
Click to expand...

Quoted so we all now see, in writing, and can refer back to it, what the goal of your work is.

Ladies and gentlemen; the goal of Doronetics is the enabling of communication among ethics and logical reasoning.
 
realpaladin said:
We need to establish these knowledge domains because truth is only locally consistent but can be globally inconsistent.
Click to expand...
Unless also non-locality is considered, and this is a main principle of my work, to communicate among locality and non-locality in terms of one comprehensive framework.
 
doronshadmi said:
Please try https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3hcPBRBCzClakdJZjNNOW5RSTQ/edit?usp=sharing

More stuff can be found in https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3hcPBRBCzClNXd2d0IxeDlXSTQ/edit?usp=sharing
Click to expand...

WTF??? Seriously Doron? Seriously?

That umes.pdf thing is not a start of a fracking novel! It is just a bloody rehash of what you have been posting all these years in this thread!

Now read well, little rainman, you claimed it would provide a context! That umes.pdf does no such thing!


Below is the intro of your text... point me out which items define the context. And I do mean *the context for your specific notions, not the 'why I am trying to do this'*.

In fact, show where this is even the beginning of trying to communicate!

I wish to share with you my view of the possible associations among Entropy, Brain

skills, Ethics (in terms of evolutionary scale) and mathematical reasoning.

In the interesting article Generalized Entropy from Mixing: Thermodynamics,

Mutual Information and Symmetry Breaking (

http://lanl.arxiv.org/pdf/0906.2458v1.pdf ) Dr. Fariel Shafee expends information

forms beyond their fixed states, in order to refine the research of symmetry and

symmetry braking.

Maybe her ideas can contribute for better understanding of Drake Equation, as seen,

for example, in the interesting work of Prof. Marcelo Gleiser DRAKE EQUATION

FOR THE MULTIVERSE: FROM THE STRING LANDSCAPE TO COMPLEX

LIFE ( http://arxiv.org/pdf/1002.1651.pdf ).

He also suggests that complex AND intelligent forms may be flourish if a given

realm is actually asymmetric ( http://www.dartmouth.edu/~mgleiser/ ).

In my opinion, symmetric and asymmetric conditions are complements of a one

unified realm, where complex AND intelligent forms are the flourishing linkage

among asymmetry and symmetry.

In the interesting book Cosmos & Culture: Cultural Evolution in a Cosmic Context

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4802.pdf we find the following paragraphs:

"But is that enough? Perhaps cultural evolution will, and should, lead us to a kind of

“post-intelligent,” “post-technological” universe—a universe that isn’t

predominantly ruled only by the forces of intelligence and technology, but also by

the forces of morality and creativity. Should it? Why not? We see evidence for the

forces of morality and creativity all around us." (Mark L. Lupisella, page 344)

"Lacking a theory of cultural evolution on Earth, we are unable to predict the cultural

evolution even of our own species in the near future." (Steven J. Dick, page 481).

According to this view, being complex AND intelligent form has a better chance to

flourish if Intelligence is not interpreted and manifested only in terms of Logical

reasoning.

It is well known that one of the most powerful tools that our civilization uses is The

Mathematical Science (which is currently known and used almost only in terms of

Logical reasoning).

1

One of the main reasons of the rapid acceleration of this science is the logical

reasoning's agreements that stand at its foundations, which are mostly based on

verbal_symbolic skills, where Ethical reasoning is not a significant factor of the

current main stream of the Mathematical Science.

In my opinion, rapid acceleration of Ethical reasoning into fragmented-only cultures,

religions, nations etc… + technology that is derived from partial brain skills (verbal-
symbolic-only skills, which are taken as context-dependent-only frameworks) is a

very explosive cocktail that may lead us to self-made destruction.

I think that one of the ways to reduce the chance of self-made destruction of complex

AND intelligent forms like us, is to define a cross-cultural (cross-contexts)

framework that may be used as a common base ground for both Ethical reasoning

AND Logical reasoning, where verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills are

complement aspects of it.

For the past 30 years I am trying to develop such a framework, and this goal is

definitely beyond the abilities of a single person.

Anyway, I wish to share with you some of my last results, which deal with possible

association among ethical and logical/technological skills.

As already mentioned above, the current agreement among the majority of

mathematicians about the nature of the mathematical science, is mostly based on

verbal_symbolic view of this science (visual_spatial skills are generally not involved

with valid mathematical results (they have to be translated into verbal_symbolic

skills, in order to be considered as valid mathematical results)).

As a result of this partial use of brain skills, any mathematical theory is (hopefully) a

consistent framework of unproved collection of decelerations (almost only

verbal_symbolic brain skills are used). The current attitude of verbal_symbolic-only

interpretation unfortunately provides only isolated (context-dependent-only)

frameworks, such that using the terms "mathematical branches" is misleading, if

there is no comprehensive framework of these context-dependent-only frameworks,

which actually demonstrates the linkage among them, such that they can really be

considered as "branches of a one tree" or as "organs of a one organism".

By the current paradigm, which is mostly derived from verbal_symbolic brain skills,

any given professional mathematician (or group of professional mathematicians) is

asked to invent\discover his\their context-dependent framework by avoiding any

changes of already agreed context-dependent frameworks.

In my opinion, Context-dependent-only approach actually disagrees with

evolutionary approach (which is not free of mutations of notions\notations) of the

mathematical science.

In my opinion, an evolutionary approach (which is not free of mutations of

2

notions\notations) of the mathematical science may be developed if brain skills are

actually associated with each other, during the mathematical work.

Here is a quote taken from Dr. Kajsa Bråting's interesting article Visualizations and

intuitive reasoning in mathematics (

http://www.math.umt.edu/tmme/vol9no1and2/1_TME_vol9nos1and2_pp1_18.pdf ),

where she writes (page 16):

"With experience we can learn to interpret the visualization in different

ways, depending on what is asked for. The more familiar we become with

mathematics the more we may be able to “read into” the visualization."

I think that this statement is significant also for verbal_symbolic interpretations, and

in this case one may be able to interpret things beyond AND according to what is

asked for (global AND local views may complement each other into a one

comprehensive framework).

I wish to share with you some notions about, for example, objects like sets and

members of sets, which are derived from visual_spatial interpretation of symbols.

By not being restricted only to Geometry, Metric-space etc., visual_spatial skills

enable to interpret that the outer "{" and "}" symbols of a given set are not taken in

terms of members' membership (in terms of "belong to" , "does not belong to" or

partial belonging as done by Fuzzy logic).

This post has 4 parts, but first let us use visual_spatial skills in order to minimally

express the fundamental notion of Ploychotomy, which is the dichotomy of NOthing

and YESthing, as follows:
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
...and we continue from there to develop the communication between us...
Click to expand...

And so, Doron, you now flutter off to yet another topic.

But, before you go.... What about doron-cardinality? Of what value is it? Its development in this very thread helped underscore the difficulty you have in organizing your thoughts into any sort of cohesive expression, and that is certainly yet more evidence of your very poor communication skills your protests to the contrary notwithstanding, but what really was the point?

Cardinality in Mathematics works fine and provides consistent results. Doronetics steals the term, but then undermines it with an abortion of normal meaning to arrive at a convoluted definition with contradictory results.

What was the point you were trying to make? You seemed quite pleased that Doronetics was failing to deal with infinities in a consistent manner. Was that what you wanted to accomplish?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom